36C24425R0084 0002.pdf

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

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:

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

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 10

0002 per task order

00244

Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 4

00244

Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 4

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C24425R0084

X

X X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 10-30-2025 15:00 EDT

X 1

The purpose of this amendment to solicitation 36C24425R0084 for the Lebanon/Altoona MATOC is as follows:

1) Post responses to Requests for Information (RFI's)

2) Publish additional documentation as referenced in RFI responses

1 Question: Solicitation section 2.4 paragraph 13 "Section 4 - Exhibits", paragraph C, indicates to submit up to four (4) Exhibit A, part 1 forms. Solicitation section 4.2 paragraph 1 "Recency and Relevancy" indicates to submit three (3) construction projects submitted in accordance with Exhibit A. Please verify that three (3) projects should be submitted on Exhibit A, Part 1 forms for the VA to evaluate past performance.

Response: Three projects must be submitted we will accept up to four.

2 Question: Given the number of contractors at the site visit, would the VA consider allowing 20 contractors to be put on the contract? (this allows maximum best value to the taxpayer for the five years).

Response: Whereas there were a lot of contractors at the site visit, it has been our experience that many contractors either partner up or become subcontractors to primes who submit proposals. We set the number as “no more than ten” to allow for competition in a controlled situation. Having too many contractors may water down the pool and now allow all contractors involved to get enough work to sustain their existence on the

MATOC.

3 Question: Could the contactor waive the $5,000 min (this could be confirmed in negotiations and is allowed by the FAR), would this help the VA allow more contractors on the MATOC?

Response: Usually, we tend to avoid waiving this to ensure we meet the reasonableness test. If a contractor wanted to waive the minimum guarantee we would allow that negotiation to take place. I defer to the first answer pertaining to the number of contractors.

4 Question: We are typically seeing other VA MATOC’s reserving one or two spots for an 8a contractor and one or two spots for a HUBZone contractor, would the procurement team consider adding this same approach? (this allows best value to the taxpayer)

Response: This MATOC will be following FAR and VAAR guidelines for tiered evaluations. We are not authorized to “save spots” on the MATOC, but rather, we must go through the required process starting with SDVOSBs as the highest tier. 8a and HUBZone contractors are evaluated in the required tiers, but are reviewed after SDVOSBs and VOSBs, per the VAAR.

5 Question: There is no language about a chosen contractor being “off-ramped” if they do not bid on all the task orders. (This is typical language for most MATOC’s right now with the current administration) Would the VA consider adding this language? If the VA does consider this language, would the VA consider selecting additional contractors that will be “on-hold” and could be “on-ramped” if of the original selected contractors are not providing bids on task orders?

Response: SCR 6 PROPOSAL CONTENTS

6.1.The basis of award of each Task Order will be stated in the RFP. Depending upon the requirements of each Task Order, the Contractor will typically provide a price proposal in response to an RFP. Contractors shall respond within the number of calendar days stated in the RFP by submitting a proposal to the CO IAW requirements stated in the RFP. All contractors will respond to every RFP sent.

The goal of this MATOC is to provide a more efficient contracting path to obtain required contracting services at the Lebanon and Altoona VAMCs. This is a good way to promote competition among qualified contractors. It is the contractor’s responsibility to read the requirements and follow accordingly if awarded a MATOC. By signing the MATOC and receiving an award, your company is agreeing to the terms and conditions of the MATOC. One of these requirements is to submit a response to all requests for proposals issued. This prevents contractors from picking and choosing only desirable work and promotes continued competition throughout the process and life of the

MATOC.

If a contractor does not follow the requirements or wishes to be removed, we can process that request through a modification. This would also forfeit the contractor’s minimum guarantee. Having a contractor “on hold” would require that contractor to essentially forego other work in the hopes that it may become a part of the MATOC group.

6 Question: What is the weight evaluation percentage of the price? (20%, 30%, 40%)

Response: Price is always an evaluation factor, but it can be less important that other technical factor in some projects. The weight of the price will be clearly stated in best value solicitations in verbiage like “technical and past performance are more important than price” or “are significantly more important than price”. We do not give a percentage or weight to the evaluation of price. We do not assign percentage weight to it in the manner you’re asking. We evaluate price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

7 Question: What is the scoring rating that will be used for each technical section?

(example: 1 thru 5 with 5 being the best; neutral, confident, substantially confident; Or Pass/Fail)

Response: 11.5.1.1 Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Ability:

Evaluation Criteria The Narrative will be evaluated for completeness, thoroughness, and functionality. Pages beyond the limitation specified above will be deleted from the file and not be read or evaluated.

Requests for proposals will detail how offers will be rated. If the RFP states that the evaluation will be a best value tradeoff, then proposals will be evaluated with adjectival ratings. If the RFP states that the evaluation will be best value lowest price technically acceptable, then offers will either meet or not meet requirements, and the lowest price of the offers that meet the requirements will get the award. Other requests for proposals will be issued as low price with no other technical evaluation factors.

RATING EVALUATION

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

8 Question: What rating on the technical section would a contractor need to get to “NOT” be considered for an award?

Response: Below acceptable since we intend to award without discussions. A contractor must meet the minimum requirements, an “acceptable” rating, to be considered for award. A proposal that does not meet the minimum requirements would not be considered. The Government intends to award task orders without discussions, unless discussions are deemed to be beneficial to the Government.

9 Question: If a non-VOSB or non-SBVOSB is much more cost effective on the seed project, would that company be awarded the seed project for having the lowest price? (If a non-SDVOSB is 30% cheaper, wouldn’t that be a savings for the taxpayer)

Response: Evaluations are done in accordance with the FAR and VAAR in a tiered approach for the base MATOC awards; however, once the MATOC is awarded and individual task orders are issued, then the task orders are competed among the MATOC contractors.

10 Question: Can CPARS be used for past performances if available rather than PPQ form?

Response: CPARS is always used in evaluating past performance. The PPQ is supplementary. The Government only requires the transmittal copy return since neither you or the Government can force anyone to fill out and submit a PPQ on your behalf.

11 Question: For Past Performance relevancy, what dollar amount should each project be valued at minimum? ($500k and up?)

Response: Past performance relevancy is based off size and scope of the project; a specific dollar amount would not guarantee relevance. The requirements would be details in the instructions to offerors section in the request for proposal document.

12 Question: Since some task orders could be substantially higher cost than the seed project, will the VA consider requiring the contractor to provide a “bonding” letter from their surety company stating that the contractor is able to bond projects up to $25M?

(this ensures all the selected contractors can bid on ALL the task orders. Again, allowing best value to the taxpayer)

Response: By submitting a proposal to participate in this MATOC, the Government anticipates that every contractor would have sufficient bonding capability to propose to every potential task order from $2K to $30M. The expectation is the single and aggregate bonding capability are sufficient to handle anything within that range. With current projections we do not anticipate many, if any, projects exceeding $20M in the next year; however, if there are any with higher estimates, a bid bond would always be required to be submitted with the contractor’s proposal.

13 Question: Please confirm what a relevant value range for a project would be to submit for past performance. Is it the range of the seed project? ($500,000 – $1,000,000) or the typical Task Order Range: $2,000 – $30,000,000?

Response: Please provide relevant past performance based off the price range listed for the SEED Project. Order range is for Task Orders, and will vary in size, scope, and price between the Task order ranges.

14 Question: The solicitation instructions for Exhibit A (Statement of Prior Experience) indicate that offerors may submit up to four (4) projects. However, the Past Performance section requests three (3) projects to be submitted. Please clarify whether offerors should submit three projects only, or if four projects are acceptable for Exhibit A, with three emphasized for Past Performance evaluation.

Response: We will accept up to four project we request no less than three projects.

Four is acceptable

15 Question: The solicitation requires PPQs using the VA Exhibit C format. In some cases, previously completed PPQs on other federal forms (such as USACE or GSA PPQs) exist for the same projects, but the original Government evaluators are no longer in those positions, or the agencies have undergone organizational changes due to DOGE.

Would the VA accept previously completed PPQs on other federal formats (USACE, GSA, etc.)?

Response: Generally the offerors don’t receive completed PPQs back from the individual since they are to be considered procurement sensitive after filled out. They can be requested through FOIA generally. As long as they can be verified from the source I will accept them if they appear to be doctored or fraudulent they will be throw out.

16 Question: Due to the ongoing Government shutdown, many contracting officials are currently unavailable to complete new Exhibit C PPQs. This is another reason we kindly request to use previously completed PPQs of other formats such as GSA and USACE.

Response: See prior answer

17 Question: The solicitation states that major subcontractors shall identify two references on Exhibit A, but there is no other mention of subcontractors having to fill out Exhibit A.

Please confirm if Subs are supposed to complete Exhibit A in addition to Exhibit B, and how this impacts the total page count if it is required. Or please confirm if this was a typo and they must include references on exhibit B.

Response: Major subcontractors should fill them out, generally we consider a major subcontractor is any subcontractor that received a sub-contractor over 55M or over 10% of the value of the primes contract. This is the most commonly accepted version of a major subcontractor

18 Question: Do we only have to provide subcontractor forms if they are a teaming partner?

Response: If they are not apart of your organization then yes, if it’s a joint venture situation and you are submitting with that designation then no.

19 Question: What is the “Proposal Pricing Page” to be included in price proposal? Please provide.

Response: The proposal pricing page would be included in the seed order task package. The MATOC itself is unpriced so the 1442 with the MATOC would be NSP 5

Year POP/Priced per task order

20 Question: Will Contractors that are awarded to this MATOC be required to provide bids for every task order released under the MATOC?

Response: Yes there could be case by case basis where the government will accept a “no proposal” response but generally a proposal is required per SCR 6

21 Question: The SAM.gov listing for this solicitation has this classified as a “Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)”. Please confirm that the correct set-aside for this solicitation is indeed SDVOSB, with task orders being provided to others only if there are not adequate SDVOSB offers, resulting in rebids to other concerns as outlined in the solicitation document?

Response: SAM is correct it is a total small business set-aside. This will be evaluated and awarded per the VAAR tiered evaluation procedures. Every MATOC awardee will have equal opportunity for all MATOC task orders. SCR 10 allows us to limit competition, likewise the FAR overhaul of PAR 16 additionally allows this if there’s a reason to do so. Most tasks every awardee will be asked to provide a proposal for. We are not guaranteeing any awardee a task order beyond the minimum guarantee.

22 Question: Solicitation section 2.4 paragraph 13 "Section 4 - Exhibits", paragraph C, indicates to submit up to four (4) Exhibit A, part 1 forms. Solicitation section 4.2 paragraph 1 "Recency and Relevancy" indicates to submit three (3) construction projects submitted in accordance with Exhibit A. Please verify that three (3) projects should be submitted on Exhibit A, Part 1 forms for the VA to evaluate past performance.

Response: Three projects must be submitted we will accept up to four.

23 Question: Will Contractors that are awarded to this MATOC be required to provide bids for every task order released under the MATOC?

Response: Answered Above

24 Question: The SAM.gov listing for this solicitation has this classified as a “Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)”. Please confirm that the correct set-aside for this solicitation is indeed SDVOSB, with task orders being provided to others only if there are not adequate SDVOSB offers, resulting in rebids to other concerns as outlined in the solicitation document?

Response: Answered Above

25 Question: Is a price breakdown required?

Response: A breakdown is not required upfront. The government reserves the right if we enter discussion. We intend to award without discussions.

26 Question: Due to the Government shutdown, may we please request an adequate extension for proposal submission in order to have time to coordinate with Government for past performance?

Response: Proposal due date is 10/30/2025 at 3:00 PM eastern time.

27 Question: “The VA requests three (3) construction projects that best illustrate the contractor’s prime and subcontractor team’s.” Does this mean the 3 projects need to be a mix or Prime and Sub? Or are we supposed to submit 3 projects for Prime and 3 for Sub?

Response: Three projects for the prime, if teaming relationship is established with a specific sub please submit the relevant projects for the team as priority.

28 Question: What if we do not intend to have a teaming partnered sub for this contract?

Will we be penalized for only submitted projects performed by Prime?

Response: No your subcontractors are your priority please use the best sub for the job as you see fit.

29 Question: Please clarify page count requirements if any clarifications make changes to the current requirements.

Response: The first 25 pages are what we will review additional pages maybe reviewed.

30 Question: Please clarify what Key Personnel we must submit resumes for with our proposal.

Response: Key prime personal that will be involved. A non-exhaustive list would be PM, Super, HSO, SSO, Ownership, Admin personal.

31 Question: It says, “Any pages between the Cover Sheet and the Table of Contents in Volume I will not be reviewed nor evaluated.” Are we allowed to have a title page after the TOC with company info such as UEI, Tax Number, etc? or all of this information supposed to be on cover page?

Response: Yes you may include a title page.

32 Question: Please advise if the client will provide an outside laydown area for the general contractor?

Response: Space availability is always a concern but we do try to allow for a laydown space.

33 Question: The Solicitation, Offer and Award SF1442 item 11 calls for 1826 calendar days for this IDIQ. Please confirm the duration of this seed project? Also please confirm that the seed project is not a phased.

Response: The POP in box 11 is the 5 years for the MATOC the Seed is 270 days after

NTP.

34 Question: Page 7 of the Quality Control specification states CQC and Superintendent may serve dual hat status. Site Safety and Health Office specification 01 35 26. Please confirm if this staff member may be dual hat as well.

Response: Specification 01 45 00 Quality Control For the Seed Project (Entrance Enclosure) it is acceptable for the SSHO to be dual hat as well due to the scale. However this will not the standards for MATOC projects going forward.

35 Question: Section 3.2 Foundation Piles- Please confirm if required for the seed project.

Response: Specification 01 45 29 Testing Lab Services Foundation Piles are not anticipated for the seed project work.

36 Question: The Special Inspection specifications requires a 3rd Party Engineer staff member hired by the general contractor. Please confirm based on the Seed Project duration, please confirm if this inspector is fulltime?

Response: Specification 01 45 35 Special Inspection Third party special inspections are not anticipated or expected fulltime

37 Question: Please confirm the seed project’s period of performance is “1826 calendar days” and this is what we should show on our preliminary schedule.

Response: Period of performance The POP in box 11 is the 5 years for the MATOC the Seed is 270 days after NTP.

38 Question: In the solicitation, page 12 of 144 bottom right corner, #2 says "Contents of the proposal and responses on forms must be typed using 12-point Times New Roman font". Please confirm 10-point Times New Roman font is acceptable for Tables, Figures, Headers and Footers, Organizational Chart.

Response: 10 PT is fine

39 Question: Please confirm per spec 1.5.C. on page 01 00 00 -2 the GC is to provide Unarmed guards at the project site 24 hours a day 7 days a week after construction hours.

Response: Unarmed guards will not be required 24/7. Only the proper security via security fence and any ICRA wall that is typically seen on constructions projects will be required.

40 Question: Please confirm a sea container for material storage and safe keeping may be put on site. If yes, where is an acceptable location.

Response: A container will be allowed onsite in the contractor designated area near Building 6 across from the ED Parking lot.

41 Question: Please confirm a Field office can be put on site. If yes, where is an acceptable location and do we need to provide a generator as well. Also, are we able to provide a standard construction field office to suite our needs or must we comply with the detailed Field office specification 01 00 00 -24 1.17

Response: A standards field office is acceptable. In the location mentioned above (near B6 across from ED parking). Power is available for use in that area.

42 Question: The drawings attached at the end of the 'S02-P01-Seed Project - Narrative - Building 1 Entrance Enclosure redacted' document are not scalable nor is much of the text readable. Can you please provide a separate document for the drawings that will enable readability at the least and scalability at best.

Response: Reuploaded file. They appear to work on our end. Please confirm they work

43 Question: Can you provide the height to the underside of the structure?

Response: The height from finished floor to the underside of the decking is approximately 138.5 inches. Contractor shall field verify

44 Question: Can you provide information on painting of the exterior wall at the new door?

Are we to paint the entire wall, or just the patch around the new door?

Response: The exterior wall is unpainted limestone and stall remain. Any framing around the new entry shall be painted.

45 Question: Can you provide a detail at the intersection of the masonry wall and the new security grille?

Response: The new security grill shall be free standing and not mechanically attached to the building.

46 Question: Detail 4/A102 has a note at the top that says, “See Building Elevations”. I cannot find the elevations referenced by the security grille notes. Can you provide these elevations?

Response: There are no elevations for the security grille, the grille does not need to match any elevations as it shall be free standing with a maximum of 5’6” height.

47 Question: “Contractor Pre-Award OSHA Evaluation Form” that we are required to submit. Can you please provide this form with the RFI responses?

Response: Yes

48 Question: P.10 states all contractors shall be required to provide a proposal for every RFP. Will all the RFP’s that result from this MATOC be low-bid evaluations?

Response: The evaluation method per task order will be consistent with the complexity of the project, we will utilize low price, low price technically acceptable, and best value trade offs evaluations when selecting a successful offeror for each task. We will do our best to ensure that the evaluation request is consistent with the complexity of the project to avoid unnecessary efforts on the KTR or Government.

49 Question: The Seed Project Task Order Package includes liquidated damages of $609.33 per calendar day. Please confirm if liquidated damages apply for this project.

Response: That is accurate for the seed project LDs will be determined on a project basis if we are to include or exclude them, the amount will vary by complexity and be appropriate to the potential harm a delay could cause.

See attached document: S02-Seed Project - Drawings - Building 1 Entrance Enclosure.

See attached document: S02-P01-Seed Project - Narrative - Building 1 Entrance Enclosure redacted.

End of Document