FA4620-12-R-B001 Amendment 2 Fairchild MACC.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

See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-May-2012

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 FA4620-12-R-B001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Apr-2012

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

02-May-2012

CODE

92 CONTRACTING SQUADRON

BLDG 2451

110 W ENT STREET

SUITE 200

FAIRCHILD AFB WA 99011-8568

FA4620 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4620-12-R-B001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 2

The purpose of this amendment is to answer additional questions arising from the 13 April 2012 site visit, add the 2012 Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards as Attachment 12, revise the Statement of Work (SOW) for the Seed Project, revise Section L, and revise Section M.

1. Answers to additional questions stemming from the 13 April 2012 site visit not previously addressed are provided as follows:

A. QUESTION: Attachment 2 (SOW dated 22 Mar 12), paragraph 11, states that the Superintendent/QC responsibilities maybe combined for the seed project. Since the seed project is of a low magnitude, may the superintendent/QC also be the site safety and health officer?

ANSWER: This contract does not specify requirements for a project-specific site safety or health officer.

B. QUESTION: The spacing/size information of the reinforcing steel for the precast panels along grid line

‘C’ were not included in the As-Builts. Are there shop drawings that can be provided that give this information? As of now the Contractor is having to make assumptions on the size/spacing of the rebar in the panels.

ANSWER: All available as-built plans are provided in Attachment A. Propose as necessary to meet the objectives of the RFP.

C. QUESTION: In the As-Builts, Sheet S1, the general notes indicate that the precast panels may be prestressed. This seems unlikely due to the small nature of the panels but, if the panels are in fact prestressed the cutting of the prestressed strands will create a considerable safety concern. According to the Contractor’s consulting structural engineer’s initial review of the As-Built information, there may not be a reasonably safe way to cut the proposed opening if the panels are prestressed. In order to verify this, the Contractor will need the shop drawings for the precast panels, or at a minimum, additional information on the prestressed strands.

ANSWER: All available as-built plans are provided in Attachment A. Methods are available to determine construction of the slab. Structural modifications are anticipated to deal with cutting out these panels. See revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1.

D. QUESTION: The existing precast concrete panels in the shelter: are there any shop drawings to indicate how they were constructed? If no drawings, we would like to know how they are constructed and if they are an insulated concrete panel or solid concrete.

ANSWER: All available as-built plans are provided in Attachment A. Propose as necessary to meet the objectives of the RFP.

E. QUESTION: The new openings in the shelter may end up big enough that they create a possible falling hazard into the building. While technically they don’t require a guard rail, does the government want one?

ANSWER: See revised SOW paragraph 2.3.2.1.

F. QUESTION: For the bullet deflector: Are there any existing drawings for this structure?

ANSWER: All available as-built plans for the bullet deflector are provided in Attachment C. Propose as necessary to meet the objectives of the RFP.

G. QUESTION: Is the material used for the top plate standard A36 or is it special ballistic steel?

ANSWER: The bullet trap was manufactured by Action Target and uses a hardened steel plate.

H. QUESTION: Is welding an acceptable means to attach the new top plate to the existing steel structure?

ANSWER: No. Per SOW paragraph 2.3.2.2, the extension shall match the existing plate in type of construction. Welded fabrication is not used for the existing bullet trap.

I. QUESTION: For the bullet deflector, what type of finish would the Air Force like on the new steel?

ANSWER: Per the revised SOW paragraph 2.3.2.2, follow material and construction types, includes finishes, used for the manufacture of the bullet trap manufactured by Action Target.

J. QUESTION: What are the air movement requirements for the Seed project?

ANSWER: None. The requirement, per revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1, is to open it as much as possible while maintaining the structural integrity of the building.

K. QUESTION: What flexibility do we have regarding openings and size of openings?

ANSWER: No specific width or height for the openings has been determined. This is to be determined in the design portion of this project. The requirement, per revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1, is to open it as much as possible while maintaining the structural integrity of the building.

L. QUESTION: Statement of Work (Attachment 2 to the Solicitation) states in paragraph 2.3.1 Site Conditions/Background:

"Per ETL 11-18 Small Arms Range Design and Construction, Para 7.1.1.3.2, 'Existing partially contained ranges that have an enclosed firing platform with sidewalls and back wall shall remove the sidewalls and back wall to improve natural ventilation'."

Attachment B - Proposed Openings for Ventilation drawing illustrates proposed wall openings in the South Elevation only.

Please clarify if wall openings are to be constructed in any other walls (i.e. north, west, east) as suggested by the ETL 11-18 or if the “South Elevation” (Attachment B) shows the “only” wall that openings need to be created in.

ANSWER: Per the SOW and Attachment B, only the back wall is to be removed.

M. QUESTION: Attachment B - Proposed Openings for Ventilation & SOW paragraph 2.3.2.1

Attachment B - Proposed Openings for Ventilation drawing shows two (2) areas of proposed wall opening in the South Elevation.

One section at the uncovered (exterior) of the building and one section covered by metal fascia. It appears the scope of work includes removing the concrete panel in both those areas and installing a roll-up door that can be opened and closed as needed.

• Please specify finish size of the new opening in the Pre-Cast Concrete wall panels.

• Is the new opening to be the same size and shape in all eight (8) panels on the south wall?

• Please specify the size of the new electrically operated roll-up doors.

• Is there a specific roll-up door that the Government will not approve?

ANSWER: No specific width or height for the openings (and roil-up doors) has been determined. This is to be determined in the design portion of this project. The requirement, per revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1, is to open it as much as possible while maintaining the structural integrity of the building.

N. QUESTION: Will there be power and water available for construction use at the project site?

ANSWER: See BDS, Section 011100, paragraphs 1.22 and 1.23. Use of available on-site power and water is allowed, at no charge. A fire hydrant is located between the building and the parking area north of the building and may be requested for use as a water supply with proper backflow protection.

O. QUESTION: Is there a base landfill available for construction debris?

ANSWER: No.

P. QUESTION: Attachment 2 / Statement of Work – Page 2 of 4 / Section 2.2 – Subsection 2.2.1: “The design is to provide the maximum open area on the back (interior) wall of building 2076 to improve ventilation if the bullet firing area in Building 2076 while maintaining the structural integrity of the building.”

• To what extent is it anticipated the precast concrete panels will be cut, specific dimensional openings, in order to provide “maximum open area…to improve ventilation”?

• Is it anticipated that the entire concrete precast panel will be removed?

• Given the amount of structural engineering required, the additional information needed, and the limited amount of detail (e.g. “maximum open area”) we are requesting an extension on the due date in order to receive more information regarding to what extent it is anticipated the concrete precast panels will be cut and removed in order to improve ventilation.

ANSWER: Proposal due date and time remains the same. No specific width or height for the openings has been determined. This is to be determined in the design portion of this project. The requirement, per revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1, is to open it as much as possible while maintaining the structural integrity of the building.

Q. QUESTION: How is item 2.3.2.1 of SOW going to be evaluated? Opening to “maximum extent possible” is not very clear. Small openings will be less expensive than larger openings, but mean less air flow.

Openings that don’t require cutting into the fascia will also be less expensive. Can the Air Force provide more defined design criteria like minimum opening sizes and minimum required air flow?

ANSWER: During the design process after award, a structural analysis is submitted that will determine the allowable opening dimensions.

R. QUESTION: SOW paragraph 2.3.2.1: Remove and repair metal fascia as needed to improve ventilation while providing aesthetic appearance and needed weather protection.

Since the metal fascia area extends out from the wall it appears the RFP scope includes construction of new metal framework, metal wall panels, fascia, flashing and coping to provide for a finished look.

• Please clarify the extent of this metal work so we clearly understand the intent of the design.

• Are the metal soffits and grilles in those soffits to be removed and not replaced, or relocated above the new roll-up doors?

• Is the vertical metal fascia to be shortened / reworked or remain as is?

ANSWER: See revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1.

S. QUESTION: Attachment B - Proposed Openings for Ventilation & SOW paragraph 2.3.2.2. Extend the Top Plate of the Bullet Trap.

• Request Government specify the type, thickness and material required to extend the existing baffle.

The As-Built drawings do not provide this information.

ANSWER: See revised SOW paragraph 2.3.2.2.

T. QUESTION: Attachment B - Proposed Openings for Ventilation & SOW paragraph 2.3.2.4. Limited lead-based paint – west wall.

• Please clarify the work in the SOW that will require the Contractor to address any work at the west interior wall.

ANSWER: See revised SOW Paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1.

U. QUESTION: Interior side of the pre-cast concrete panel: Existing surface mounted devices.

• Will the Government remove the tackboards, fire extinguishers & cabinets, weapon wood shelves and weapon hanger boards, CRP control platform and sound system?

ANSWER: No. See revised SOW paragraph 2.3.2.1.

V. QUESTION: Are the coiled overhead doors to be insulated?

ANSWER: No. There is no requirement for insulating the coiled overhead doors.

W. QUESTION: What is the thickness of the metal on the deflection panels of the range baffles?

ANSWER: See revised SOW paragraph 2.3.2.2.

X. QUESTION: Attachment 2 / Statement of Work – Page 3 of 4 / Section 2.3 – Subsection 2.3.2 – Subsection 2.3.2.1: “The wall opening will require removal of the existing fan system. The removed fans and fan motors shall be returned to the Government.” It seems to be unclear as to how many fan units are being removed. Can the Air Force please indicate the number of fan units that will need to be removed in order to accommodate the new openings?

ANSWER: There is one fan unit in each panel to be opened (from site visit) and per Attachment B there are 8 panels to be opened.

Y. QUESTION: Attachment 2 / Statement of Work – Page 2 of 4 / Section 2.3 – Subsection 2.3.1. “Existing partially contained ranges that have an enclosed firing platform with sidewalls and back wall shall remove the sidewalls and back wall to improve ventilation.” Opening these walls will provide the best ventilation possible within the limits of feasible structural modifications of the existing firing point enclosure.” The “Attachment B – Proposed Openings for Ventilation” Drawing show one elevation detail providing identification for proposed wall openings. However, the specifications seem to indicate that the “…sidewalls and backwalls…” need to be removed in order to improved ventilation.

Is there another elevation (e.g. sidewalls) that need to have openings created that are not shown on the “ Attachment B – Proposed Openings for Ventilation” drawing?

ANSWER: Per the SOW and Attachment B, only the back wall is to be removed.

Z. QUESTION: Existing slab in front of Bldg, what are structural limitations?

ANSWER: See SOW Attachment A. This is a 6-inch thick, un-reinforced, 4,000 PSI concrete slab, per the as-builts.

AA. QUESTION: Please confirm that the structural analysis of the existing structure of "Shelter A" will be based on the loads and procedures prescribed in UFC 3-301-01.

ANSWER: Per 2.2.1 of the SOW, "the contractor shall comply with Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards and all current and applicable codes".

AB. QUESTION: Has the Government evaluated the lateral load resisting system of the building to determine that the openings shown in Attachment B are feasible? If so, can the Government provide the conclusions of that study?

ANSWER: No Government study has been conducted on this. This is to be evaluated by the contractor as part of the design process.

AC. QUESTION: Can the contractor provide a technical narrative and/or sketches to illustrate their proposed design solution? We do not see a place where this is requested in the RFP so wonder if it can be placed in Section 4 of Vol. 2 ("Any information, excluding price, which does not properly belong within the other proposal volumes."

ANSWER: No. This is not required for proposal submission.

AD. QUESTION: We have projects that are owned by a developer but GSA is the end user (tenant). Who would you want us to send the questionnaire (attachment 5) to? Point of Contact for government occupied (e.g. - GSA Project Manager) or the developer?

ANSWER: This is at the offeror’s discretion.

AE. QUESTION: Can our proposal be hand delivered on the due date and if so, what is the procedure?

ANSWER: A 92 CONS representative will be at the Fairchild AFB Visitor’s Center from 2:00 pm to 2:

45 pm (local).

AF. QUESTION: The MACC contract is a 5 yr contract but the RFP only allows past performance for 3 years.

May we include relevant projects within the last 5 years comparable to the duration of MACC contract?

ANSWER: No. Comply with the RFP, Paragraph 2.2.2.

AG. QUESTION: 2.2.3. Relevant Contracts is limited to only 3 pages including attachment #4 . What if a contactor wanted to include a CCASS evaluations and other documents to facilitate the evaluators understanding.

Would additional pages above the three page limit cause our proposal to be considered non responsive?

ANSWER: Contractors are to comply with the RFP. CCASS evaluations will be pulled by 92 CONS personnel when proposals are received.

AH. QUESTION: Reference MACC solicitation page 58 of 65, paragraph 1.4. We are submitting as a small business joint venture, not as an 8(a) business. We believe the second paragraph of 1.4 applies only to firms submitting as an 8(a). Can you confirm this?

ANSWER: See Revised Section L, Para 1.4, Page 58 of 65. Replace page 58 with revised Page 58 attached.

AI. QUESTION: Attachment 4, Project Information Sheet: On E. Completion date, for “Current Schedule,” is the form asking for the current contractually required deadline or, if the project isn’t finished, the anticipated actual completion date?What is meant by "Estimate at Completion"? Is that the actual completion date if finished and expected date if not yet finished)?

ANSWER: Current Schedule = current completion date; Estimate at Completion = estimated cost of project at completion.

AJ. QUESTION: Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire: Question F. The choices are firm fixed price, IDIQ task order, and cost reimbursement. Are these intended to be mutually exclusive or should we check both for an IDIQ task order that was firm fixed price?

ANSWER: Check all that apply.

AK. QUESTION: Can an Offeror submit a proposal for this solicitation as a JV with their Protégé 8(a) firm and also enter into a Teaming/Partnering Agreement with another firm for the purposes of submitting a proposal for this same solicitation?

ANSWER: This is at the discretion of the offeror.

AL. QUESTION: Due to the amount of requested information, can the page limit be extended?

ANSWER: No.

AM. QUESTION: In the solicitation, page 62, 2.3 Volume 2 Price and contract forms, subparagraph 2.3.4, second bullet asks for a complete copy of the RFP to be returned with the pricing volume. We are to submit one original and two paper copies plus one electronic copy. The question is does each copy and the electronic copy to have a full copy of the RFP?

ANSWER: Yes, comply with the RFP and Amendment 1. Amendment 1 removed the requirement for an electronic copy.

AN. QUESTION: The RFP states (for Vol. II): "Section 2: A complete copy of this RFP (through Section M, less attachments) …." Just below that there are specific items identified from the RFP (such as 1442, Price Schedule, etc.).

Do you actually want all 65 pages of the solicitation included in the proposal binder, or just those specific pages that were identified and completed by the Offeror?

ANSWER: Yes, comply with the RFP.

AO. QUESTION: Will there be additional proposal requirements due at a later date? The RFP references the Past Performance Volume is due by May 7, 2012. Is this the only phase of this proposal?

ANSWER: No. Past Performance Volume is due 7 May 12, per the RFP.

AP. QUESTION: Does your answer to Amendment 1 question AW mean we should ignore the language in bold type from Item H below?

AW. QUESTION: Attachment 4, Project Information Sheet: On H. Key Personnel and I. Work

Performed/To Be Performed, when it talks about “the instant acquisition,” for purposes of identifying individuals’ expected roles and our expected self-performance, does it mean the overall Fairchild AFB MACC or just the seed project?

ANSWER: This attachment is for the offeror’s past performance information.

H. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions to include the design contractor’s contact information (address and phone number).

ANSWER: Comply with the RFP. The key individuals on the Past Performance Information Sheet apply to the project the Past Performance Information Sheet relates to, not the key personnel on the MACC.

AQ. QUESTION: I’m confused by your answer to Question A. Can a MACC or MATOC contract be submitted as a relevant contract if it has individual task orders in the past 3 years that add up to $1 million, even though the individual task orders are below $1 million? The language of Section L paras.

2.2.2 and 2.2.3, as amended, does not answer this question.

ANSWER: This is at the discretion of the offeror.

AR. QUESTION: Please clarify. 2.1.1 Contents of Past Performance Volume should include the following:

Table of Contents; Summary Page; Past Performance Information Sheets and Organization Structure Change History. The following sections include 2.2.2 Past Performance and 2.2.3 Relevant Contracts which appear to require the same information. Is 2.2.3 Relevant Contracts additional project information sheets require by the solicitation or is it additional information included to clarify what is considered a relevant contract in comparison to the solicitation?

ANSWER: Refer to Section L, Paragraph 2.1.1 for format, and refer to Paragraph 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 to further clarify requirements for past performance and defining relevance.

AS. QUESTION: This solicitation limits our Past Performance submittals to no more than 5 from the GC and up to 5 from the architect. Baker Construction and the Architect (WAG) have successfully teamed on multiple projects. What is our best approach with the architect and contractors past performance sheets….does the general contractor and architect list the same projects or is it advantageous for the GC to list some and the Architect list the others? If the architect is different from WAG do we leave this question blank?

ANSWER: Submit as specified in Section L. See revised Section L, Paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.

AT. QUESTION: Reference MACC solicitation page 60 of 65, paragraph 2.2.2. Specifically, see the sentence beginning “The offeror shall provide experience data…”, and the following sentence beginning “The offeror shall submit 3 to 5…”. In the first instance, it says to provide experience data for all major subcontractors/consultants, etc. In the second instance, it says to provide experience data for each prime, teaming partner, and/or JV partner.

a. We are submitting as a small business joint venture. Are we required to submit 3 to 5 projects for the

Joint Venture, AND 3 to 5 projects for each of the joint venturers?

b. We will have major subcontractors/consultants with whom we will not enter into a formal teaming agreement. Do we submit experience data for these firms? If we are to submit information on major subcontractors/consultants with whom we are not establishing a formal relationship, do we submit 3 to 5 projects for each of them?

AU. QUESTION: Are we required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets for each major subcontractor we intend to use on the SEED project only or is the requirement for the entire MACC contract?

AV. QUESTION: There appears to be an ambiguity between Section L para 2.2.2 and para 2.2.3. The first paragraph indicates offeror shall submit 3 to 5 PPI sheets and in the second paragraph it states data shall be submitted for up to 5 relevant contracts. This is a significant conflict in language. The range "3-5" means no fewer than "3" can be submitted whereas "up to 5" means any number between "1 and 5."

Would it be possible to get clarification of this language?

ANSWER: See revised Section L, Paragraph 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.

2. See attached revised Section L, Paragraph 1.4, page 58 of 65, to clarify information for 8(a) firms contemplating a joint venture agreement.

3. See attached revised Section L, Paragraph 2.2.2, page 60 of 65, to clarify the number of relevant contracts to be submitted for consideration.

4. See attached revised Section L, Paragraph 2.2.3, page 61 of 65, to clarify the number of relevant contracts to be submitted for consideration.

5. See attached revised Section M, Paragraph 1.3, page 63 of 65, to clarify project value.

6. Remove MACC Seed Project SOW and replace with revised SOW dated 2 May 12, to incorporate changes to Paragraph 2.2.1 and 2.3.2.1.

7. The 2012 Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards are hereby incorporated into subject solicitation as Attachment

12, and will be applicable to all future task orders. See attachment. The 2010 Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards issued with this solicitation as Attachment 9 shall apply to the Seed Project only.

8. Proposal submission date shall remain the same.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. FA4620-12-R-B002 Attachment 12, 2012 Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards, 30 Apr 12

2. Revised FA4620-12-R-B001 Attachment 2, MACC Seed Project SOW, dated 2 May 12

3. Revised Section L, Para 1.4, page 58 of 65, dated 2 May 12

4. Revised Section L, Para 2.2.2, page 60 of 65, dated 2 May 12

5. Revised Section L, Para 2.2.3, page 61 of 65, dated 2 May 12

6. Revised Section M, Para 1.3, page 63 of 65, dated 2 May 12

(End of Summary of Changes)