Amendment 01 SF30 Lynden Sumas.pdf

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 items 8 and 15, and returning 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 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.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

PQAD

PBS Office of Acquisition Management/Capital Project Acquisition Delivery Division Capital Contracting Branch - West 1800 F Street NW Washington , DC 20405 USA

PQAD

PBS Office of Acquisition Management/Capital Project Acquisition Delivery Division Capital Contracting Branch - West 1800 F Street NW

47PJ0025R0059

N/A

01/09/2026

01/09/2026

Amendment 0001, January 09, 2026 Continuation of Block 14 of Standard Form 30 Solicitation 47PJ0025R0059 – D-B Services – Lynden & Sumas Land Ports of Entry

Amendment 0001 is being issued to accomplish the following; 1) post the interested parties list and 2) respond to questions asked by offerors during Phase 1 of the solicitation. into the Solicitation. The following revised documents are provided under the cover of this Amendment and are hereby incorporated into the Solicitation.

• The Past Performance Questionnaire for Architect-Engineer Phase 1, revision dated January 09, 2026. All changes are highlighted in red.

• The Past Performance Questionnaire for the General Contractor Phase 1, revision dated January 09, 2026. All changes are highlighted in red.

• The Solicitation – Phase 1, revision dated January 09, 2026. All changes are highlighted in Red. The changes are in response to the questions and responses contained below:

Question 1: For Subfactor 1B, please confirm the similar projects for the General Contractor need to be substantially completed within fifteen (15) years.

Answer 1: Yes, the timeframe is 15 years.

Question 2: For Subfactor 1B, the evaluation criteria for Similar Projects of the GC states that all projects must be D-B but then also states that D-B or IPD delivery methods are an additional consideration. This does not match what is written for the similar project criteria for the A/E Firm which does not require D-B as a characteristic and instead includes D-B or IPD delivery methods as additional consideration. Please confirm the Similar Projects of the General Contractor do not need to be contracted using the Design-Build (D-B) delivery method.

Answer 2: The similar projects definition has been revised on the solicitation. All projects do not need to be DB. Additional consideration will be provided for D-B or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).

Question 3: I reviewed the Draft SOW for both Lynden and Sumas LPOE and it looks like there may be two missing sections in section F. Project Stages, Phases and Work Sequence. Unless I’m missing something, it looks like section 1.

Pre-Award Offeror Proposal Preparation Stage and 2. DB Contract Award are missing from both draft SOW documents. The Design Stage is renumbered to be number 1 in the body of the document. See images from the Lynden draft SOW document below. Am I missing something here? I’m trying to figure out exactly what we should be compiling and submitting for this solicitation stage that might be different/ in addition to the information in the Sol DB Phase Part 1 document.

Answer 3: The Draft SOW documents (Lynden & Sumas) are provided for informational purposes as part of the Phase 1 Solicitation Documents. The sections detailing the Pre-Award Offeror Proposal Preparation Stage and DB Contract Award are typically administrative in nature and are not a required part of the Draft SOW which forms the technical basis of the final contract. You should only compile and submit the information explicitly requested in the Phase 1 solicitation document, Sol DB 2 Phase Part 1, specifically under Section II. Proposals (II.A, II.C, and

II.D).

Question 4: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 1A includes an explicit

Submittal Requirement section (Solicitation page 22 of 29), limiting each Similar Project (SP) profile submitted by the A/E firm to a maximum of four (4) pages per project. However, Subfactor 1B does not include a corresponding submittal requirement section or page limitation for Similar Project profiles submitted for the General Contractor. In the interest of clarity and consistency, please confirm the page limit applicable to each Similar Project (SP) profile submitted under Subfactor 1B.

Answer 4: The maximum page limit for each Similar Project (SP) profile submitted under Subfactor 1B (General Contractor) is four (4) pages, consistent with the limit established for the A/E firm’s Similar Projects in Subfactor 1A.

Question 5: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 3: Lead Designer (Solicitation page 25 of 29) - Evaluation Factor 3 indicates that the relevant Lead Designer experience must have been “completed in the last eleven (11) years.” In contrast, Evaluation Factor 1 establishes a fifteen (15) year look-back period for Similar Project experience. To maintain consistency across evaluation factors and to align the Lead Designer experience timeframe with the broader Similar Project Experience evaluation criteria, it appears appropriate for Evaluation Factor 3 to apply the same fifteen (15) year period. In addition, as Evaluation Factor 3 is intended to assess design experience, rather than construction performance, the reference to project completion appears more directly applicable to the completion of design services.

Please confirm that the Government intends to revise Evaluation Factor 3 to reflect that the Lead Designer portfolio involves projects with design completed within the last fifteen (15) years, consistent with the Similar Project timeframe established under Evaluation Factor 1.

Answer 5: The solicitation requirement under Subfactor 1A will be revised to read: "SP design was substantially completed within fifteen (15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP."

This clarifies the intent to evaluate the A/E firm's design experience.

Question 6: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 3 (Solicitation page 26): The top of page 26 states, “In addition to the five (5) page limits for each project submitted for 1 and 2 above, each offeror should include:” followed by several bulleted submittal items, and concludes with, “The items under 3 will not count towards the page limit for each project.”

Based on the structure of this section, it appears that all bulleted items at the top of page 26 constitute Element “3” and therefore do not count toward the five (5) page limitation applicable to the project narratives. Please confirm that the following items are excluded from the five (5) page limit for each project:

• One representative drawing (e.g., floor plan, site plan, 3-D rendering, section, or other appropriate drawing)

• Two single-sided pages of photographs

• A brief description of areas of responsibility and commitment

If this is the intent, please consider revising the solicitation formatting to clearly delineate Elements “1” through “5,” as referenced in the Factor 3 description on Solicitation page 24.

Answer 6: Yes, the interpretation is correct. The listed bulleted items - one representative drawing, the two single-sided pages of photographs, and the brief description of areas of responsibility and commitment - are all considered part of Element 3 and are excluded from the five (5) page limit for each project narrative.

Question 7: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 4, Subfactor 4B: Past performance of the General Contractor - Referencing Subfactor 4A, Past Performance of the A/E Firm, at the top of Solicitation page 28, it states that additional favorable consideration may be given when each Past Performance Questionnaire has an overall rating of better than average. Subfactor 4B (Past Performance of the General Contractor) does not include similar language.

Based on the parallel structure and intent of Subfactors 4A and 4B, it appears that the Government intends the same additional favorable consideration for

“better than average” overall PPQ ratings to apply to both the A/E firm and the General Contractor.

Please confirm that this interpretation is correct and that the additional favorable consideration described in Subfactor 4A also applies to Subfactor 4B.

Answer 7: Yes, the interpretation is correct. Additional favorable consideration will be given under Subfactor 4B (Past Performance of the General Contractor) when each submitted PPQ has an overall rating of better than average, consistent with Subfactor 4A.

Question 8: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 1A: Past Experience of the A/E Firm (Solicitation page 20 of 29) - Under the Similar Projects Characteristics section, first bullet, it states that project construction must be substantially complete within 15 years prior to the issuance of the RFP. As Subfactor 1A is intended to evaluate the relevant past design experience of an A/E firm, rather than the construction experience of the General Contractor, this requirement appears to reference a construction milestone that may not directly correlate to the A/E firm's design effort. To better align the Similar Projects characteristics with the stated evaluation intent of Subfactor 1A, please consider revising this bullet to read, "SP design was substantially completed within fifteen

(15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP."

Answer 8: The solicitation shall remain unchanged for this subfactor

Question 9: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 1A: Past Experience of the A/E Firm (Solicitation page 21 of 29) - Under the Additional Favorable Consideration section, the first bullet states that the A/E will receive additional favorable consideration if "Two or three SPs are received for the General Contractor." Please confirm that this is a typographical error and that the statement should instead read “…for the A/E Firm,” consistent with Subfactor 1A.

Answer 9: Yes, this is a typographical error. The statement in the Additional Favorable Consideration section of Subfactor 1A is corrected to read: "Two or three SPs are received for the A/E Firm."

Question 10: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 1B: Past Experience of the General Contractor (Solicitation page 22 of 29) - Under the Similar Projects Characteristics section, first bullet, it states that construction was substantially completed within "eleven (15) years". Please confirm that this is a typographical error and that the intended requirement is that construction was substantially completed within fifteen (15) years.

Answer 10: Yes, this is a typographical error. The intended requirement is that construction was substantially completed within fifteen (15) years prior to the issuance of this

RFP.

Question 11: Solicitation Section VI.G, Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 1B: Past Experience of the General Contractor (Solicitation page 22 of 29) - Under the Additional Favorable Consideration section, the second bullet notes that additional favorable consideration may be provided for projects delivered using the DB or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods. In the Similar Projects characteristics section of Subfactor 1B, similar projects are described as being contracted using the DB delivery method. Please confirm that, consistent with the Similar Projects characteristics, all submitted projects are required to have been contracted using the Design-Build delivery method.

Answer 11: See question 2 response.

Question 12: Page 2 of 29 in the Solicitation outlines details of a Stipend, which will only be paid following Phase 2 to Offerors not selected for award. For planning purposes, can the GSA please confirm the anticipated stipend amount to be paid to each unsuccessful Phase 2 Offeror?

Answer 12: SS: The Government anticipates the stipend amount to be $200,000.00 per Phase 2 Offeror that meets the requirements contained in the solicitation.

Question 13: Would other completed past performance questionnaires, such as NAVFAC

Form PPQ-0, or contractor performance assessment report (CPAR) also be acceptable in lieu of Attachment 1?

Answer 13: The Solicitation has been amended as follows: Past performance ratings for

Similar Projects found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or other information received or researched by the government may also be used to evaluate each quoter’s past performance.

Question 14: Is it acceptable to use relevant project experience from affiliated companies (including parent, subsidiary, or sister companies under common ownership/control) to satisfy the minimum experience and qualification requirements for this project.

Answer 14: No, only the experience of the prime Offeror, or the specific members of a formally established Joint Venture (as detailed in Section II.E.), will be considered to satisfy the minimum experience and qualification requirements.

Experience from affiliated companies that are not part of the Offeror or Joint Venture team will not be accepted.

Question 15: In reference to document SOL DB 2 phase - Part I Section II.D (3) Proprietary Information Agreement (s), Could GSA please clarify what types or categories of contractor proprietary information AECOM Technical Services, Inc. may require access to in order to perform their advisory and assistance services under their separate contract?

Answer 15: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. may require access to the proprietary information included in the Offeror's proposal and any related documents necessary to assist the Government in the evaluation and source selection process for Phase 1 and Phase 2. This includes, but may not be limited to, information regarding the Offeror's proposed team, qualifications, technical approach, and pricing (in Phase 2).

Question 16: Evaluation subfactor for the General Contractor on p.22 of the Solicitation states "Construction was substantially completed with eleven (15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP". Can you please confirm which one is correct Eleven or 15 years?

Answer 16: See question 10 response

Question 17: The solicitation states that responses to questions will be posted on GPE-Govermentwide Point of Entry as an amendment. Can you please identify the GPE for this project ?

Answer 17: All questions and answers will be posted in the System For Award Management (SAM.Gov)

Question 18: Confirm the first bullet under VI.G. 1B, SP Evaluation, should read:

"Construction was substantially completed winthin fifteen (15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP."

Answer 18: See question 10 response.

Question 19: If design is substantially complete, but construction is underway, can the project be included as an SP for the AE firm?

Answer 19: No. In accordance with the solicitation “SP construction was substantially completed within fifteen (15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP.”

Question 20: If a CPARS exists for a project can the CPARS be provided in lieu of a PPQ?

Answer 20: See Question 13 response.

Question 21: Can an editable pdf or Microsoft Word document of Attachments 02 and 03 be provided? (Past Performance Questionnaires for the A/E and GC)

Answer 21: Yes, an editable version (likely in Microsoft Word or an editable PDF format) of Solicitation Attachment 02 and Attachment 03 will be provided as an amendment to the Solicitation. These documents will be attached to the solicitation in SAM.Gov.

Question 22: Please confirm RFQ or any subsequent submissions to shannon.sweeney@gsa.gov be submitted through a GACA gmail account (as the CUI forms are)?

Answer 22: The official Phase 1 submission (RFQ) must be submitted via email to shannon.sweeney@gsa.gov. Although a GACA email address is required to receive the CUI documents, there is no requirement that the RFQ or subsequent submissions to the Contracting Officer must be sent from a GACA email address.

Question 23: Please confirm if a cover letter can be included with our response. If so, would it be considered part of the page count?

Answer 23: Yes, a cover letter may be included with your response. A cover letter will be considered an administrative document and will not count toward the page limits established for the Technical Proposal sections.

Question 24: Section II.B (Page 9): Are there minimum margin requirements?

Answer 24: The solicitation does not specify minimum margin requirements. However, as stated in Section II.B., proposals that include "documentation that is difficult to read, may result in disqualification or a lower evaluation rating." Offerors are advised to use reasonable margins (e.g., one-inch minimum) to ensure readability.

Question 25: Section VI.A (Page 17): Please provide the anticipated date for when the shortlist of the three firms moving to Phase 2 will be publicly announced.

Answer 25: The anticipated date for the shortlist announcement is not yet determined. The Government will notify all Offerors of the selection decision for Phase 2 after the evaluation is complete. The estimated month of when the shortlisted vendors are finalized is March 2026.

Question 26: Section VI.B (Page 18): Can a draft copy of the Phase 2 solicitation be provided prior to the due date of the Phase 1 submission?

Answer 26: No. A draft copy of the complete Phase 2 Solicitation will not be provided prior to the Phase 1 submission due date.

Question 27: Section VI.G - SUBFACTOR 1A: A/E PAST EXPERIENCE (Page 20/21): The RFQ does not require the AE firm's similar projects (SP) to have been delivered via Design-Build or IPD method, it is only listed as an additional favorable consideration. However, Design-Build or IPD method is listed as a requirement on the AE Past Performance Questionnaire form (Solicitation Attachment 02).

Please clarify the correct requirements.

Answer 27: The requirement in the Solicitation text (Subfactor 1A) is correct: The A/E firm's Similar Projects are not required to have been delivered via Design-Build (DB) or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Submission of a project delivered via DB or IPD will be considered an Additional Favorable Consideration. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Solicitation Attachment 02) will be corrected to align with the Solicitation text.

Question 28: Section VI.G - SUBFACTOR 1B GC PAST EXPERIENCE (Page 22): Please confirm that the completion timeframe for similar projects completed by the General Contractor submitted is fifteen (15) years prior to issuance of the RFP.

Answer 28: Confirmed. The completion timeframe for Similar Projects submitted by the

General Contractor is fifteen (15) years prior to the issuance of this RFP.

Question 29: Section VI.G - SUBFACTOR 1B: GC PAST EXPERIENCE: Page 23 does not list a "Submittal Requirement" section in Subfactor 1B for the GC, as there is a "Submittal Requirement" section in Subfactor 1A on the top of page 22 for the AE firm. Please clarify the maximum number of pages allotted for the GC's SPs is four (4) maximum per project.

Answer 29: See question 4 respopnse.

Question 30: Section VI.G - EVALUATION FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (Page 25): Please confirm if submitting as a team lead designer (LD), we are able to submit up to two (2) projects for designer on the team?

Answer 30: Yes. For the Lead Designer component of Evaluation Factor 3, Offerors may submit up to two (2) projects for the designer on the team.

Question 31: Section VI.G - EVALUATION FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (Page 26): Please clarify if the page limit per lead designer (LD) biographical background is three (3) pages per each LD , or three (3) pages total to include all LDs?

Answer 31: The page limit is three (3) pages per Lead Designer (LD) for the biographical background section under Evaluation Factor 3.