FA2823-17-R-4000_Amendment_0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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 (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate Questions and Answ ers #7 dated 06 June 2017.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Jun-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA2823-17-R-4000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-May-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 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 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 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 NUMBERED 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 copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Jun-2017

CODE

AFTC/PZIO EGLIN - FA2823

308 WEST D AVE. BLDG 260 STE 130

EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5418

FA2823 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA2823-17-R-4000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

FA2823-17-R-4000-0008

Questions and Answers #7

June 6, 2017

Q1. Are bidders for this SABER required to have a bona-fide office in this SBA region to bid this opportunity?

A1. No, there is no regional set aside for this acquisition.

Q2. RFP - PAGE 53 - SECTION L - VOLUME 1 - TAB #4. Page 53 of 67 of the RFP in the TAB #4 section reference to JV's states; “If the Offeror is a small business Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. If the JV Agreement requires approval by the SBA, furnish the SBA supporting documentation.” 13 CFR 124.513(E)(1) reads “SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.” QUESTION: Will the JV need SBA approval prior to bid due date or prior to award as specified in the CFR?

A2. See Amendment 0002. Section L has been revised to address the submission requirements for Offerors proposing as a Joint Venture.

Q3. Section L (page 51 of 67) paragraph 3.13 states: “Pricing Information: All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume IV.” The next paragraph (3.14) states: “Cross Referencing: Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.” Volume II Factor 1 (Technical) Subfactor 2 (Coefficient Rationale) requires offerors to submit information to substantiate their proposed coefficients. It will be impossible to adequately write a description on coefficient development without either discussing pricing data or cross-referencing to Volume IV or both. Please consider either: (A) waiving the requirements of paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 for Factor 1 Subfactor 2 (i.e., allowing offerors to discuss pricing in this section), or (B) moving the Factor 1 Subfactor 2 section out of Volume II (Technical Volume) and putting it into Volume IV (Price Volume).

A3. Section L has been revised to remove the following language in paragraph 3.13: “Pricing Information: All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume IV.” The Cross Referencing language will remain unchanged as the elimination of the language in paragraph 3.13 now allows for discussion of pricing information under Technical Subfactor 2.

Q4. SF 1442 Blocks 7 & 8 indicate that proposals should be addressed to: AFTC/PZIO EGLIN - FA2823, 308 WEST D AVENUE, SUITE 130 (BLDG 260), EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5418. Section L (page 50 of 67) paragraph 3.6 indicates that proposals should be addressed to the CO and Administrator at the address shown in Block 7 of the SF 1442. Section L (page 50 of 67) paragraph 3.1 indicates that proposals shall be hand delivered or mailed to arrive at:

AFTC/PZIOC, ATTN: Ronald J. Wilson/Kristina B. Brannon, Source Selection Facility, 210 West D. Avenue, Building 373, Eglin AFB, FL 32542. Please confirm that proposals should be DELIVERED to the Source Selection Facility, 210 West D. Avenue, Building 373 but ADDRESSED to 308 West D Avenue, Suite 130 (Bldg. 260).

A4. Offeror’s are to mail/deliver their proposal to the Source Selection Facility 210 West D. Avenue, Building 373.

Block 8 of the SF 1442 and paragraph 3.6 of Section L have been revised accordingly. See Amendment 0004.3.1

Q5: Several questions have been asked in regards to how the past performance evaluation of Offerors who propose under Teaming Arrangements will be considered.

A4: Section M, Factor 2 -- Past Performance - Clarification on the evaluation of Past Performance for those Offerors proposing under a Teaming Arrangement.

The FAR specifically defines two (2) types of Contractor Team Arrangements under Subpart 9.6 --

(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

Under the first type of arrangement, companies form a legal entity in which the Government has privity of contract.

In the context of the 8(a) Program, this is a formal process (13 C.F.R. 125.8) that is approved by the SBA and gives the Government confidence that the entities forming the joint venture will perform the contract and provides for remedies should the joint venture not perform in accordance with the SBA approved agreement. Additionally, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.8 (e) procuring activities are required to evaluate the past performance of the entities that comprise the joint venture.

Under the second type of arrangement the Government has privity of contract only with prime contractor not its proposed subcontractors or key personnel. The prime contractor is not required to undergo the SBA approval process and the Government has no guarantee that the subcontractors proposed will actually perform the work. Under this type of agreement the Government is not obligated to evaluate the past performance of subcontractors or key personnel unless the solicitation expressly states it will do so.

For this solicitation, the Government has determined that limiting the performance confidence assessment to the legal entity’s (Prime or Joint Venture) past performance is necessary to ensure that the evaluation focuses on those with whom the Government will have privity of contract, and prevents ratings from being inflated by the past performance of subcontractors or key personnel who have no obligation to perform under the contract.

Q6: Under a Mentor-Protégé agreement will the past performance of the mentor be considered under this solicitation?

A6: No. Mentor-Protégé Agreements do not form a legal entity. A joint venture agreement would need to be entered into with the mentor to allow their past performance to be evaluated. See response to Question 5.

Q7: Volume III, Past Performance, Tab #1 requests offerors to prepare and distribute a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment U, to past performance references. Is it acceptable for offerors to submit CPARS or PPIRS documentation rather than requesting completion of the PPQ, Attachment U? Further, if a CPARs or PPIRS is unavailable, can offerors submit a previously completed PPQ rather than requesting completion of the PPQ, Attachment U?

A7: Offerors are not permitted to submit any evaluated past performance questionnaires or CPARS evaluations. All PPQs or CPARs must come from the Offeror’s references. The first page of Attachment U contains instructions for Offeror’s references who have specific policies regarding the submission of PPQs when a CPARS evaluation has already been performed. No, Offerors are not allowed submit a previously completed PPQ. Only Attachment U can be submitted.

Q8: In regards to Volume III, Past Performance, Tab #2, if an offeror intends to respond as Joint Venture, do the IDIQ contracts submitted in response to Factor 2 need to demonstrate experience performing together?

A8: No. Past performance will be evaluated on either the Joint Venture or the entities that comprise the Joint Venture.

See response

Q9: Considering that the evaluation of Factor 2 Past Performance is limited to the legal entity (Prime or Joint Venture) per Amendment 0004, do an equal number of contracts need to be submitted from each JV partner?

A9: References are limited to a total of five (5). It is up to each Offeror to decide what references will be submitted.

Q10: In a Joint-Venture arrangement, can a non 8(a) member of the JV be the sole producer of the bond capability for the proposal as well as the payment and performance bonds after award?

A10: Yes, so long as the non-8(a) member is a signatory party to the SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement.

Q11: SOW paragraph 6.1.1 states that “The PM shall be a Professional Engineer (P.E.) or Registered Architect (R.A.)

or shall have a degree in Construction Management or Program Management.” It also states that “If the PM is not a Professional Engineer (P.E.) or Registered Architect (R.A.) the Contractor shall have a P.E. or R.A. assigned on site (Eglin AFB) as a full time program management staff member.” Regarding the PM’s college or university education, this paragraph implies that a degree in architecture or engineering is acceptable, but what it says is that these degrees are only acceptable if the individual has a professional registration. As written, this language excludes all otherwise qualified PMs with degrees (but no registration) in engineering and architecture – highly relevant disciplines to this contract’s scope. And since there are few if any colleges or universities offering degrees in Program Management, the RFP effectively limits PMs (with the required experience) to those who are either P.E.s, R.A.s, or individuals with a degree in Construction Management. Consider revising the first part of the second sentence as follows: “The PM shall be a Professional Engineer (P.E.) or Registered Architect (R.A.) or shall have a degree in Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, or Program Management and have…”

A11: The requirements of SOW paragraph 6.1.1 will not be changed.

Q12: Program Manager, Project Manager(s), Quality Control Manager(s), Project Superintendent(s) and Environmental Manager. “Offerors may submit up to four (4) additional pages per each of the above listed positions to demonstrate the required education and/or experience. These pages will not count against the overall ten (10) page limit.”

It appears we can provide multiple individuals for several of these roles. Please clarify whether we are allowed to submit the additional four pages for each POSITION (e,g., Project Manager), or each INDIVIDUAL listed for a position (e.g, John Smith, Tom Jones, Mary Smith).

A12: Yes.

Q13: The SOW, Paragraph 6.1.1, states that the Program Manager must be a P.E., R.A. or shall have a degree in Construction Management. It is further stipulated that if the PM is a Construction Management Graduate, that a licensed P.E. or R.A. shall be a part of the full time onsite PM staff. Would the Government be willing to accept a given amount of experience (i.e., CM degree plus 20 years of experience, to include design management) in lieu of the P.E. or R.A. requirement? The presence of a P.E. or R.A. designation does not guaranty experience in either design management or construction management, and the PM and PM staff per Paragraph 6.2 are responsible for providing multi-discipline engineering support, which will include outside consultants — because, for instance, a registered civil P.E. on staff would have no input and little knowledge of an interior electrical or mechanical modification, requiring the PM staff to use their outside consultants for design regardless of the fact that a P.E. may be on the contractor’s staff.

A13: No, the PM does not have to have a PE or RA. If the PM does not have a PE or RA there will be a full time PE on staff located at Eglin AFB.

Q14: The SOW, Paragraph 6.1.1, requires that an R.A or a P.E. be on staff and on-site fulltime at Eglin, either as the PM or another team member. Does the government anticipate the PM or the designated team member having to provide “stamped/sealed” drawings on a daily basis?

A14: Some projects will require PE stamped drawings.

Q15: The SOW, Paragraph 6.2 states, “NOTE: Appropriate Contractor personnel require working knowledge and capability to utilize project management software.” Is this referring to government software, similar to the USACE RMS system, or one used by our company?

A15: Applies to any software utilized for management of this contract.

Q16: Regarding the P.E./R.A. requirement for the PM or a designated individual, would the government consider the registered individual to be available within a certain time frame, such as 2 hours?

A16: Para 6.1.2 States “, the PM or alternate(s) shall be available within one (1) hour to meet on Eglin AFB with Government personnel (as authorized by the CO) to discuss contract issues (a cell phone number for this purpose shall be provided to the CO prior to the PPC, and shall be updated as changes occur). The requirement for1 hour remains unchanged.

Q17: Subfactor 1, Management Plan, is required to be based on 45-70 multi-disciplined task orders. If a P.E./R.A. is required, please advise as to the % of task orders that will be oriented towards each discipline (i.e. Civil, Structural, Mechanical, or Electrical).

A17: It is unknown how many projects in each discipline will require PE Certification. Para. 6.8.1 States “Professional Engineer Certification. All designs requiring Professional Engineer (PE) Certification are qualified and have valid documentation supporting this requirement.” Offerors should review Attachment X, SABER Historical Data. While this data does not indicate which projects required PE certification it should provide some insight into the types of projects that could potentially require PE certification.

Q18: Subfactor 1, Management Plan, requires submission of qualifications for the following listed key personnel: PM, Project Manager(s), Quality Control Manager(s), Project Superintendent(s), and Environmental Manager. Please confirm these are the only key personnel in which we need to submit qualifications for.

A18: Yes.

Q19: Attachment A - Master SOW – Section 4 & Section 5; Section 4.1 specifies e4Clicks as estimating software;

Section 4.3 requires RS Means licenses; Section 5.1 requires e4Clicks licenses.

e4Clicks licenses come with RS Means license, is the RS Means requirement in addition to the e4Clicks requirement or will supplying the 10 e4Clicks licenses that incorporate RS Means licenses be sufficient?

A19: Yes, e4Clicks licenses that incorporate RS Means licenses are sufficient

Q20: Reference RFP, Subfactor 1 Management Plan, paragraph (2) " Offerors shall provide evidence that their proposed key personnel meet the minimum standards (education and/or experience) for those positions in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 6 of the SABER Statement of Work, Attachment A:".

As we will have to recruit and hire individuals to fill some of the key personnel positions, is it acceptable to list the education and/or experience required for each key position we will be filling, in lieu of an individual's resume?

A20: No, it is not acceptable to just list the educational requirements as the Government already knows what its requirements are. Offerors are reminded of the functional relationship between Section L & Section M. In accordance with Section L paragraph, 2.2 “Proposals shall be complete, clearly presented, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Section M of this solicitation and for substantiating validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s facilities and/or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.” Additionally, under Factor 1 - Technical Subfactor 1: Management Plan in Section M it states that the Government will evaluate the Offeror's management approach AND key personnel qualifications.

Offerors are required to demonstrate that they HAVE experienced and qualified key personnel that meet the minimum qualifications of the Statement of Work. Failure to provide required key personnel qualifications may result in an unfavorable evaluation or an Unacceptable Technical/Risk Rating.

Q21: Are there any areas that are considered “Secure” areas outside of the main base area that should be taken into consideration during coefficient development?

A21: Yes, there are “secure” areas outside of the main base, but they are hard to quantify because their classification of “secure” has to do not only location of the work to be performed, but also in regards to the specific project requirements, period of performance of the project, etc. In accordance with Section M Table 1.1 the Government anticipates 5% of the total work to be in a secure areas.

Q22: The government’s response to Q14 indicates the government expects the PE/RA required in SOW 6.1.1 to stamp drawings. Will the government require proof of design liability insurance by either the certified PM, certified PE/RA or the SABER GC?

A22: Contractor must abide by all legal requirements in regards to PE certification/practices. If a PE/RA is required by law to carry minimum design liability insurance they shall maintain the minimum required. Design liability insurance is typically held by the individual PE/RA or company they work for. The Government will not require proof unless situations arise that bring the insurance into question.

Q23: The recent government response concerning the P.E. /R.A. draws some confusion in the SOW requirements. SABER SOW, par 3.3. Commencement Documents reads, “A 100% design level effort may be necessary when Professional Engineering (PE) Certification is required.” The “may be necessary” indicates this is an as needed requirement; however par 6.1.1 requires a full time PE. Are the two engineering requirements related?

A23: No, they are not related.

Q24: As this is a Best Value Trade-Off RFP, will the choice of the engineering certification as required in SOW 6.1.1 have a bearing on that trade-off i.e., will proposals with Mechanical P.E.’s be considered more valued than one with an Electrical or Civil?

A24: In this solicitation, the identification of strengths and weaknesses are an inherit part in rating each Offeror’s Technical Proposal. In the context of key personnel, the Government will evaluate the individual proposed against the minimum qualifications identified in the Statement of Work, identify any strengths or weaknesses of the proposed individual as it relates to contract requirements and assess the risk of unsuccessful performance based on the proposed key personnel’s experience and qualifications.

Q25: The government response to Q#17 refers the contractors to the Historical Data in Attachment X of the RFP. In review of this data, the number of annual task orders ranged from 40 to 88. At its peak, there were 37 in two months.

Please confirm that we are to base our staffing positions, and our coefficient, on the RFP’s estimated 40-75 simultaneous task orders year round.

A25: Yes.

Q26. Can you please clarify if tax exemption will be provided by the Government for the SABER at Eglin AFB?

A26. The tax exemption will not apply to construction materials on this project.

Q27. Does the person hand-delivering our response have to obtain prior approval/authorization or be a US Citizen?

A27. Offerors should refer to paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Section L for instructions on submission of proposals.

Q28: In the evaluation criteria for Factor 2, Past Performance relevancy is defined as “Performance of construction work as a Prime Contractor or Joint Venture under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) or Requirements contract with an estimated value exceeding $15M with a three (3) year minimum ordering period/total period of performance that was the same or similar as the requirements set forth in the RFP, including the specifications and drawings.”

As an 8(a) set-aside, would the government please consider eliminating the language “with an estimated value exceeding $15M” from this definition? This can be potentially limiting of competition, as many firms in this socio-economic category have been awarded IDIQ contracts of smaller value with identical task order/work order projects that should be considered under this Factor. High-performing 8(a) firms have performed several of these term contracts concurrently; well above $15M spread out over several different contracts. We encourage the government to consider this type of project experience as relevant, given that the projects are same/similar to all other requirements in the RFP.

For example, an 8(a) firm concurrently performed three SABER contracts and a SATOC contract, each with a capacity of $4M-10M over the terms of the contracts. Each had the same requirements as this RFP and specifications, each required multiple concurrent task orders to be performed, and each had complex staffing plans. As this RFP is currently written, none of the task orders performed under these contracts would be considered relevant – although the “effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires” (Very Relevant, according to the Relevancy Criteria in Table 1, Section M).

A28: The Government will not change the Relevancy definition. This same dollar amount was used in the Relevancy definition on the previous SABER solicitation issued by our office and there was no indication that the inclusion of the $15M requirement impeded competition as the Government received 10 offers in response to the solicitation.