36C26118R0065-0003000.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 ITE M 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 r eference 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

BY

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) 10-12-2018 Department of Veterans Affairs VA Sierra Pacific Network (VISN 21) VA Pacific Islands Health Care System 459 Patterson Rd Honolulu HI 96819-1522 Department of Veterans Affairs VA Sierra Pacific Network (VISN 21) VA Pacific Islands Health Care System 459 Patterson Rd Honolulu HI 96819-1522 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C26118R0065 09-13-2018

X X X X The purpose of this amendment is to answer contractor questions (see the following page) and to incorporate revised language to Section 00110, Evaluation of Offerors (see attached).

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

Brett Vegeto Contracting Officer

CONTINUATION PAGE

Questions and Answers 10/12/18

RFI#0001 Is it required that the annual representation and certifications be attached to Phase I proposal or simply acknowledged in proposal? Ref: 00300 Representation and Certifications Answer: Page 11 of the solicitation indicates the ADMNISTRATIVE VOLUME shall include the “(3) Representations and Certifications”. Please also refer to Solicitation Section 00300 Representations and Certifications.

RFI#0002 Is the primary criteria for acceptance of a proposal; best value, lowest price or tradeoff process? Ref: Part II Evaluation Criteria 1. Basis of Award, 1.4 and stated in Factor 4, Seed Project Technical Solution, (ii) basis of evaluation Answer: Please refer to the Solicitation Section 00110 number 4, Proposal Evaluation, and Part II – Evaluation Criteria, number 1, Basis of Award.

RFI#0003 – Can the offer self-certify that there are no OSHA or EPA violations? Ref: 00110 Evaluation of Offerors, Part II Evaluation Factors, 2.3 (a)(1)(3) Answer: Please refer to Amendment A0001 (posted on www.fbo.gov on September 26, 2018), Question and Answer number 9, which specifically stated, “Please submit your written certification on company letterhead and signed by a principal of the company. If submitting as a JV, please insure the certification is signed by a principal of each company that is a member of the JV. JVs with less than 3 years of experience from the date of the proposal submission should submit certifications from each company that is a member of the JV and signed by a principal of each company.

RFI#0004 – Can the EMR certification be met by providing the EMR Rating or do we provide a copy from our insurance company. Ref: 00110 Evaluation of Offerors, Part II Evaluation Factors, 2.3 (a)(1)(3)

Answer: The solicitation does not require that the offeror provide a copy from the insurance company. The offeror may simply provide the EMR rating. Prior to award, the Government will request a copy of EMR ratings from insurance companies as part of the responsibility determination.

RFI#0005 – When can the offeror expect a formal response to our RFI’s? Ref: 1442 issued/dated: 9/13/18 Section 10, Submit RFI’s, Suspense: October 11, 2018 at 4:30 pm (PT)

Answer: Responses are provided with an amendment. Amendments are issued prior to the close of the solicitation.

RFI#0005 – Request an extension of bid proposal submission date from: 18 October 2018 time: 1:00 pm (PT) to: 30 October 2018 at 4:30 pm (PT) for both group 1 and 2. Thus allowing a responsive, relevant and responsible bid response/submission. Ref: 1442 issued/dated: 9/13/18 Section 10, Submit RFI’s, Suspense: October 11, 2018 at 4:30 pm (PT)

Answer: No. The solicitation was issued September 13, 2018 with a close date of October 18, 2018 thus allowing more than a month to respond, which is reasonable based on the information requested by the solicitation.

RFI#0006? – In what section should the offeror include the technical management/organizational structure in Phase I of the proposal for both Group 1 and 2. Ref: (not referenced or cited)

Answer: Please refer to section 00110 Evaluation of Offerors for evaluation criteria. Please also refer to Factor 3, Past Performance, #3 Organizational Structure Change History. For the evaluation section, the solicitation indicates in Factor 3 Past Performance that offerors shall include a “roadmap” describing changes in the organization. All information submitted in response to Factor 3 must be in the TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. The solicitation indicates on page 10 that JV information must be included in the ADMINISTRATIVE VOLUME during Phase I.

RFI#0007 – Can an ongoing, current project that is not complete be considered past performance? Ref: 00110 Evaluation of Offerors, Part II Evaluation Factors, 2.3, Factor 3, Past Performance (3) Answer: The solicitation posted to www.fbo.gov on September 13, 2018, and as amended, provides as follows: “For purposes of this evaluation, a recent relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five years of the proposal issue date for this RFP.” (Emphasis added.) So, a project must be complete to be considered recent.

RFI#0008 - Can we utilize projects that are recent, relevant, and current but not complete? Ref: 00110 Evaluation of Offerors, Part II Evaluation Factors, 2.3, Factor 2, Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm (2)

Answer: The solicitation posted to www.fbo.gov on September 13, 2018, and as amended, provides as follows: “For purposes of this evaluation, a recent relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five years of the proposal issue date for this RFP.” (Emphasis added.) So, a project must be complete to be considered recent.

RFI#0009 - Will a SDVOSB non-contractor managing a subcontractor be acceptable in the VISN IDIQ contract, which I understand is 100% set-aside for a SDVOSB?

Answer: Please refer to Amendment A0001 (posted on www.fbo.gov on September 26, 2018), Question and Answer number 2, which specifically stated, “Please refer to Factor 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm where you may submit experience of the prime contractor.” There is no minimum experience requirement for either Group. However, please note the NAICS for this solicitation is 236220, and the VAAR clause 852.219-10 Notice of Total Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business is a term and condition of the solicitation and will be of the resulting contract. Finally, all awardees will be required to obtain payment and performance bonds for task orders.

RFI#0010 - The solicitation and RFI responses suggest that Factor 2, Recent, Relevant Experience the offeror may submit five (5) construction projects in which the offeror was the Prime Contractor. It is also stated that a joint venture partner’s experience will be considered if they have relevant experience as a Prime Contractor. If a joint venture relationship requires the veteran business owner to give up a percentage of the opportunity, as an alternative, can the Govt also consider the experience of key employees or business partners that also have relevant prime contract experience? If a SDVOSB has surrounded him/herself with significant leadership that has relevant prime contract experience that can be applied to this solicitation and the company meets all other requirements, will you consider experience favorable?

Answer: Please refer to Amendment A0001 (posted on www.fbo.gov on September 26, 2018), Question and Answer number 2, which specifically stated, “Please refer to Factor 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm where you may submit experience of the prime contractor.” Key personnel are not part of this evaluation.

RFI#0011 - Is it expected to include our design team information in the phase I proposal?

Answer: Please refer to section 00110 Evaluation of Offerors for evaluation criteria.

RFI#0012 - Will VA consider adding another “middle” pool/Group to the MACC, in the $1 to 3, 4 or 5MM Range, and/or allowing work performed as Subcontractor to count towards Factor II to qualify for this Group, so as not to exclude qualified contractors currently performing work within (but at the lower end) of the Group II range, and to increase competition within the pools?

Answer: No. The solicitation is set-aside for SDVOSB in accordance with the Public Law. There is no requirement for the Government to do set-asides within the set-aside for the benefit of individual offerors. After reviewing historical data from the past five years, the Government established two groups to maximize competition and increase the opportunity for newly established or less experienced offerors to participate. The previous MATOC consisted of only one group, and market research indicates many other similar procurements are also for a single group. The decision to establish two groups as opposed to one single group effectively doubles the amount of effort/resources required for the Government for the procurement process. The determination to do groups is solely within the discretion of the Government, and it is done so on the basis of what is in the Government’s best interest. Interested offerors are free to propose on Group 1, Group 2, or both. There is no minimum requirement for experience for either Group, so interested offerors are not excluded from participation.

RFI#0013 - Page 12/137 in Section 00100 Paragraph D, Item 5. QUESTION: Please confirm that the requirements for 11-point font size and 1.5 line spacing does not apply to the information included in the headers and footers, such as the offeror name, solicitation number, factor titles, page numbers, etc., that is used only for proposal identification and organization.

Answer: Confirmed. The requirement for font and spacing does not apply to the headers and footers.

RFI#0014 - Page 12/137 in Section 00100 Paragraph D, Item 5. QUESTION: Tables and other graphics will appear extremely cumbersome with 11-point font and 1.5 line spacing. For readability, professional organizations in the industry typically use 6-point to 9-point for graphics. For example, the IEEE recommends 8-point and ASME recommends no less than 6-point. Recommended line spacing (leading) for optimum legibility is 120% - 145% of the font size for most typefaces. Will the Government consider allowing tables and other graphics to use a font size that is 8-point with a 10-point leading?

Answer: Yes, the Government will consider allowing tables and other graphics that use other than 11 point font and 1.5 line spacing.

RFI#0015 - Page 13 of 137 Paragraph G - Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements. QUESTION: Please confirm that the requirements of this paragraph and table should be addressed as part of the Cover Letter.

Answer: Yes, you may address this section in your cover letter.

RFI#0016 - I wanted to ask if we can use previous projects that I directly managed or use experience from our key personnel who managed projects while working with other SDVOSBs? Can you clarify on whether the VA will consider this experience as favorable?

Answer: Please refer to Amendment A0001 (posted on www.fbo.gov on September 26, 2018), Question and Answer number 2, which specifically stated, “Please refer to Factor 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm where you may submit experience of the prime contractor.” Key personnel are not part of this evaluation.

RFI#0017 - Would VA be willing to further clarify/elaborate on the answer provided to Question # 2? For instance: We are proposing on Group 1, and have recent projects completed for VA that have been above the $250K range but for which we have positive CPARS and PPQ’s, and as such would like to include in the Proposal for Factor 2. Requesting further clarification on whether or not a project would be downgraded in the Evaluation process for being above the range? (Not part of the question, but it would stand to reason that if a KR can successfully perform projects above the Range it can successfully perform projects within the range, and that those projects for which CPDS information is submitted above the Range would not be downgraded for exceeding the size/scope/complexity relevancy test -?).

Answer: The solicitation provides guidance about relevance in the evaluation section and discusses how experience will be rated. No additional information will be provided. The Government is not in a position to give answers to hypotheticals prior to proposal submission. Offerors are free to submit experience for projects, even if they exceed the dollar threshold of the Group to which they are proposing. The Government will evaluate the information as stated in the evaluation section.

RFI#0018 - The answer provided to Q. 11 in A0002 indicates that the intention is essentially to establish a Group 1 MACC pool with a smaller project range for smaller entities so as to allow an opportunity to gain experience and growth. Since the Group II Project Valuation Range also encompasses the Group I range ($2000 – 250K), will Group I contractors be bidding against Group II contractors for work in the $2000-250K Range? (If so, this would effectively double the pool size for Group I). Please clarify – Will projects in the $2000-250K Range only be issued to Group 1 KR’s, and if so, would the range for Group II effectively be $250K - $10MM)?

Answer: Please refer to Solicitation Section 00200 Scope of Work section 8.0.

RFI#0019 - In Attachment A – Construction Project Data Sheet, Item B - Program Title, please confirm that “Program Title is the same as Project title?

Answer: Yes, they are the same.

See attached document: 12Oct18 Revised Solicitation Language Eval.