FA2823-17-R-4014-0009_Amendment_0009.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 17 May 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 17-May-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-4014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Apr-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 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 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

17-May-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-4014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

FA2823-17-R-4014-0009

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #7

17 May 2017

Question 1: Per the instructions in Section L, Paragraph 2(f) of this solicitation, I'm requesting Contracting Officer clarification regarding the presentation of the line item costs in Attachment 3 - Roofing Bid Schedules.

As an 8(a) firm working under NAICS 238160, we will use a qualified roofing contractor--a subcontractor to us--to execute work under this contract. Hence, in addition to our direct subcontract costs, we as the prime will also have costs for general conditions, project administration, etc. As the Roofing Bid Schedules are currently designed, it seems we will need to incorporate our prime contractor costs into every line item in the Bid Schedule in order to effectively capture total contract cost to the Government. Is that the Government's preference?

I'm asking because, due to the differing complexity of individual task orders under this IDIQ, I can envision scenarios where general project conditions, etc. for some task orders could be significantly greater than for others. Trying to average those costs into each line item could potentially result in either higher risk to an 8(a) contractor on more complex task orders or higher cost to the Government for more straightforward roofing projects.

Answer: This is a firm-fixed price contract and as such the prices are not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract and this contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. Therefore, Offerors should propose prices that take into account all aspects of the cost to perform the contract, to include any overhead and profit. Additionally, all Offerors are reminded that the awarded contractor is subject to FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and that the Government considers this effort to be construction by special trade contractors. The awarded contractor will be required to perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.

Question 2: Solicitation, Page 55. If representations and certifications are up-to-date in SAM, shall the offeror provide printed copies of data from the website for Volume 1, Tab#5?

Answer: Yes. Offerors are reminded to complete both the FAR and DFARS representations and certifications in SAM. Offerors must also ensure that any additional representations and certification listed in Section K that are not in SAM are completed and submitted with their offer.

Question 3: Solicitation, Page 57. Shall the offeror submit individual task orders under an IDIQ contract for the past performance examples or shall the offeror use an entire IDIQ contract as one Past Performance example?

Answer: The entire IDIQ should be submitted as one reference and the Offeror should annotate the number of task orders completed under the contract in their description of the work performed and explanation of why the referenced effort is relevant.

Question 4: Solicitation, Page 58 and Attachment 8, Page 1. According to the solicitation, the Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted with the proposal from the offeror. However, according to the instructions on Attachment 8, the evaluator is to email/fax the completed evaluation directly to Mr. Wesolowski. Is it acceptable for the evaluators to send the evaluations to the offeror to include in the proposal documents?

Answer: No. If you will notice above in the Tabs there is no specified Tab for completed Past Performance Questionnaires. As specified in Section L, Offerors are to complete Section A of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 8) and forward to their clients and instruct them to complete Sections B and C. Offeror’s clients will then follow the instructions on the Questionnaire and forward the completed Questionnaire directly to Mr.

Wesolowski.

Question 5: Attachment 8, Page 1. If the PPQ's are to be emailed/faxed to Mr. Wesolowski, what is the latest date these can be emailed/faxed by the evaluator?

Answer: We need all PPQs no later than the date for receipt of proposals, 24 May 2017.

Question 6: 1. On page 65 of the Solicitation Document, it is stated "in evaluating the past performance of a Joint Venture, the Government will limit its evaluation to the past performance of the Joint Venture, not its members." It is the intent of our firm to submit an offer for the subject solicitation as a new Joint Venture. The strength of this new Joint Venture comes from one member bringing exceptional roofing expertise, while the other member brings exceptional construction management expertise. Is it permissible to submit a proposal from a new Joint Venture and show past performance from each of the Joint Venture members for evaluation?

Answer: Yes. Paragraph 4(b)(2) Relevancy Assessment of Section M has been revised to allow for the submission of past performance for the members of any Joint Venture. See Amendment 0005.

Question 7: What weight do you place on Team Members? It is stated on page 58 of the Solicitation that we may include a teaming or partnership agreement or letter of intent for consideration. It is not stated that we can submit our Team Member’s past performance, but we believe that being able to include these references would be the best way to show the strength that a Team Member would bring to the teaming arrangement. How will you evaluate (or what weight do you place on) a Team Member? And is it permissible to submit our Team Member’s past performance as part of the 5 requested past performance references?

Answer: In regards to the requirement for the submission of teaming/partnership agreement. In accordance with FAR 9.603 in order for the Government to recognize the validity and integrity of any contractor team arrangement, the arrangement must be fully disclosed in an offer. In the context of this solicitation it is primarily for those contractor team arrangements in which two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor (See FAR 9.601 (1)). The Government will not evaluate subcontractor past performance under a typical Prime-Subcontractor team arrangement. (See FAR 9.601(2))

In the context of a Joint Venture, the Government has not established any weighting of individual Joint Venture participants. However, the Government will consider and evaluate the past performance of the members of a Joint Venture taking into consideration the information presented in an Offeror’s SBA approved Joint Venture agreement.

Question 8: Are bidders permitted to include major subcontractors’ past performance for certain aspects of work?

Answer: No. See response to Question 7 and revised Section M (Amendment 0005).

Question 9: Please clarify if you will accept a CPARS Evaluation in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 8) for Solicitation No. FA2823-17-R-4014, or if we need to use the attachment 8 PPQ for all past performance references?

Answer: It may be the policy of some Government agencies to respond to Past Performance Questionnaires by attaching the CPARS evaluation in lieu answering specific questions. In these instances Offerors may instruct their clients to complete Section B of the PPQ and attach the CPARS Evaluation instead of completing Section C. If the agency does not have a specific policy in regards to PPQs and CPARS Evaluations then we request that they complete the PPQ and send directly to us.

Question 10: Reference: SF 1442, Item 13. A. states the Government requires: “Sealed offers in original and 3 copies…” while Solicitation, Pg. 54 of 67, Section 4. OFFERS, states the offeror shall submit original + 2 each hard copies. Please clarify proposal submittal is one (1) original and: either two (2) or three (3) hard copies.

Answer: SF 1442 Item 13A should read original and two (2) hard copies to correspond with Section L of the solicitation. In addition, Offerors are reminded of the requirement to submit their entire proposal on CD/DVD.

Question 11: The Table of Contents shows DIV 01 57 20 as Temporary Environmental Controls, however, the specification section is shown as 01 57 19. Furthermore, there are references to "01 57 20 Environmental Protections" (e.g. Section 01 11 00, 1.35.3), but there is no Environmental Protections section included. Should we use the "Temporary Environmental Controls" specification instead?

Answer: The specifications have been revised. See Amendment 0006. The Table of Contents shows has been revised to show 01 57 19. This change has been noted with a triangle and a numeral 1 on the revised specifications.

Question 12: The Table of Contents shows DIV 01 74 19 Construction and Demolition Waste Management, however, there is no specification section included.

Answer: The specifications have been revised. See Amendment 0006. The specifications have been updated with this DIV 01 74 19 specification section included. This change has been noted with a triangle and a numeral 1 on the revised specifications.

Question 13: The Table of Contents shows DIV 07 41 63 Fabricated Metal Roof Panel Assemblies, however, there is no specification section included.

Answer: The specifications have been revised. See Amendment 0006. The specifications have been revised to remove the reference to DIV 07 41 63. This specification is not a part of this project. This change has been noted with a triangle and a numeral 1 on the revised specifications.

Question 14: The UFC provided is based on 01 May 2012 / Change 1, 22 May 2014. There is a recently version of UFC 03-110-03, 01 May 2012 / Change 2, 1 Jan 2017. Question: The Government wants to use the 2014 version for this IDIQ or the most recent one that is 2017.

Answer: The specifications have been revised. See Amendment 0006. The updated version of UFC 03-110-03, 1 Jan 2017 shall be used and has been included in the specifications. The outdated UFC 03-110-03 has been replaced.

This change has been noted with a triangle and a numeral 1 on the revised specifications.

Question 15: Is it acceptable for a contractor to individually list projects that were performed under an IDIQ contract?

There are several projects that we would like to individually showcase with their own questionnaire rather than completing one PPQ for the entire IDIQ.

Answer: No. An IDIQ contract should be submitted as one reference. This is consistent with Relevancy Assessment language in Section M which states that the Government considers relevant IDIQ type contracts more relevant than single projects. See Response to Question 3.

Question 16: Will Past performance of subcontractors be considered relevant?

Answer: No. See responses to Question 7 and 8 and Amendment 0005.

Question 17: Is there lead paint or asbestos identified at Bldg 945?

Answer: No lead paint or asbestos has been identified by the Government.

Question 18: Will escorts be required full time for contractor personnel working on site?

Answer: The Government will provide any required escorts required for work being performed in secure locations.

Question 19: RFP references the Eglin Architectural Compatibility Standards. Where can we get a current copy of this?

Answer: The document has been uploaded to the Federal Business Opportunities website. The document is titled, Eglin Architectural Compatibility Plan.

Question 20: To avoid sending multiple PPQ’s to our current contracting officers for our ongoing projects, can we use a PPQ recently written for another contract proposal? We just submitted one to __________ that is nearly identical.

Answer: No. In accordance with the solicitation instructions for Past Performance Questionnaires, “Evaluators are only allowed to use the Attachment 8, Past Performance Questionnaire.”

Question 21: I don’t understand what this line item means.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

HEIGHT FACTOR, 30 FEET OR GREATER ABOVE GROUND, UNIT EACH=JOB CSQ 5

Can you please elaborate?

Answer: This is an additional Cost per 100 Squares (CSQ) that will be added for work performed at 30 feet or Greater above the ground.

Question 22: Is it possible to provide us with the metrics for the past few years on types of task orders awarded? For example, 53% were new standing seam; 47% were repair modified bit roof etc...

Answer: Unfortunately, no. The Government does not have task order data broken out by type of repair or roof type.

Question 23: We are interested in submitting the Proposal with a Teaming/Agreement with the Primary GC. The teaming company do we need to be 8a?

Answer: The prime contractor is required to be 8(a).

Question 24: Past Performance Questionnaire and References- will Teaming Company (will be _________) will be able to submit these documents?

Answer: No. See responses to Questions 7 and 8 above.

Question 25: For my hand delivery of the listed proposal, will I need to provide my info again for base access? My plan is to arrive the morning of 05/24/2017 and deliver to Bldg. 37. Actually, I plan on dropping the proposal off on the afternoon of 05/23. Please advise on base access procedures to accomplish this.

Answer: The Contracting Office will not assist in gaining access to the base to hand deliver proposals. I direct your attention to paragraph 3 (a) of Section L which states, “Offerors are cautioned that Eglin AFB, FL has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS; therefore, please allow adequate time. If you are unable to access the base or denied access to Eglin AFB, FL, the proposal will need to be mailed sufficiently in advance to permit delivery by the deadline. Contracting Office personnel will not meet Offerors at the gate nor will they arrange for temporary access to Eglin AFB. Please plan accordingly.”

Also, the building number listed for delivery of proposals is incorrect. The correct Building number is 373. Paragraph 3 of Section L has been revised. See Amendment 0008.

Question 26: “We are forming a new Joint Venture (JV) comprised of an 8(a) Prime and highly qualified small business roofing contractor to pursue this opportunity. Due to the time and cost constraints associated with forming a JV, will the government accept a letter of intent to form the JV at the time of offer and allow the official SBA approved JV to be submitted upon award? This will potentially support more 8(a) respondents and increased competition for best value to the government.”

Answer: No. As we have received several questions on the topic of Joint Ventures, paragraph 4.3 (d) of Section L has been revised to clarify what Offeror’s are required to submit in response to the solicitation if the intent is to form a Joint Venture for this solicitation. See Amendment 0008 for the changes in submission requirements for Joint Ventures.

Question 27: Reference: SOW 7.1 Demolition Work- 3. Remove and dispose of paint coatings on approximately 133 LF of 3" x 4" x 1/2" angle. Are we to remove all paint from the angle to expose the metal in its entirety, or remove the loose and deteriorated coatings where they exist, and has this material been tested for hazardous materials?

Answer: Remove the loose and deteriorated paint, and up to 133 LF or un-deteriorated paint, along the exposed leg of the angle. Assume the paint has been tested for hazardous materials and does not contain any (will confirm). If hazardous materials are detected, they will be removed under separated contract.

Question 28: Reference: SOW 7.2 New Construction- 9. Touch up newly exposed or damaged wall paint with matching color. The existing walls are in varied states of decline. Some of the areas are peeling severely and extend from the angle down the wall for 1 to 2 feet. Please define where the limits of repairing this should be drawn.

Answer: This item refers to paint on the exterior where flashings or roofing components will be removed to install the new roofing system. Some unpainted areas might be exposed. This item is to touch up those areas, or any areas that are damaged by the roofing work performed.

Question 29: There are two 016 in the line item sheets. They are different. Which is accurate?

Answer: All Line Items need to be priced. It was an oversight by the Government to list Line Item 016 twice and they should be treated as two separate Line Items. The numbering of the Line Items will be corrected at time of award.

Question 30: Specification section 05 51 00 and 05 51 33 Stairs and ladders do not have line item numbers.

Answer: The line items are missing in error. Will be corrected after contract award.

Question 31: Line item numbers 41-43 are used twice.

Answer: Each Line Item listed is treated as a separate Line Item, even if the Line Item number has been repeated.

It was an oversight by the Government to repeat several Line Items. Line Item numbering will be corrected at time of award.

Question 32: Line item number 0036 Tapered Fill insulation. In attachment 1 specification 07 22 00 paragraph

2.2.5 calls for ½” per ft tapered insulation. Is this accurate? The prices will be effected. Please note attachment 9 for seed project shows industry standard of ¼” per ft. tapered insulation.

Answer: The Air Force UFC prefers 1/2" per foot slope on low slope roofs. The 1/2" per foot slope requirement is accurate.