AMEND0002 70Z08725RMISC13611688 Seward Housing.pdf

Task Announcement 70Z08726RMISC13611688 Construct Seward Housing

Project No. 13611688

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3/23/2026 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

13611688

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

CONTRACT SPECIALIST

USCG, CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT JUNEAU

709 WEST 9TH STREET, ROOM 817

JUNEAU, AK 99801

CONTRACTING OFFICER

USCG, CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT JUNEAU

709 WEST 9TH STREET, ROOM 817

JUNEAU, AK 99801

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., STREET, COUNTY, STATE AND ZIP CODE) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

70Z08726RMISC13611688

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03/05/2026

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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.

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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.

B. THE ABOVE REFERENCED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copy to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (ORGANIZED BY UCF SECTION HEADINGS, INCLUDING SOLICITATION/CONTRACT SUBJECT MATTER WHERE FEASIBLE.)

TASK ORDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 70Z08726RMISC13611688, Construct Seward Housing.

A. This amendment is issued to delete and replace pages 90-98 of the Request for Proposal “70Z08726RMISC13611688_Seward_Housing_RFP”

B. Government acknowledges receipt of RFIs submitted and will provide a response in forthcoming amendments.

C. PLEASE RETURN A SIGNED COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or Print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

JOHN W. WRIGHT, CONTRACTING OFFICER, USCG

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

AMENDMENT 0002 RFP 70Z08726RMISC13611688

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 3 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

This amendment makes the following changes to the RFP:

1. Delete Pages 90 – 98, Sections L.3 through M.5 of RFP.

2. Replace with the following:

L.3 Instruction for Submitting Questions Regarding Solicitation:

Offerors are requested to review this solicitation as soon as possible upon receipt. If an offeror has any questions regarding the solicitation which require an answer from the issuing office, these questions shall be submitted, in writing via e-mail to:

jennifer.m.piper@uscg.mil john.wright@uscg.mil Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil

L.4 Instructions for Submitting Questions:

All pre-proposal inquiries regarding this project shall be submitted in writing via electronic email to the Design Project Manager, Harlan Justice, harlan.j.justice@uscg.mil and Contract Specialist, Jennifer Piper, jennifer.m.piper@uscg.mil. Copy john.wright@uscg.mil and Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil .

Questions shall reference the drawing/detail and/or specification section including paragraph number.

The Government may not respond to questions submitted after 01 APRIL, 12:00PM AKST.

L.5 Site Visit (formally 52.236-27):

The clauses at FAR 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offeror is urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

An organized site visit has been scheduled for 17 MAR 2026 at 1:00pm AKST.

Participants will meet at the Project Site in Seward.

All contractor and subcontractor personnel planning to attend the pre-proposal site visit must notify Government no later than 09 MAR at 3:00 pm AKST. Send notification to Jacob Carse, jacob.r.carse@uscg.mil . NOTE: The site visit WILL NOT be rescheduled if contractors fail to meet deadline listed above to submit required documentation.

L.6 Proposal Instructions:

A Preproposal Conference is scheduled for 09 MAR 2026 at 11AM AKST as a Microsoft TEAMs event, there will be a telephone call in line available. The intent of the Preproposal Conference is to review salient features of the work and review the sections L and M of this proposal. Contact Jennifer.M.Piper@uscg and John.Wright@uscg.mil for invites to the conference.

Offeror shall submit proposal entitled “70Z08726RMISC13611688 Seward Housing”.

• Bid Bond for 10% of proposed price IAW 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee

• Completed CLIN pricing for the base and all options, consistent with the Schedule/Price List in

Section B and SF 1442.

mailto:jennifer.m.piper@uscg.mil mailto:john.wright@uscg.mil mailto:Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil mailto:harlan.j.justice@uscg.mil mailto:jennifer.m.piper@uscg.mil mailto:john.wright@uscg.mil mailto:Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil mailto:jacob.r.carse@uscg.mil mailto:Jennifer.M.Piper@uscg mailto:John.Wright@uscg.mil

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 4 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

• A summary price breakdown adequate to support price reasonableness (e.g., major cost elements such as labor, materials, equipment, subcontracted work, and general conditions, & profit). USCG does not accept proposals including any assumptions that affect price.

• Acknowledgment of all solicitation amendments.

Proposal shall be delivered via email only to Cheryl A. Berry Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil and John Wright at and john.wright@uscg.mil NLT 21 APR 2026, 1:00PM AKST.

L.7 Formatting Requirements:

Offerors are to submit proposals in Times New Roman, 12-point font. Margins are limited to standard 1” from all sites. A cover page is acceptable, but not required. Page Limits are listed in each Factor.

The USCG computer systems limit email submissions to 20MB or less. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their submissions meet these size criteria before the due date and time. Note – Attachment B allows Photos which may be submitted as an additional email.

L.8. Factor 1- Planned Approach: Schedule & Risk Mitigation Assessment

1) Page Limits: None

2) Requirement: Provide a project schedule using the Gantt Method

a) From contract award through construction completion, identify no less than 10 but no more than 30 of the most important project activities. The schedule should clearly show the logic and sequence of events necessary for the successful execution of the project.

b) Assume an Award Date of June 06 2026.

L.9. Factor 2 – Prior Experience

1) Page Limit: Attachment A- 1 page. Attachment B- 2 pages for each submitted project for a total of 6 pages. Photos may also be submitted and do not count towards the page limits.

2) Requirements: Provide a completed Attachment A (Experience Overview Sheet) and completed Attachments B (Experience Information Form)

a. Submit three (3) relevant Type 5 residential new build construction projects that best demonstrate your firm’s experience with projects similar to the requirements of this solicitation.

b. Provide a description of each project with sufficient detail to allow for a thorough relevancy evaluation

c. Each residential new build construction project submitted shall:

i. have been completed within 10 years of the date proposals are due for this RFP

OR at least 65% complete by the time of proposal submission, and

ii. have a minimum aggregate total square footage of 9000 sf, and

iii. been constructed in a geographical location with a similar climate as this project

d. For purposes of this solicitation, “residential new build construction projects” follows the International Residential Code (IRC): “Type 5 Construction”. This includes single family homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

3) Optional: Offerors may submit photos for each submitted project and may do so by separate email. If submitting photos, be aware of the MB size of the file.

L.10 Factor 3 - Past Performance

1) Page Limit: None

2) Requirement: For each residential new build construction contract submitted under Factor 2

–Prior Experience, Offerors shall provide past performance documentation in the form as a CPARS if available or in the form a PPQ if a CPARS is not available.

mailto:Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil mailto:john.wright@uscg.mil

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 5 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

a. CPARS: If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available for a submitted project, it shall be submitted with the proposal.

b. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): If a completed CPARS evaluation is not available for a submitted project, Offerors shall provide a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ must be in the prescribed format provided as Attachment C – NAVFAC/USACE/USCG PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ) or in a substantially similar format that provides equivalent information. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the PPQ is completed by the client and submitted with the proposal by the closing date.

3) Offeror’s Responsibility: While the Government may elect to consider past performance data from other documented sources as described in section M, the burden of providing current, detailed, accurate, and complete past performance information rests solely with the Offeror.

Failure to provide adequate or verifiable past performance information for the required projects may result in a lower rating.

L.11. Business/Price Proposal Instructions:

1) Page limit: None

2) Requirements:.

a) Signed Standard Form 1442, Solicitation/Offer/Award, with blocks 14 – 18 completed by the offeror and Blocks 30a-30c.

b) Bid Guarantee IAW 52.228-1 listed above at 10% of total contract price.

c) Completed Price Schedule. All Items must be priced.

d) A summary price breakdown adequate to support price reasonableness (e.g., major cost elements such as labor, materials, equipment, subcontracted work, and general conditions, & profit). USCG does not accept proposals including any assumptions that affect price.

i) The Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost and pricing data. If requested, Offerors must provide other than certified cost and pricing data within five calendar days of request.

e) Section K - Offeror Representations and Certifications – Complete the requested information in each applicable provision in Section K (52.209-7). Only return the applicable provisions, not the entire solicitation.

f) Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments (if any). This can be accomplished by completing section 19 on the SF-1442 or by submitting the signed SF-30(s) from sam.gov with your price proposal.

g) All documents shall be submitted as specified in block 13 of the SF-1442. It is the vendor’s responsibility to ensure delivery of all required documents by the date and time set for receipt of offers

3) Contact the Contracting Officer by e-mail if you do not understand any part of these instructions.

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 6 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR Clause by Full Text:

FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (July 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the Option(s).

(End of Provision)

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government. The Government will use a tradeoff process in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. In this process, all non-price factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price. All technical Factors are considered equal.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors:

• Factor 1: Planned Approach Schedule & Risk Mitigation Assessment

• Factor 2: Prior Experience

• Factor 3: Past Performance

• Factor 4: Business/Price Proposal

M.3 EVALUATION OF NON-PRICE FACTORS:

M.3.1. FACTOR 1- PLANNED APPROACH SCHEDULE & RISK MITIGATION ASSESSMENT

1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed schedule to assess the degree to which it demonstrates an understanding of the project's scope and presents a logical, realistic, and achievable plan.

2) The proposal will be evaluated on the quality and completeness of the Gantt Chart schedule.

The schedule must cover the entire project lifecycle, from contract award through construction completion, including key pre-construction activities (e.g., submittals, mobilization, material procurement, etc)

a) The schedule must clearly illustrate a logical sequence of events based upon a hypothetical contract award date of June 6, 2026 and the uniqueness of the geographical location.

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 7 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

b) The evaluation will assess the relevance and accuracy of the identified construction activities, confirming that no less than 10 but no more than 30 of the most important activities are listed. The selection of activities should reflect a clear understanding of the project's primary drivers.

MERIT OPPORTUNITY: Schedules which clearly illustrate a sequence of events that accounts for the unique geographical location of the project may result in a higher rating. Schedules whose selected activities demonstrate that the offeror thoroughly understands the project’s primary drivers may receive a higher rating.

M.3.2. FACTOR 2 – PRIOR EXPERIENCE

1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's prior experience for relevance to the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the information provided in Attachments A and B.

2) The degree of relevance for each of the three (3) submitted projects will be assessed based on the following criteria

a. Similar Size: Verification that each residential new build construction project included 9000sf or more of residential space.

b. Completion Date: Verification that residential new build construction projects were completed or substantially completed (65%) by the date proposals were due.

c. Geographic Location: Similarity of location of residential new build construction projects to Seward, AK.

MERIT OPPORTUNITY: Proposals demonstrating relevant experience on residential new builds performed in Coastal Alaska may receive a higher rating for this factor. Proposals whose residential new build projects involving duplexes may receive a higher rating.

M.3.3. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

1) The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality and relevance of the Offeror's past performance. This evaluation will focus on the projects submitted under Factor 2.

2) Submitted Documentation: The Government will review the submitted CPARS evaluations and/ or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for each relevant project. The recency and relevance of the information will be key considerations.

3) In addition to the Offeror's submissions, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. These sources may include, but are not limited to:

a. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

b. The Integrity Information module or section of SAM.gov

c. Internal agency records (e.g., contract files, correspondence)

d. Direct knowledge of agency personnel regarding the Offeror's performance on relevant projects, particularly those performed directly with the Coast Guard (CG) and/or Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

4) The evaluation will result in an overall past performance rating. The burden of providing current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. Offerors who fail to provide the required past performance information may receive a lower rating. A lack of relevant past performance history may result in a Neutral rating.

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 8 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

MERIT OPPORTUNITY: Offerors whose past performance records on submitted projects reflects a pattern of ratings higher than Satisfactory may receive a higher rating.

M.4 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4 – BUSINESS/PRICE PROPOSAL

The price proposal will be evaluated, but not scored. The evaluation will assess:

a. Completeness: The Government will verify that all required documents are submitted, including a signed SF 1442, a completed Price Schedule, completed provisions from Section K, and acknowledged amendments.

b. The Government will evaluate total proposed price for the base and all options (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The total evaluated price will be the arithmetic sum of the base CLINs and all option CLINs. The Government may require other than certified price and cost data.

c. Price Reasonableness: Assessed using one or more techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b), which may include, but are not limited to: comparison to an Independent Government Estimate (IGE); comparison to historical prices paid for similar work; price analysis of the Offeror’s breakdown; and/or other relevant market data.

d. Price Completeness: The Government will review for completeness and consistency with the solicitation requirements and the CLIN structure, including acknowledgement of amendments.

e. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government may evaluate offers for unbalanced pricing (mathematical or material) and may reject an offer if such pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government

a. M.5 Selection: The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with source selection procedures as found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and this RFP. The Government intends to use a best value tradeoff selection process as described in the paragraphs below. The offeror must be responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, and the proposal must conform to the RFP requirements, meet all technical requirements, and present the best value to the government. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the offer being considered ineligible for award. Selection will be based on the proposals determined to be the best value to the Government in responses to the stated criteria.

M.6 Award without Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, however, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M.7 Ratings:

The non-price factors and proposals will be evaluated on the merits of the proposal and an evaluation team will develop a narrative to indicate the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as they relate to risk associated with each factor. The following adjectival ratings will be assigned to each non-price factor and to each non-price proposal only after the narrative comments have been discussed and documented. Use of adjective ratings will allow maximum flexibility in making any tradeoffs among the evaluation factors. Only the adjectival ratings below may be used.

Rating System for Non-Price Excluding Past Performance Rating Definition Superior Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal strengths will

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 9 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025 significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Very Good Proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and an approach that substantially exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has multiple strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few, or no strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Significant weaknesses or deficiency exists that may be correctable without major proposal revisions. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

Rating System for Past Performance

Ratings Definition Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror, key personnel, or subcontractors. This is neither a negative nor positive assessment.

Superior Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is exceptionally low

Good Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is very low.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is low.

Marginal Based on the offeror's past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is moderate.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is high.

Project No. 13611688

CEU JUNEAU – RFP Construction 10 FAC 2025-06 Effective Date 10/01/2025

5.4 Definitions:

Strength: An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government. Evaluators must explain how the strength benefits the Government.

Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. When identifying a weakness, evaluator must comment on significance or weakness and the expected impact on contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies: A serious flaw or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to a potential unacceptable level.

M.5 Source Selection Decision:

A tradeoff analysis will be conducted between price and non-price factors. As proposals approach equality in the assessment of quality, price will become more important in the tradeoff process. The Government will award a contract only after a determination that the award can be made within the funds available and after a Contracting Officer determination that the price is fair and reasonable.

END OF SOLICITATION