Sol_140A1622R0021_Amd_0003.pdf

(x)

140A1622R0021 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

A16

Reston VA 20191 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive Contracting Office

DOI, BIA CENTRAL

A16

Reston VA 20191 Contracting Office 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive

BIA CENTRAL 00016

06/14/20220003

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

06/14/2022

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to the timely questions received in response to the subject solicitation.

Period of Performance: 09/01/2022 to 08/31/2027

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Jessica Kidd

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

No. Question Answer Page Limits

1 Is there a page limit requirement? Refer to paragraph L.6. in the solicitation for page limits.

L.6.1 indicates, “…cover letters, table of contents pages…will be counted in the page calculation”.

Since the page limitations summarized in paragraph L.6 are specified at the Factor 1 and Factor 2 level and the cover letter/table of contents would be provided outside of the evaluated factor sections, it would stand to reason that those pages would not be included in the page limitation per factor. Please clarify that the cover letter, table of contents, title page, etc. are not included in the page limitations (e.g., 10-page limit for Factor 1 or Factor 2).

The Table of Contents will not count against the page limit for Factor 1 or Factor 2. The Table of Contents should be limited to a maximum of two pages and should contain no unique information that is not addressed elsewhere in the solicitation.

In other words, the Table of Contents should be viewed as an organizational tool and no additional content should be included for evaluation. The Table of Contents should be excluded from numbered pagination within the document (i.e. do not put a page number on these pages).

3 Can the Table of Contents be eliminated from the page limit count? Please see the response to Question 2.

L.5.7 states ” A Table of Contents should be included.” L.6.1 states “All pages with written content, including cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, and appendices will be counted in the page calculation. Pages that exceed the page limitations will be removed, not read, and not evaluated.”

Our Question is: Will the government consider excluding Cover letter and Table of Contents pages as part of the page count, as it will reduce the number of pages for our “Technical Approach and Experience” and “Past Performance” down to 18 instead of the full 20-page limit.

Please see the response to Question 2 for information about the Table of Contents page count. Please note that additional written content such as a cover letter is not required, but if additional content is submitted it will count against the Factor 1 page count. The Government prefers that Offerors use their page count for the content requested in the solicitation rather than cover letters or other written content.

L.6.1., RFP page 76: Would the government please confirm that a title page is outside of the page limits?

Title pages with no unique written content for evaluation, included solely for purposes of organization, labeling, or disclaimer will not count against the page limit. Such pages should be excluded from numbered pagination within the document (i.e. do not put a page number on them).

Please allow Contractors to include a Cover Page that will not be counted in the page limit. Besides company name, address, point of contact, Volume name and number, etc., a Disclaimer notice is needed to be placed on the front cover to denote proprietary information regulations.

Please see the answer to question 5. The content described in this question may be included on a cover page/title page and will not count against the page limits.

L.6 Page Limits - The table states that Factor 1 Technical Approach and Experience is limited to 10 pages. Due to the amount of information and number of projects requested for this Factor, can the section be increased to 15 pages?

The page count will remain 10 pages for Factor 1.

The page limit is intended to give Offerors an idea of the level of detail the Government desires.

10 pages is not enough to address all information requested in Factor 1: Technical Approach.

Specifically, as five (5) pages will be used for Project Experience, that essentially leaves Contractors five (5) pages for the Technical Approach. Please increase the page limit for Factor 1: Technical Approach (all parts) to 20 pages.

See the response to Question 7.

L.6.2 states that “Page limits will not apply to Past Performance Questionnaires submitted for Factor 2.” Does the page limit exclusion apply to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation as well?

Correct, page limits will also not apply to CPARS evaluations submitted for Factor 2. Please note that CPARS evaluations do not need to be submitted with proposals, just information that allows the Government to retrieve CPARS from the system. It is acceptable for Offeror's to include them however, and if they are included they will not be included in the page count.

In reference to Solicitation No. 140A1622R0021, we have a question regarding Section L.6. It states that the Past Performance/Factor 2 of Volume 1 has a page limit of 10 pages, but in L.6.2, it states that page limits do not apply to the Past Performance Questionnaires. We just want to verify which section to base our response off.

Factor 2 does have a page limit, but past performance questionnaires and CPARS evaluations are not included in the page limit.

The page limit is for any other content submitted for Factor 2 that is not a past performance questionnaire or CPARS evaluation.

Factor 2 Past Performance – most CPARS evaluations are 3 pages long. If an Offeror is submitting a CPARS for 5 projects, this will exceed the 10-page limitation currently set. Will BIA consider either increasing the 10-page limit for Factor 2, or excluding CPARS from Page Count?

Please see the response to Question 10.

12 Is the SF 1442 included in the Technical page count as well?

The SF1442 is part of Factor 5 "Price", which is Volume III that has no page limit (refer to solicitation paragraph L.6). This volume is not due as part of the Phase 1 submission. In other words, no SF1442 is required at this time.

13 It appears the Reps and Certs are not counted in the page count. Is that correct?

The Reps and Certs are part of Factor 5 "Price", which is Volume III that has no page limit (refer to solicitation paragraph L.6). This volume is not due as part of the Phase 1 submission. In other words, no Reps and Certs are required at this time.

Does BIA wish the Offeror to provide a completed SF 1442 and Section K Representations and Certifications with its Phase 1 proposal? If so, where should these items be placed within Volume I?

Please see the responses to Questions 12 and 13.

15 Is there a page limitation for each project No. There is a page limit for each factor and there is a limit to the number of projects that may be submitted.

L.6., RFP page 76: If all submitted projects have available CPARS, will the government allow us to use the remaining page limits for Factor 2 to further describe submitted projects?

The 10-page limit for Factor 2 does not apply to CPARS evaluations or past performance questionnaires. The Offeror may use the 10 page limit to submit additional information about projects. Please note this factor will be evaluated in accordance with M.3.2.

Formatting

17 L.7.1.1.1 Is there a font size requirement? Refer to paragraph L.5.5. in the solicitation for font size requirements.

L.5.5 states “A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape oriented.” If Factor 1 Relevant Experience is presented in a table format, is the Offeror allowed to utilize a reduced font size?

If the Offeror chooses to present the entirety of its Factor 1 submission as a table, then using a reduced font size of no less than 8-points is within the font size requirements in the solicitation.

However, it has the appearance of using a technicality to add more content than the Government has requested. The page count and font size limitations are intended to make proposals more readable, provide a fair and level playing field to all Offerors, and to give Offerors an idea of the level of detail the Government desires.

RFP, Page 76 of 93 states: The submission should be clearly indexed. Is a Cross Reference Index required for this proposal? If so, is it included in the page count?

No, a cross reference index is not required.

Can the Solicitation name be changed to:

Solicitation Number_Company Name_Volume I_Phase 1. The colon makes it impossible to save the file under that name.

Yes, that is acceptable.

Experience and Past Performance

21 Would the BIA accept a previously received PPQ in lieu of CPARS or “fresh” PPQ? Yes, see solicitation paragraph L.7.2.1.4.

22 Does each company under the joint venture have to submit a minimum of 3 to 5 projects?

Each proposal is limited to a MAXIMUM of five projects. Please see L.7.1.3. This maximum applies to the entire proposal, not to each company.

OR, is the 3 to 5 projects a cumulative total of individual past performances of each company under the joint venture?

L.7.1.6 states that projects must be completed within the last 10 years. May we submit projects with a similar scope that are substantially complete (i.e. at least 50% complete)?

Please submit projects that are complete.

Would the government please confirm whether or not all submitted projects should be completed projects? If this isn’t a requirement, what percentage of completion is acceptable for the submitted projects?

Please submit projects that are complete.

Clarification regarding the Past Experience criterion for 100% completion of projects within 10 years from the date of the solicitation. For designers, does “100% complete” apply to their completion of the Design portion of a project, or must the project be completely constructed, as well?

For designers, 100% complete may apply to 100% complete design, without completion of the construction project. However, projects where the construction portion is complete may offer the Government more information or confidence that the design led to a successful project, and therefore may lead to higher ratings.

Can an Offeror provide construction past performance and a teaming partner the design past performance? Will this satisfy the “wholistic” element mentioned in L.7.1.5.?

Please see M.3.1.1 for a description of how the Government will evaluate experience wholistically. The scenario described in this question is one way an Offeror might choose to demonstrate past performance.

L.7.1.2 Does it matter to the government how many projects from the Prime and how many projects from the DOR or Subcontractor we provide? We believe a minimum of 1 project from the Prime, DOR and Sub meets the requirement based on the RFP document but just want to be sure.

Refer to paragraph L.7.1.4. and L.7.1.5. for project submission requirements. The number of projects presented does matter, in the sense that more projects (up to the stated limit) may present additional information and may increase (or potentially decrease) the Government's confidence in successful contract performance, depending on the merits of the projects submitted.

What size project is considered relevant for project experience since we have such a variety of project sizes? Is there a minimum dollar amount to be considered relevant?

Paragraph M.3.2.3. states that, "Projects that are similar in scope, complexity, size, and cost or price to the projects anticipated under the C-MAC will be considered more relevant. The Government anticipates that orders under the C- MAC will typically range from $5M-$100M.

Many projects will be in the $5M-$30M range."

There is no minimum, but the Government will use project size as part of its relevancy determination, and projects under $5M may be considered less relevant.

29 What is the magnitude of the DOR project? Is there a minimum on the design fee?

Refer to paragraph L.7.1.4. and L.7.1.5. for project submission requirements. Paragraph M.3.2.3. states that, "Projects that are similar in scope, complexity, size, and cost or price to the projects anticipated under the C-MAC will be considered more relevant. The Government anticipates that orders under the C-MAC will typically range from $5M-$100M. Many projects will be in the $5M-$30M range." There is no minimum design fee, but the Government will use project size as part of its relevancy determination, and design of projects less than $5M may be considered less relevant.

30 Is there a special form to be used for past performance?

In reference to solicitation paragraph L.7.2.1, offerors should submit information that allows us to find and access the CPARS evaluation (L.7.2.1.1) within the CPARS system OR submit a past performance questionnaire (L.7.2.1.2) when there is no CPARS evaluation for projects listed in the Factor 1 proposal.

Does the government want the CPARS included in the proposal or just the contract information and the government will look up the CPARS?

CPARS evaluations do not need to be submitted with proposals, just information that allows the Government to retrieve CPARS evaluations from the system - see Section L.7.2.1.1 for the information needed. It is acceptable for Offerors to include them, however, and if CPARS evaluations are included they will not be included in the page count.

CPARs has DUNs Number instead of UEI number. Would you like us to write the UEI number next to the DUNs or leave as is?

Please submit the UEI number in your proposal as required by L.7.2.1.1. You do not need to submit the CPARS report, only the information in L.7.2.1.1. which will allow the Government to retrieve the CPARS from the system.

Would the government please elaborate if there is anything specific it wants to know about our approach to proposing on TOs?

Section M.3.1 describes how the Government will evaluate the technical approach. The Offeror should describe it's approach sufficiently that the Government can evaluate it in accordance with M.3.1.

It is mentioned that we can use parent and/or affiliated companies’ past performance. If most of your past performance was conducted under other Tribal companies, but since then all of the construction team members have been transitioned to a the new construction company for the Tribe, do we need a Teaming Agreement with the sister company even though all the construction employees have been moved?

The Government has not requested any teaming agreements with Phase 1 proposals. Section L.7.1.5 states "[T]he Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor or affiliate to demonstrate experience under this evaluation factor. To be considered relevant, projects submitted to demonstrate a subcontractor's or affiliate's experience must correlate to the work to be performed by the subcontractor or affiliate under the proposed C-MAC contract." The Offeror must decide how to present affiliate experience given the Government evaluation approach described in Section M.

L.7.1.1 states “Offerors are encouraged to structure their narrative to separately address projects at the following price ranges: $5-10M, $11-30M, $31M-60M, and $60M and over.”

Projects ranging $31M - $60M and over may be too large for some ISBEE firms to Prime as it may take a large amount of their bonding capacity and/or resources. Does BIA wish the Offeror to state that task orders of this size would not be bid?

The Offeror should include what its approach would be to task orders in each price range. If the Offeror's approach would be to not propose on task orders in a certain price range, it would be appropriate to state that.

Do you want separate narratives for price ranges:

$5-10M, $11-30M, $31M- 60M, and $60M and over.

The last sentence In paragraph L.7.1.1., states that "offerors are encouraged to structure their narrative to separately address projects…". You may structure your narrative in any way that meets this goal. For instance, you may provide entirely separate narratives or you may indicate the parts of your narrative that are universal and the parts that are specific to a specific price range.

L.7.1.1 – Does an Offeror need to have completed a past performance project in all the price ranges mentioned in L.7.1.1. to receive an “Outstanding” rating?

No. Proposals that demonstrate the ability to perform projects in all anticipated price ranges may be more highly rated, but past performance projects are not required for all price ranges. For example, the Government might reason that successful performance of an $80M project would translate to successful performance of a $21M- 60M project, although the reverse may not be true.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Besides the list of company information for each Federal Government contract included, OR PPQs (which don’t count in the page limit), what else is required for this section? Are Contractors permitted to include additional information such as certificates of acknowledgement, awards, etc.?

As the question states, the 10 page limit for Factor 2 does not apply to CPARS evaluations or past performance questionnaires. The Offeror may use the 10 page limit to submit additional information about projects. Please note this factor will be evaluated in accordance with M.3.2 so additional information should be relevant to the evaluation criteria.

Closing Date

39 What is the closing date of this RFP? The date on FBO does not match the date of the SF 1442.

Amendment 0001 initially addressed the system error that occurred when posting the solicitation and directed offerors to disregard pages 1-89 of the solicitation PDF (numbered 3-91 in the document). Since the system error could not be corrected, Amendment 0002 was issued with the correct solicitation attached, and the proposal due date/time matches from paragraph L.4.1. In the solicitation to the "Original Date Offers Due" under the "General Information" Section on www.sam.gov.

40 Would you consider an extension on the due date?

No. The Phase 1 proposal requirement is purposefully streamlined so that Offerors do not need to invest significant time into the proposals.

Bonding 41 Is a bid bond required in Phase 1? No.

42 Is a bonding letter required in Phase 1? No.

43 Please confirm what the minimum bonding limits we need to have for this RFP?

Bonding will not be evaluated during Phase 1 of the solicitation. A bid bond will be required during Phase 2 for the Seed Task Order.

Information will be provided about the Seed Task Order to offerors that move on to Phase 2.

Teaming

44 Can you have more than one teaming partner?

Yes, see solicitation paragraph L.7.1.5. Section L.8.2.3. is only relevant to Phase 2, but will give Offerors an idea of the Government's view of teaming for the Seed Task Order.

45 Can you have more than one DOR? Our modular designer is different from our other DB designer.

Yes. Please note that if an Offeror proposes more than 1 DOR, the commitment discussed in paragraph L.7.1.5 will apply to all DORs proposed. The requirement to submit at least one project for the DOR should be interpreted as "submit at least one project for each DOR" if the Offeror wants each DOR's experience to be considered for Factor 1.

46 Do Teaming Agreements need to be included? No teaming agreements are required with the Phase 1 proposal.

If the Offeror has a teaming agreement with a partner company, does the government want that teaming agreement included in the proposal?

Teaming agreements are not required to be submitted with Phase 1 proposals. The Offeror may choose to submit teaming agreements, but they will count against the Offeror's page limit.

Submission of teaming agreements may or may not increase the Government's confidence in the efficacy of the Offeror's proposed approach.

Should JV Agreements be provided for Joint Ventures during Phase One? If yes, please confirm that they will not be included in page limits.

JV Agreements are not required with the Phase 1 proposal. The Offeror may choose to submit JV agreements, but they will count against the Offeror's page limit. Submission of JV agreements may or may not increase the Government's confidence in the efficacy of the Offeror's proposed approach.

Off-Ramping

IAW Section H.2 Off-Ramping: Off Ramping can apply if the pool members proposed prices are greater than the mean average proposed price by more than 50% for three proposals in a row.

Question: Will feedback be available to understand where each member stands within the proposal process for each task order?

If we come in higher than average, we need to be aware and try to determine why so we can adjust accordingly. May require new subcontractors or manufacturers if current companies are unable to support our efforts to meet government pricing requirements.

Post-award debriefings will not disclose the number of proposals or the proposed amount submitted by all Offerors, but will include the awarded task order value (i.e. the amount proposed by the winning Offeror.) Debriefings may also include the mean average proposed price. It is the Government's intention to offeror the maximum feedback to Offerors in order to improve the quality of task order proposals.

Per H2 – Off Ramping – can you clarify if the is requirement is for contractor to bid 4 RFPs over the course of 5 years? Or is there a different time period that the contractor should bid those 4 in order to avoid being off-ramped?

The bulleted items on page 15 of the solicitation are example conditions that may lead to off-ramping. C-MAC holders must be competitive in the pool. The bulleted items are examples that may demonstrate a lack of competitiveness.

There is no specific requirement for the C-MAC holder to propose on a percentage of RFPs or over a certain period of time.

Other

In the draft it said 50%; however in the RFP pages it says the following

Please confirm the % of limitation on subs on this project.

(b) Required Percentages of work by the concern.

The contractor must comply with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting clause in allocating what percentage of work to subcontract. The contractor shall not subcontract work exceeding the subcontract limitations in FAR 52.219-14 to a concern other than a responsible Indian Economic Enterprise.

(c) Any work that an IEE subcontractor does not perform with its own employees shall be considered subcontracted work for the purpose of calculating percentages of subcontract work in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

The final solicitation is the only relevant solicitation to review. Please disregard the draft solicitation in its entirety. Refer to FAR 52.219- 14 as instructed by DIAR 1452.280-3 Indian Economic Enterprise Subcontracting limitations.

Please disregard the draft solicitation in it's entirety.

Under Page 6, Section C – Description/Specifications/Statement of Work, Subpart C.1:

“Work under this multiple award contract will encompass a wide range of design/build and design/bid/build projects….”

Q: Since the original C-MAC solicitation is primarily geared towards design/build projects, how will the design/bid/build delivery system be administered within this design/build team arrangement? Please define in general terms work scope under a design bid build for the IDIQ task orders.

The C-MAC is not primarily geared toward design/build projects. The scope encompasses many forms of construction and includes both design/build and design/bid/build delivery methods. The Government anticipates that many design/bid/build delivery method projects will be solicited under the C-MAC. The scope of these design/bid/build projects may include any of the types of work described in sections B and C of the solicitation and the SOW attached to it. If a project uses the design/bid/build delivery method, naturally there will be no need for design, and therefore if the C-MAC holder's team arrangement includes a separate DOR, this role may not be needed for that specific project. The C-MAC holder will be responsible for determining how to resource any specific project, regardless of delivery method.

Under Page 6, Section C – Description/Specifications/Statement of Work, Subpart C.1:

“Work may be located across the Continental United States and Indian Country”

Q: Is it a requirement for professional architects/engineers to be licensed in the State for which work may be performed based on Task Order awards?

Requirements for licensing will be addressed in the solicitation for each individual task order.

It appears pages numbered 3 – 91 of the solicitation file contain a draft RFP and the final RFP begins immediately after. Is there a reason this draft file was provided at the beginning of the solicitation document?

Please see Amendments 1 and 2. This was a system error that could not be corrected after solicitation release. The draft solicitation was a very early draft and should not be referenced in any way when preparing proposals.

It was stated in a previous industry day that there would be an ISBEE pool (target of 10) and an Unrestricted pool (target of 5) of contractors, however Section M.1.1 states the Government intends to award a target of 15 ISBEE firms.

Please confirm this solicitation is restricted solely to ISBEE firms.

This solicitation is restricted solely to ISBEE firms. The statement during the industry day was that the Government was considering two pools, but the Government ultimately choose to make this procurement a full ISBEE set-aside.

56 Are Alaskan Native Corporations eligible to submit under this solicitation?

Offerors must meet the definition of Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise as defined at DIAR

1480.201. This regulation addresses Alaskan

Native corporations.

SOW 1.5: Given remote locations of expected projects, please confirm emergency work requests within 4 hours.

This SOW is a general SOW. Each task order will include project specific SOWs. This standard may be relaxed for projects at remote sites if addressed in the project specific SOW.

SOW 1.15: Given remote locations of expected projects, confirm Contractor may dispose of debris at a landfill outside of applicable project State.

This SOW is a general SOW. Each task order will include project specific SOWs. This standard may be relaxed for projects at remote sites if addressed in the project specific SOW.

Can the BIA provide anticipated locations where the majority of work will be required under this contract?

Work will be performed in many and various locations. The scope of work includes the level of specificity currently available.