Amendment 0004 - 36C25920R0104.docx

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. 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 CODE

CODE

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)

None 36C259 Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office

NCO 19

6162 South Willow Drive, Suite 300 Greenwood Village CO 80111

36C259 Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office

NCO 19

6162 South Willow Drive, Suite 300 Greenwood Village CO 80111 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C25920R0104

X

The purpose of this amendment is to provide andsers to RFIs.

RFIs for MATOC IDIQ Solicitation 36C25920R0104 Question 1 - Please confirm that both volume one and volume two of the proposal are due the same day and before 2PM MDT.

Response: Yes, both volumes are due the same day before 2PM MT.

Question 2 - Do any of the Factors have page limit requirement?

Response: No, they don’t. The only limit is the file size of the email, 15MB. Anything over that may not reach the Contracting office.

Question 3 - Are there any formatting requirements? Margins? Font Size? Font Theme? Spacing?

Response: No formatting requirements.

Question 4 - Is this project tax exempt?

Response: Government projects are tax exempt Question 5 - Please confirm the SSHO is onsite full time with duties only as the SSHO.

Response: Yes.

Question 6 - Please confirm the Superintendent is onsite full time with duties as the Superintendent and can perform the duties as the CQC System Manager.

Response: Yes, superintendent can be the CQC. The SSHO must be a unique individual with SSHO as his sole role.

Question 7 - Please confirm that for Factor 1: Construction Experience item c on page 14 of the solicitation the name and telephone number of contact person(s) is only need for the project prime contractor.

Response: Yes, that is correct.

Question 8 - Please confirm that for Factor 2: Design Experience item c on page 15 of the solicitation the name and telephone number of contact person(s) is only need for the project prime contractor.

Response: Yes, that is correct.

Question 9 - The 1442 solicitation number is 36C25920R0104, attachment RFP seed project references 36C25920AP3273. Which number should be referenced on the bid bond?

Response: For the bid bond please use the 36C25920AP3273 number.

Question 10 - Depending on answers received for questions submitted more questions could possibly come up. Additionally, subcontractors are just now getting into the plans and specifications for the seed project so there is potential for questions to come in from them. For these two reasons, I’d like to request additional time to submit questions and RFIs.

Response: Questions can be submitted by 28 Oct 2022 Question 11 - The minimum contract value for construction experience is $1,000,000 for it to be considered for evaluation. Will the VA take into consideration any projects under the $1,000,000 threshold?

Response: No, only $1,000,000.00.

Question 12 - My company has completed projects for other clients that were not at clinical, hospital, or other medical spaces. Will the VA accept projects that have not been completed at clinical, hospital, or other medical related spaces for construction experience?

Response: No, projects must be completed projects for clinical, hospital or other medical related spaces for construction experience.

Question 13 - For Factor 1: Construction Experience, please confirm that experience projects submitted by the prime offeror must have been performed by the prime offeror. Any experience submitted by a Joint Venture must have been performed by that specific Joint Venture, and NOT a single entity within the JV.

Response: For Joint Venture offerors, both the joint venture and the individual firm or contractor experience can be submitted.

Question 14 - On page 15 of the solicitation, under Factor 2: Design Experience, it states that “the offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor…to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor.” Please confirm that prime offeror experience will be viewed more favorably than experience submitted through a subcontractor or experience of a joint venture.

Response: Primary offeror experience will be viewed the same as a subcontractor or Joint Venture.

Question 15 - The primary NAICS code for this MATOC is 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. However, Factor 2 is wholly focused on A/E Design Experience (NAICS codes 54310 and 541330). Factor 1 already focuses on D/B construction projects which match the task orders to be issued within this MATOC. Please remove Factor 2 in its entirety. It is irrelevant to the task orders that will be issued, as none will be strictly A/E contracts.

Response: Factor 2 will not be removed. Factor 2 shows the government that you have design experience or have teamed up with a designer that has the experience necessary to work on the design-build projects.

Question 16 - Factor 2 considers a relevant design project as “a design of a completed clinical, hospital or other medical related space with a minimum contract value of $150,000 or more”. Because no design-only task orders will be issued (only design-build construction contracts), please remove Factor 2 from the requirements.

Response: See question 16 above.

Question 17 - Factor 2 requests a “letter of commitment signed by the A/E firm”. However, 5 years of task orders will include a wide variety of scope and specialties. This varied scope will require specific A/E firms that most closely match the scope of each individual task order. Please allow for proposal of multiple firms within the design experience section. This will allow for utilization of A/E firms that can best execute the scope required within the task order.

Response: Each AE Firm that you partner with will require a Letter of Commitment signed by that AE Firm.

Question 18 - Per 15.304 (b) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must – represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision; and (2) support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals. In consideration of this requirement, please remove Factor 2 in its entirety as it evaluates design only criteria, which will NOT be awarded as a task order. This MATOC focuses wholly on design-bid-build and design-build projects.

Response: See question 16 above.

Question 19 - 1.7A includes Factor 5: Price as a portion of Selection Criteria. However, no evaluation criteria are included on how Factor 5 will be evaluated in the context of the MATOC. (The SEED project will be awarded to the lowest reasonably priced offeror). Will prices be graded more or less favorably in terms of entrance into the MATOC? Will price reasonableness impact acceptance into the MAOTC? If so, please determine how price reasonableness will be graded in terms of the MATOC and provide grading criteria.

Response: On page 18, (b) - The Government will evaluate the SEED price based on the total price of the SEED project from each offeror. The SEED project will be awarded to the lowest reasonably priced offeror who is awarded a contract on the IDIQ.

Question 20 - What is the total number of contracts to be awarded within this MATOC?

Response: Page 5, paragraph 2, “The Government estimates awarding two or more MATOC awards to Offerors that conform to the proposal requirements set forth in the RFP and represent the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award up to any number of contracts that is deemed in the best interests of the Government.”

Question 21 - Please confirm there are no page limits within this proposal.

Response: See question 2 above.

Question 22 - Factor 1 states “design build projects will be weighted more favorably”. Please confirm this evaluation criteria. Will D/B task orders be a significant component of this MATOC?

Response: It is included in our solicitation and there will be task orders that are Design Build Question 23 - Factor 1: Construction Experience. Please confirm experience within a Veterans Administration Medical Facility will be graded more favorably than generic clinical, hospital, or medical related spaces.

Response: No, they are all equal Question 24 - Please confirm the offeror is required to have a bona fide place of business within the VISN 19 network locations. This will allow for timely responses to task orders.

Response: This is not a requirement for this solicitation.

Question 25 - Please confirm project examples contained within Factor 1 must be projects and contracts completed specifically by the offeror as the prime construction contractor directly responsible to the owner. Subcontractor or other experience is not admissible.

Response: This is correct.

Question 26 - The only task orders to be awarded under this MATOC are design/build and design/bid/build (construction only) contracts. It is recommended for Factor 1 to focus solely on construction only contracts, and Factor 2 focus on design/build projects. Currently Factor 2 is requesting design only experience, which is irrelevant considering the task orders to be awarded.

Response: See question 16 above.

Question 27 - Factor 2: Design Experience. Please confirm experience within a Veterans Administration Medical Facility will be graded more favorably than generic clinical, hospital, or medical related spaces.

Response: See question 23 above.

Question 28 - Considering the task orders to be awarded under this MATOC, it is recommended the relevant projects within Factor 2 to be re-worded as follows: “A relevant design BUILD project is defined as a design AND CONSTRUCTION of a completed clinical, hospital, or other medical related space…” Response: The wording for Factor 2 will remain unchanged.

Question 29 - Due to the lack of VA Design-Build solicitations and task orders issued to SDVOSBs over the last 5 years, please consider allowing Design-Build construction contracts completed within the last 7 years. This will allow a greater portfolio of completed SDVOSB contracts and task orders to be utilized and will present a more wholistic view of what the offerors can perform. (More recent examples could be rated more favorably).

Response: The requirement for experience with the last 5 years shall remain unchanged.

Question 30 - Factor 2: Design Experience. Please confirm projects with both design and construction experience will be rated more favorably than projects with design only experience. The basis of evaluation states successful execution and management of projects (presumably the construction phase of the design/build project).

Response: Factor 2 is for design experience only.

Question 31 - Factor 3: Past Performance states the offerors shall not incorporate BY REFERENCE into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, please clarify and confirm that offerors CAN incorporate directly and include proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs as long as they are included within and submitted as a part of this proposal (and not just referenced). This will keep contracting officers and owners from having to fill out the same PPQ repeatedly with the same information (which is increasingly difficult to obtain from owners and COs).

Response: Yes, if it’s a completed PPQ and not a referenced PPQ.

Question 32 - Typically VA MATOCs and IDIQs request information on the available staffing and employees within the offeror’s company. Factor 4: Capacity has offerors generally describe their ability to perform but does not specifically request resumes from employees. Please consider requesting resumes for the following positions required on a typical VA task order, all of which are required to be employees of the offeror/prime contractor: Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO), Quality Control Manager (QCM), Site Superintendent, Project Manager, Infection Control Manager, Corporate Safety Official, President (company owner).

Response: Factor 4 will remain unchanged.

Question 33 - Location Capability: Typically, VA MATOCs request information specific to an offers ability to perform work at each location included within the MATOC. Please consider adding a Factor to evaluation Location Capability where the offeror can describe both Capacity and Past Performance on similar projects at the specific MATOC locations. This Factor would also address an offeror’s ability to quickly respond to emergency or urgent task order requests.

Response: This will not be included in the current solicitation.

Question 34 - Bonding Capacity: Although generally alluded to within the “capacity” factor, it is not specifically requested for offerors to provide letters from their bonding company. Please consider requesting letters from bonding companies on single task order capacity as well as aggregate bonding capacity (often referred to as Contractor Surety Limitations). It is assumed all task orders over a certain dollar threshold will need a Performance and Payment bond provided by the awardee. Similarly, many task orders will also need bid bonds which will require a similar capacity. The 120-day period of acceptance will require a significant bonding capacity for the SDVOSB to continue bidding projects will awaiting award or rejection.

Response: Bonding capacity will not be requested at this time. Any bonding will be based on the individual Task Orders issued under this MATOC.

Question 35 - Financial Disclosure: Please consider requiring a Financial Disclosure Questionnaire for source selection evaluation. This will ensure the offerors are financially suitable to perform the forthcoming task orders. Currently there are no requirements for an offeror to be financially stable.

Response: The VA can conduct a financial check on contractors so this requirement in not needed.

Question 36 - Offeror’s ability to meet VAAR 852.219-74 and VAAR 852.219-77. Please consider adding a factor or incorporating into Factor 4: Capacity a requirement to address limitation on subcontracting. Each offeror will be required to self-perform a significant percentage of the work and will be limited on the extent that can be subcontracted. It is therefore important to evaluate the offerors capacity to successfully meet these VAAR requirements. The self-performance calculation worksheet only relates to the SEED project and does not provide any evaluation criteria for how these requirements will be met on future task orders.

Response: The solicitation requires the contractor to fill out and submit VAAR 852.219-77 with their proposal.

Question 37 - Pricing: Please consider requiring a price breakdown of the seed project by division. This will allow for further evaluation of the pricing in comparison to prices received in response to the RFP, the IGCE, and other available historical information.

Response: A new Calculation worksheet is attached.

Question 38 - Please confirm the Special Standard of Responsibility applies to each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture AND for the entity is itself. A JV with two companies would require three (3) responses to the Special Standard of Responsibility. One for each of the two companies, plus a response for the JV/Partnership itself.

Response: This will be based on the Joint Venture.

Question 39 - Are any of the Factors considered more important than others, or is the relative importance all equal?

Response: As stated in the solicitation on page 14 Factors 1 through 4 are of equal importance.

Question 40 - Factor 3: Past Performance. In addition to CPARS/PPQs for projects included in Factors 1 and 2, can the offeror also provide CPARS for previously completed MATOCs and IDIQs?

Response: CPARS and PPQs are required for the projects that are submitted for an offerors experience in Factors 1 and 2.

Question 41 - Because the site visit was completed earlier this week would the VA consider pushing the RFP due date to November 15?

Response: The proposal due date will be extended to 8 November 2022 at 2:00PM MT.

Question 42 - For the recent construction experience, would the VA consider expanding the period of past performance to include projects completed within the last eight (8) years from issue day?

Response: No, the requirement will remain unchanged.

Question 43 - Will the 11-1 proposal due date be extended to allow for answers to questions Response: See question 41 above.

Question 44 - Will the VA consider PPQ’s from previous VA solicitations to be submitted with this proposal?

Response: See question 31 above.

Question 45 - Current relevant experience requirements may preclude some SDVOSB firms from being allowed to propose on this project and limit competition from qualified contractors. Would the government consider one of the following?

Reduce minimum project value of previous design build projects to 950,000 Increase the time of completion of recent projects from 5 years to 7 1/2 years from date of issuance.

Reduce the minimum number of projects from 5 projects to 4 projects Allow current VA construction projects to be submitted if the original contract is greater than 85% complete Response: Factor 1 Construction Experience minimum amount will be change to three (3) projects.

Question 46 - In reviewing amendment #2 we had an additional question about the response to #17.

Reference Question 17 – In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), please confirm that the government will accept the experience from either member of an SBA approved Joint Venture to meet the requirements of the solicitation?

Response – Only the experience from the Joint Venture will be considered.

Here’s the FAR clause that says we can use experience from both JV members:

13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e)

(e) Capabilities, past performance, and experience. When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

Response: This is now updated to allow the past performance of the Joint Venture and each separate entity of the Joint Venture.

Question 47 – Does VAAR Clause 852.219.77 – VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting – Certificate of Compliance for Services and Construction need to be completed and turned in at time of proposal submission?

Response: Yes, this needs to be filled in and sent with your proposal.

Question 48 - In factor two (2), the RFP asks for 3-5 “design projects of a medical facility”. Please confirm that these are not design-build Prime Contractor projects, and that you are asking for strictly the A/E’s qualifications through SF330s for ‘design’ projects? Do the Prime Contractor’s A/E partner’s subconsultants for engineering services receive evaluation?

Response: We are only asking for design experience for Factor 2. We are not asking for a SF330.

Question 49 - We are considering two (2) A/E partners for our design-build team. Will the VA allow a maximum of two A/Es as part of the Prime Contractor’s team based on the size, scope, complexity of the design-build task orders? There is a benefit of using Large A/Es and Smaller A/Es based on cost of each task order and if the task order is heavier on MEP etc.

Response: There is no maximum number of AE Firms that a contractor can partner with. A Letter of Commitment will be required for each one.

Question 50 - Factor 3 Past Performance states that “if a completed CPARS evaluation is available, its shall be submitted with the proposal for each project in Factor 1 for construction experience”. If we have a 100% CPARS for our 5-10 Relevant Experience projects, could these be used in lieu of the PPQ requirement? Having a ‘Final CPARS’ and a PPQ for the same project seems to be redundant. In our experience a PPQ is used in lieu of not having completed CPARS ratings where the customer cannot determine the overall performance by the GC/Prime.

Response: Per page 16, Factor 3: Past Performance, if a completed Construction Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1 for construction experience. If a completed Architect-Engineer (A-E) CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CPARS for either construction or A-E evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires for each project included in Factor 1 and 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience.

Question 51 - We understand the intent of Factor 2: Design Experience. Does the evaluation panel prefer ‘direct A/E design services’ (AOR/DOR) directly to a hospital customer or ‘at risk design-build services’ as a subcontractor to a prime contractor? Does the VA wish to have the Designer utilize typical SF330s for project evaluation if the information required in a. through d. is included?

Response: See question 48 above.

Question 52 - We do not see page limitation on this submission. We need 15 pages For Factor 1, 3 pages per project for Factor 2, we recommend no limitation of Factor Past Performance due to the size of the CPARS or PPQ sheets. Factor 4 requires minimal sheets.

Response: See question 2 above.

Question 53 - Would you like us to add the ‘Special Standards of Responsibility’ documents (OSHA forms, EMR) with Part 1 or Part 2 of the submission?

Response: Submit the Special Standards of Responsibility with Part 1.

Question 54 - Please confirm if you would like this sheet submitted within Factor 5: Price. The sheet then states in yellow to “Provide cost breakdown by division”. Are offerors allowed to utilize our own internal format or would the VA want us to use the typical DIV 01 through DIV 33 pricing sheet? Please advise if this is an additional requirement over and above the ‘Bid Schedule’ that is in the solicitation as a separate file called ‘Attachment (Pricing + Schedule)?

Response: A new Calculation worksheet is attached. Use the new one for your breakdown by division. I agree.

Question 55 - Please provide sign in sheets from the site visit held on October 11th.

Response: This was provided with Amendment 02.

Question 56 - Are we to include Representations and Certifications as part of our Part II Price proposal?

Response: This should be included in Part I.

Question 57 - For planning the preliminary project schedule, can you please provide an anticipated award date?

Response: The anticipated award date is 28 February 2023.

Question 58 - Will the VA provide a copy of RFI questions and responses submitted from all contractors on this solicitation?

Response: Yes.

Question 59 - If RFI question VA response doesn't quit answer the contractor need for understanding and elicits a follow-up question, will an additional RFI submission period be allowed?

Response: Yes.

Question 60 - Solicitation attachment Calculation worksheet for self-performance included to be submitted with proposal. Can you provide directions on how to fill out this form? What does VIP and Non-VIP work mean?

Response: VIP stands for Vendor Information Pages. https://vetbiz.va.gov/ This is where a SDVOSB contractor would register and be verified as a SDVOSB.

Question 61 - Solicitation attachment Calculation worksheet for self-performance. What does the statement "Special trade contractors? In the case of a contract for special trade contractors, it will not pay more than 75% of the amount paid by the government to it to firms that are not VIP-listed SDVOSBs" mean?

Response: A new Calculation worksheet is included in this amendment. This will be the sheet to use. I agree.

Question 62 - The steel and miscellaneous steel scope of work is relatively small; will the VA allow non AISC (American Iron and Steel Certification) requirements for the structural steel fabrication and/or erection for this project?

Response: No, the VA will not allow non AISC.