Amendment 005.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

NATIONAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (NMACC III) SMALL BUSINESS RESERVES

Proposal Due Date and Time remain unchanged.

See Continuation Page

U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center 5505 Robin Hood Rd Suite K Norfolk, VA 23513

See block 6

70Z04723RNMACCSB

1 6

01/30/2023

01/17/2023

7 0 Z 0 4 7 2 3 R N M A C C S B

CONTINUATION PAGE

This amendment is being issued to incorporate the following changes:

1) Factor 1, Subfactor 1.1, Size:

DELETE: Size: A final construction cost of $6,000,000 to $15,000,000 is preferred. Up to Two (2) projects may have a final construction cost of $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. At least one (1) project must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater.

REPLACE WITH: Size: A final construction cost of $6,000,000 to $15,000,000 is preferred. Up to Two (2) projects may have a final construction cost of $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. At least one (1) project must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 $10,000 or greater.

2) Factor 1, Subfactor 1.2, Size:

DELETE: Size: A final construction cost of $6,000,000 to $15,000,000 is preferred. Up to Two

(2) projects may have a final construction cost of $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. At least one (1) project must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater.

REPLACE WITH: Size: A final construction cost of $6,000,000 to $15,000,000 is preferred. Up to Two (2) projects may have a final construction cost of $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. At least one

(1) project must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 $10,000 or greater.

3) Section M.4 BASIS OF EVALUATION, Factor 1: Experience

DELETE: Factor 1: Experience

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) to seven (7) projects for construction and five to seven for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the seven for Construction Experience and seven (7) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Offerors providing multiple projects within the Tier #2 dollar threshold may receive a higher rating that those that only provide a single project within Tier #2 dollar threshold.

Relevant design-build projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may receive a higher rating than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may receive a higher rating than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Relevant projects that demonstrate a diverse regional experience, within the specific Pool AOR, may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate diverse regional experience.

REPLACE WITH: Factor 1: Experience

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) to seven (7) projects for construction and five to seven for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the seven for Construction Experience and seven (7) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Offerors providing multiple projects within the Tier #2 dollar threshold may receive a higher rating.

Relevant design-build projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may receive a higher rating than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may receive a higher rating than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Relevant projects that demonstrate a diverse regional experience, within the specific Pool AOR, may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate diverse regional experience.

Questions and Answers (numbering continues from Amendment 004):

65. Please confirm that the organizational chart is allowed to be submitted on an 11x17 page format.

Answer: 11x17 is acceptable for the organizational chart

66. Please confirm that a meaningfully involved sister-affiliate company is considered an offeror and not a subcontractor in accordance with instructions provided in Section 1.1 Sub-factor - Construction Experience under Offeror paragraph on page 105.

Answer: The Offeror is defined as the entity signing the SF1442.

67. Are sister-affiliate companies under the same parent company required to submit a teaming agreement or a letter of commitment to show their meaningful involvement similar to the one required by subcontractors?

Answer: Sister-affiliate companies under the same parent company are required to submit a teaming agreement or a letter of commitment.

68. If it was a design-build project where both design and construction companies were sister-affiliates under the same parent in a prime/DOR relationship, are offerors allowed to submit a PPQ given by a sister-prime to a sister-DOR company?

Answer: Based upon the National Defense Authorization Act FY2021, the entity that hires the Designer of Record may fill out the PPQ. However, the Offeror's submitted projects in Factor 1 CPARS/PPQ must be filled out by the project's Owner.

69. Section M.4 Basis of Evaluation for Factor 1 (RFP p. 113) states that “ Offerors providing multiple projects within the Tier #2 dollar threshold may receive a higher rating that those that only provide a single project within Tier #2 dollar threshold.” Section H.20 Project Size Construction Table (p. 33) states that Tier #2 is for project range $15M – $25M and allocated for contract Pool #1 (unrestricted solicitation). SB solicitation is reserved for Pools #2 and #3, which corresponds to Tier #3 project values of below $15M. Can the Government please revise Section M.4 Basis of Evaluation for Factors 1 and 2 accordingly?

Answer: The Project Size Construction Table has an asterisk on the Tier 2 title. The asterisk is defining the following: "* Contracting Officer’s discretion and market research results will determine which projects inside Tier #2 Size/Scale Range will be solicited from Pool #1, #2 or #3." See Amendment Language for Factor 1 and Section M.4

70. Section L.2 Proposal Submission Instructions (p.99) indicates a requirement for Surety Bonding Letter following Sections I through K and prior to JV/teaming agreements. Section L.8 Specific Phase I Proposal Contents (p. 107) requires offeror to submit a formal letter from its bonding company as part of Factor 2: Technical Approach.

– Please indicate if a formal letter from the bonding company is the same as Surety Bonding Letter.

– If the same, should it be submitted after Sections I through K or as part of Factor 2?

– Is it included in Factor 2 page limitation?

Answer: Surety Letter and Bonding Letter are the same and do not count toward page count. The offeror may place the Letter after the Sections I through K.

71. Amendment 3 references Question 28 from Amendment 2; however, Amendment 2 contained a total of 23 Q&As. Amendment 3 started with Q&A 29. Could the Government please clarify?

Answer: See Amendment 004; the Government apologizes for any confusion.

72. The questions and answers from Amendment 2 end at number 23 and the questions and answers from Amendment 3 start at 29. The response to Q45 references a question 28. Please provide questions and answers 24-28.

Answer: See Amendment 004; the Government apologizes for any confusion.

73. Construction Experience - Would the owner please consider waiving the mandatory $15M project requirement? We are currently a small business and have a $30M Bonding capacity for a Single project but haven't had an opportunity to complete a project of that size yet; we are also in the Regional MACCs with the Coast Guard for both Region 7 and Region 8, but since the task order limit for these contracts is only $7M, we didn't get a chance to complete a $15M project. So please confirm that we can submit "evidence of bondability" showing a "Single Project limit" of $15M or more in lieu of the $15M project requirement.

Answer: See amendment language

74. Factor 1 Experience, 1.1, paragraph a, Design Build states: For purpose of this solicitation, Design/Build is defined as a Request for Proposal Bridging documents containing up to 20% concept design. Contract awardee takes concept design to full design

The current criteria of 4 design build projects within the last 8 years is extremely restrictive for small businesses. Strict design build, although more common recently, has not been the norm and will result in many small business being unable to participate. More common have been GCCM alternative delivery method where the contractor has provided constructability analysis, cost estimating, and design assist to the owners 20% or less concept. And then taken the concept, with the owners engineer, to full design and final construction. Although not strictly a design build (engineer works for the contractor), this delivery method is very similar in complexity and structure.

To facilitate more competition and more inclusion by small businesses, will the government allow these similar alternative delivery methods to be used as design build to help make up the 4 design build projects requirement in Factor 1.1 paragraph d?

Answer: Yes, but offeror will need to demonstrate how you performed and how it is akin to design build.

75. The solicitation states projects in the range 6 to 15 million. Please confirm if projects over 15 million in size can be provided under the construction and design experience

Answer: See Amendment Language

76. Can we submit previously filled PPQ on forms "PPQ-0" used by NAVFAC and USACE. This form is identical to attachment C-2 of this solicitation. Several contracting officers and Project managers have moved on in the past five to seven years and it may not be possible to get new evaluations done for projects completed 5 years ago

Answer: Yes, offerors may submit filled PPQ forms by NAVFAC and USACE.

77. Would the Government consider rating SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture offerors whose Subfactor 1.1. projects are only from one member equally with all other offerors?

Answer: Yes, an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé JV may submit projects from one member of the JV and will be evaluated equally with all other offerors. The SBA Approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement must be submitted with the Phase I proposal.

78. The phrase "on one (1) project submitted for factor 1.1 - Construction" was deleted from paragraph

1.1 a in Amendment 002, allowing Offerors to use the construction past performance of key subcontractors for two or more projects. However, Amendment 003 the question " Would the Government consider raising the maximum number of key subcontractor projects under Subfactor 1.1 from 1 project to 2?" was answered by the Government as "Answer: The Government does not anticipate a change at this time" which seems to be a contradiction of the Amendment 002 change. Please clarify if Offerors are still limited to using no more than (1) key subcontractor project under Subfactor 1.1?

Answer: Requirements, as of Amendment 002, the Offeror shall have acted as the prime contractor on a minimum of four submitted projects. This leaves the remaining project to demonstrate multiple key subcontractors experience; however, no more than one project per key subcontractor. Total projects submitted for Construction should be at least 5 and no more than 7. Total projects submitted for Design should be at least 5 and no more than 7.

END OF AMENDMENT