HSBP1017R0022_Amendment_A005_SF_30_.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

A005

The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate the attached Questions and Answers.

The Government will issue further amendment(s) to capture all questions submitted within the deadline time frame.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW National Place, Suite 1355 Washington DC 20229

Offerors

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

HSBP1017R0022

03/30/2017

03/17/2017

HSBP1017R0022

Amendment A005

1. Can a completed CCASS/CPARS Evaluation or a PPQ-0 can be submitted in lieu of requesting a Project Performance Survey to be completed? It is difficult to get clients to complete a performance survey when other evaluations have been completed.

Answer: No, the Project Performance Survey is required to be submitted, see “Phase I Concept Papers/Request for Qualifications.”

2. Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors and Respondents; page 38 under Phase I Concept Papers/Qualifications Statements, (2) Management and Technical Competence. Please clarify what is meant by "baseline" in this section (i.e. this is referring to cost or the schedule). What should be provided to explain how the Offeror sets the project baseline, assesses status against the baseline, and addresses issues and variances?

Answer: Among other items, the Phase I Concept Papers/Qualifications Statements should discuss the offeror’s baseline as to schedule. The Government anticipates that such discussion will be informed by each offeror’s unique approach to meeting the RFP’s requirements.

3. If the Offeror chooses to submit conceptual level drawings, can these be 11 x 17 and not included in the ten (10) page limit?

Answer: If an offeror chooses to submit conceptual drawings during Phase I formatted to an 11 x 17 page size, each 11 x 17 page will count as two pages and will be included in the 10-page limit.

4. Is there a sample or template of how the Summary Matrix should be setup that is recommended to submit with Phase I?

Answer: No. The format and information provided in the “Optional” Summary Matrix is provided for the benefit of the Offerors. Per the RFP: Offerors may attach a summary matrix not to exceed two pages to their Phase I proposal; these two pages will NOT count against the concept paper page limit.

5. Is acceptable to provide a mock-up and prototype section that is larger than 10'X10' and 30', respectively, if it better demonstrates the functionality of our design?

Answer: No, the mockup shall be in accordance with the section C.3.4.2 Mock-Up Construction. An Offeror can provide dimensions that meet the minimum requirements for the prototype stated in “C.3.4.4 Prototype Design-Build.”

6. Solicitation Section I, Buy American Clauses, Pages 17 through 25. Does each Construction Materials Price Comparison Matrix need to be completed and filed with the Phase 1 submission or is this required for Phase 2?

Answer: This would be a requirement of Phase II.

7. Does the "Request for Determination" related to each Buy American clause have to be filed before the Phase 1 submission or before the Phase 2 submission?

Answer: A "Request for Determination” would be provided with the Phase II proposal.

8. Is it acceptable to offer your choice of two wall heights with the offer, one which exceeds 18' and the other which is 30'?

Answer: No, doing so would constitute alternate proposals, which will not be accepted in response to this solicitation. We will accept only a single design per offeror for each solicitation.

9. As a part of this solicitation, will there be any requirement for a project controls dashboard or other performance metrics resources as a communications tool during the performance of services?

Answer: There is currently no requirement for a Dashboard and/or Other Performance Metrics Resources to serve as communications tools.

10. Will any requirement or goal be established for responding teams regarding the engagement of verified Service-Disabled, Veteran-owned Small Businesses for the provision of services on these projects?

Answer: Yes, a Subcontracting Plan required as applicable, an Offeror shall comply with the requirements within the RFP for a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with “Vol V” of the Phase II – Request for Proposals.

11. Owner's language reads: "Professional Registration and/or Licensing is required in California.

Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are preferred as well. "If so, will there be accommodation for this criteria from state to state (for example, a firm with extensive experience in Texas may not have a California presence, and vice versa)?

Answer: The initial task order (prototype) is required to be performed in California.

Accordingly, the contractor needs to be able to satisfy the requirements necessary to design and construct in California. See item (d) of Section C: “The Contractor shall furnish all labor, material, equipment, supervision, etc. necessary to complete the requirements of this contract in accordance with this solicitation/contract, and all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, specifications, codes, certifications, etc., to whichever is most stringent.” Offerors must also be able to license in accordance and at the time of, with the future task order RFPs.

12. In the evaluation of responses, will the regional presence and project portfolio of the firms performing services be taken into account (i.e. firms with offices and project experience along the border)?

Answer: Regional presence is not an evaluation factor. Prior Experience/Past Performance is considered an evaluation factor per Sections L and M of the RFP.

13. Question: Is the Lead Designer required to have Professional Registration and / or Licensing in

California, New Mexico and Texas at the time Phase I submissions are due?

Answer: The Lead Designer has to be registered/licensed in California for the first TO, so a valid California registration/license will be required at the time of Phase II Proposal Submission. Per the “Description of Work” in Section C, The Contractor shall furnish all labor, material, equipment, supervision, etc. necessary to complete the requirements of this contract in accordance with this solicitation/contract, and all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, specifications, codes, certifications, etc., to whichever is most stringent.

14. Is a gas powered abrasive saw (commonly referred to as a hot saw) included as an “other similar hand-held tool”? If not, why? It is a commonly available tool that can be used to breach barriers.

Answer: Yes; a gas-powered abrasive saw would be considered an “other similar hand held tool”.

15. Does this mean that proprietary systems cannot be used or that the owner of the proprietary design and/or equipment must be willing to license same?

Answer: In accordance with SOW Section C.1 – Description/Specifications/Work Statement, the proposed prototype designs shall not include the use of proprietary design or equipment.

16. Based on the Government's review and response timelines associated with addressing solicitation questions, will the Contracting Officer allow a day for day schedule slip associated with the Phase I, Concept Paper due date of 29 March. Vendor(s) will need enough time to adequately incorporate Government question response(s)?

Answer: The response date for Phase I concept papers has been extended to no later than 4 PM EDT on April 4, 2017, unless the solicitation is otherwise amended.

17. We have developed and deployed border barrier systems/solutions (foreign sites) that incorporate a number of highly effective, non-lethal mechanisms affixed to the barrier structure to deter approach to, climbing (over) and tunneling (under) the barrier structure. For instance, razor wire is a highly effective climbing deterrent. Should vendors consider these non-lethal mechanisms in our design / solution approach?

Answer: Offerors are to provide their own solutions to meet the requirements as defined in the

IDIQ/TO RFP.

18. We have developed and deployed a number of effective border barrier systems / solutions, such as filled concrete bollards set in concrete foundations, to deter vehicle breach. Should these vehicle deterrent designs be incorporated in our proposed design solution?

Answer: Offerors are to provide their own solutions to meet requirements as defined within the

IDIQ/TO RFP.

19. Threshold requirement 2, "It shall not be possible for a human to climb to the top of the wall or access the top of the wall from either side unassisted (e.g. via the use of a ladder, etc.)". Would you better define "...unassisted"? As we know from extensive border emplacement efforts, there are as many imaginative means / mechanisms that can be used to scale a structure beyond just a ladder.

Answer: “Unassisted” means without the help of any person or object (example: without any type of mechanical assistance, ropes, ladders, etc.)

20. Due to the wording of these 2 RFP’s is does not seem to allow for a hybrid Concrete/Metallic option. If so, under which RFP would we need to submit?

Answer: An Offeror would submit a “hybrid concrete/metallic option under the “Other Wall Prototype” solicitation.

22. SOW, C.3.1 Border Wall Attachment #1 SOW. There currently are no funds designated or appropriated for this task order. Is there an estimate of when T.O. might be awarded?

Answer: The RFP is subject to the “Availability of Funds” clause. Award will be made only if/when funds are legally available.

23. SOW, C.3.1 Border Wall Design Considerations. Attachment #1 SOW -pg. 2: 11)" The wall design should be cost effective to construct, maintain and repair." Please define what is cost effective to repair and maintain?

Answer: Cost effective means a solution that provides optimum results for the expenditure. The Offeror should provide a design that they determine to be cost effective to construct, maintain and repair.

24. I would like to inquire if our proposal can be submitted in a video format and a written report format?

Answer: Only soft copies will be received in response to Phase I and Phase II. The Offeror shall provide Proposal submission(s) in accordance with the RFP’s Section L “Phase I Submission Instructions” and Phase II Submission Instructions.

25. Please respond back with the details as to where I will be submitting the video proposal and the written report proposal to?

Answer: As stated, only soft copies of written proposals will be accepted in response to the Phase I and Phase II submission requirements. All Phase I responses shall be submitted in electronic format to the following email address: BorderWallDesignBuild@cbp.dhs.gov.

26. Section L – Written Proposal Submission Format – Please confirm if drawings of the Prototype are to be included in the

10 page limit or if they can be outside the 10 page limit?

Answer: Drawings will be counted toward the 10 page limit.

27. Section L – Phase II Volume III – Mentions a 30-day build schedule for the proposed prototype. We are expecting the lead time for our form system to take up to 6 weeks to be fabricated. Will the Government consider extending this particular time constraint?

Answer: No. See SOW section C.3.4.4 Prototype Design-Build for the performance period.

28. Please clarify the bonding requirements, it is listed as $200,000, do you mean $200M for this large program?

Answer: A “Bid Bond” (Standard Form 24) is not required for Phase I submissions, although an offeror shall discuss its ability to bond at a minimum value of $200,000. Please see Phase I Submission Instructions, Demonstrated Experience. A “Bid Bond” is required to be submitted in response to Phase II proposals in addition to the requirements of Section L Phase II Volume II TAB B – Bonding Capacity.

29. Must the project experience be design build?

Answer: Yes, the IDIQ/TO is a Design Build requirement. See RFP Section L, Phase I

Concept Papers/Qualifications Statements.

30. As currently written both solicitations include several inherently biased and extremely uncompetitive provisions. Most notably are what could be called California-centric provisions.

The selection of the San Diego area for the construction of the prototype and mock-up is completely unreasonable. The location puts non-California based firms at a very uncompetitive price disadvantage regarding, for example, mobilization/demobilization costs. It also increases the total cost to the Government since the Davis-Bacon wages in the San Diego area are among the highest along the entire border. It also requires the lead designer to be registered in California.

Moreover, the San Diego area is not at all representative of the conditions along the vast majority of the border. Most of the border is along remote, undeveloped areas. San Diego is neither remote nor undeveloped. The type of wall most suitable for that urban area might be totally unsuitable/unwarranted for the vast majority of the other border environments. Given that neither the prototype nor the mock-up can possibly be designed to cover all possible border environments and that the San Diego area is not representative of the vast majority of the border areas, we respectfully request that both solicitations be amended to allow the prototypes and the mock-ups to be constructed in a more representative location such as either the El Paso, TX, or Tucson, AZ area?

Answer: The first Task Order for a Wall Prototype will be performed in San Diego, California.

mailto:BorderWallDesignBuild@cbp.dhs.gov

31. As an Offeror for Phase 1 and 2, our company is capable of handling all listed requirements, specifically relating to constructing the Prototype, providing the Bid Bond (~$200,000- 500,000), Bid Guarantees (~20% of $200,000-500,000) and items referenced in "Section C, Item (d)." With that said, if our company were to be selected beyond Phase 2, we would not have the financial or internal manpower to handle a potential contract with a maximum value of $300,000,000. Does CBP require that we form a legal Joint Venture with an organization capable of handling the financial qualifications of all potential work, including those beyond Phase 2 or will there be an opportunity to form a Joint Venture with a larger contracting group after proof of Prototype concept?

Answer: No, an Offeror cannot enter into a joint venture after award.

32. The RFP offers no mention whatsoever of an environmental impact study? US government regulation 40 CFR 1502 requires an environmental impact study for this procurement. It is unreasonable for the DHS-CBP to expect multiple bidders and IDIQ holders to conduct independent environmental impact studies, especially when this does not present a best value to the US government or a wise use of taxpayer dollars. Can DHS please share the comprehensive environmental impact study for any and all construction of a border wall or any other type for construction along the US – Mexican border? A lack of such information could be grounds for a protest of the award of any and all IDIQ contracts and task orders.

Answer: The Government is responsible for any legally required environmental impact studies or other environmental compliance. The Government is not expecting offerors to conduct independent environmental impact studies. Appropriate information will be provided on a task order-by-task order basis. Information relevant to the construction of the prototypes will be provided to Phase II offerors.

33. What plans has DHS-CBP envisioned to address environmental impact due to disrupting the migratory patterns of [non-human] animals, as listed on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services website (https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley/wildlife_and_habitat/species_list.htm l)? Should offerors include the installation of land bridges to permit free movement said species?

Answer: As noted, the Government is responsible for any legally required environmental impact studies or other environmental compliance. To the extent that offerors want to incorporate into their prototype designs certain features that will accommodate the free movement of species, they are free to do so, and such features will be examined as a part of the Government’s evaluation of offers.

34. The RFP does not include Appropriations and Accounting data – can DHS-CBP please provide clarity on the funding sources for the present procurement? How much of the FY 2017 discretionary funding budget of $40.6 billion will be attributed to this procurement? Are the 2017 funds sufficient to cover the full procurement or is funding for this full activity contingent upon future budgets that will require Congressional approval? The DHS FY 2017 Budget-in- Brief document specifies a total of “$355.7 million to maintain the necessary infrastructure and technology” – which is not sufficient funding to move forward with this procurement. In light of the current discord in Congress about the preliminary budget plan and the fact that the current President has a proven history of not paying contractors and service providers for services rendered, offerors and the public would feel more comfortable having clear guidance on this point.

Answer: Pursuant to FAR 52.232-18, Availability of Funds, the Government's obligation under this solicitation, or any contract or TO that might result from the solicitation is entirely subject https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley/wildlife_and_habitat/species_list.html https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley/wildlife_and_habitat/species_list.html to, and contingent upon, the availability of appropriated funds. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a TO is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a contract or TO for the Prototype project might not result from this solicitation.

35. Can DHS-CBP provide a topographical map with a full outline for all areas that would require future construction? Our understanding is that the border wall does not physically lie on the border in many places and this information would help with planning and preparation.

Additionally, what steps has DHS-CBP and/or the U.S. Government taken to address eminent domain concerns that could considerably hold up construction and result in incremental costs to the government and the contractor?

Answer: Geotechnical site information for the prototype efforts will be provided in Phase II of the solicitation. Additionally, the Government will provide 10 ft. contour topographic information of the site. This information is not site specific data and should be used for informational purposes only. The Government will not issue a NTP until the construction can begin.

36. What is the service life of the wall?

Answer: There is no service life specified in the Solicitations. For reference only, CBP’s standard for life of fence and barrier wall is 20+ years