HSCG47-16-R-3EFK01_Amendment_0005.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 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 your 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.

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 NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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 ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. 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 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)

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 (No., 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)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

77) Attachment J.1 – Experience Information Form: For response items 13 & 15 we request that the second part of each list for ‘brief descriptions’ be removed as it doesn’t seem necessary. If an electrical designer or electrical contractor is listed for electrical, it seems unnecessary to describe the design components or jobs performed.

ANSWER: Offeror should provide a brief description as required that demonstrates the type of work performed by the discipline/trade under the project listed on the EIF. An example would be: Electrical Designer – designing high voltage transformers for pier power upgrades.

78) Attachment J.1 – Experience Information Form: For response item 6, contract duration, please confirm that the duration in calendar days is the anticipated response.

ANSWER: Calendar days or dates are acceptable

79) Attachment J.1 – Experience Information Form: In Amendment 0001 question #2’s answer stated “The Experience Information Form is a required form.” However, in amendment 0003 the requirements for Factor 1 were re-issued and under Design the following text remains: “The offeror may choose the format of the EIF…” Please confirm that the offeror is able to reformat the EIF for both construction and design experience as long as all of the information on the J.1 EIF is included.

ANSWER: The offeror may reformat the EIF for both construction and design experience as long as all the information on the J.1 EIF and any additional information required under Factor 1 are addressed.

80) Due to the number of questions that have been asked concerning the EIF we respectfully request the Government postpone the solicitation due date by one week.

ANSWER: Proposal due date was extended to 14 September 2016 in Amendment 0004.

81) There were two attachments included with Amendment 0002, issued on August 22nd. One of them was an attachment that was missing from the original solicitation (OFCCP Participation Goals for Minorities and Females), the other was a new PPQ form. We have read through Amendment 0002 and can’t find any reference to that new PPQ form. Just hours later Amendment 0003 was issued with additional answers to contractor questions. Of particular interest was the answer to question 47 where someone asked for an MS Word version of the PPQ form. The Government’s answer was See Amendment 0002. The original RFP had a PPQ form in it, Attachment J.1. Amendment 0001 arrived with a revised version of that same Attachment J.1, which had been revised based on contractor questions.

Amendment 0001 was issued on August 3rd and at that time we took that revised PPQ and used it to send to our clients to ensure they would be completed and returned by September 6th. Now, nearly three weeks later, this new PPQ form appears attached to Amendment 0002 with no explanation. What was the reason that this new PPQ form was included with Amendment 0002?

Does it supersede the revised version of Attachment J.1 that was issued with Amendment 0001?

If our clients have already completed and returned the PPQ form that came with Amendment

0001 will that be accepted? Is using the new PPQ form an optional or mandatory requirement?

We would appreciate a quick answer to this inquiry in the event that we must use the new PPQ form that came with Amendment 0002, since PPQs are due back to you two weeks from today.

ANSWER: Offerors may use either format of the PPQ provided. The second PPQ was posted as a request was made for a MSWord version. The Government was unable to locate a MSWord version of the originally PPQ posted; therefore, the second version was posted for use. As stated prior, the use of the PPQ (either version) is only required if a project does not have a CPARS/CCASS/ACASS report in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

82) Please provide the location in our proposal you would like information for the SF1442, VETS registration, Reps and Certs, etc. included.

ANSWER: These documents should be at the beginning of the Original binder only.

83) Do the FAPIIS and VETS forms need to be for the named JV (since the JV will have its own DUNS/CAGE, but may be brand new) or for each individual firm? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The SAM, FAPIIS, and VETS-4212 registrations must be in the name/CAGE/DUNS of the offeror identified on the SF1442.

84) Please verify that the following do not count in any page limits: outside cover; inside coversheet; table of contents; list of exhibits, tables or graphics; glossary of acronyms; cover letter; tabs separating sections; surety letter; Factor 4 in its entirety; organizational chart; and any contractual pages such as SF1442, Reps & Certs, VETS registration, teaming agreements and/or letters of commitment.

ANSWER: The surety letter does count towards Factor 3 page count. The other documents listed in question #84 do not count towards the page limitation.

NOTE: SF1442, Reps & Certs, SAMS, and VETS registration need only be placed in the Original Binder. All other documents should be in all binders.

85) Please confirm that an 11 x 17 sheet of paper only printed on one side counts as 1 page.

ANSWER: Correct

86) The Government answers to Questions 34, 35, 66 and the revised Factor 1 indicate that Key Subcontractors can be used in providing Corporate Experience in Factor 1. However, this is in direct contradiction to the RFP requirements, in that corporate experience can only be provided by the prime contractor ( corporate offeror listed on the SF 1442) or a joint venture formed to create the corporate offeror. Please reaffirm that Factor 1 Corporate Experience submissions are to meet the RFP requirements and not the answers indicated in RFI’s 34, 35, 66.

ANSWER: Factor 1, Corporate Experience references the “Construction Team” and “Team”.

Amendment 0003 incorporated the following paragraph into Factor 1 Corporate Experience: “If an Offeror is using experience information of an affiliate, subsidiary, or parent that is not the name as exactly stated on the SF1442 or in the limited case of a key subcontractor, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate, subsidiary, parent firm, or key subcontractor will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. No more than one project may be submitted to represent the relevant experience of an offeror’s proposed key subcontractor.”

As businesses can be organized in multiple fashions, the Government is trying to provide flexibility for the Offeror to demonstrate experience regardless of the business’ organizational structure. The Corporate Experience can be from the Prime Contractor; Prime and any affiliate, subsidiary or parent; or Prime and a key subcontractor with a teaming arrangements. As stated previously, a formal teaming arrangement may be rated higher than a non-formal arrangement.

87) Government response 47 (1st of two 47’s) Factor 1: Corporate Experience…… states Paragraph a(i) is separate from paragraph a(ii) in order for the offeror to be able to highlight any construction experience other than waterfront work.” Paragraph a(i) states “projects for the Team that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are consistent with the size, scope and complexity of projects outlined in Section C.1., Scope of Work. Section C.1, Scope of Work also includes Marine Construction. Please confirm that relevant projects for paragraph a(i) also includes marine construction as a relevant or should all marine construction projects be listed in section a(ii)?

ANSWER: In order to provide the Offeror a chance to provide up to 5 non-marine construction project experience under Factor 1 a(i), Marine Construction should be submitted under Factor 1, a(ii).

88) Amendment 2, Response 37 states that Government will consider design-build scope relevant projects with dollar values over the specified range as relevant. Amendment 3 includes a revised Factor 1 that maintains the range for relevant projects to be $4M - $100M. Please reconfirm that any relevant projects submitted over the $100M range will be considered relevant and not rated lower or penalized.

ANSWER: The range provided reflects the minimum and maximum limits for individual task order under the National Multiple Award Construction Contract. The Government maintains any relevant projects submitted over $100M will be considered and not rated lower or penalized due to the dollar value being over $100M.

89) Factor 1: Corporate Experience: The RFP states: “(i) Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Team that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are consistent with the size, scope, and complexity of projects outlined in Section C.1., Scope of Work. Projects submitted shall be completed within the past six (6) years of the date of issuance of this RFP and be between $4M to $100M. A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract.”

We have a military campus project that covers multiple elements of the scope of work outlined in Section C.1 to include Military Housing, Operations, and Administrative facilities among others.

This complex military campus project reflects scope of work which is typically a high dollar project. We respectfully request that the upper dollar range of projects be extended to $140M so that large housing and facilities projects may be included to demonstrate our capabilities.

ANSWER: See the answer to question #88.

90) Amendment 4, Question 76: While the due date has been extended (to September 14, 2016), is the due time still set for 2 P.M. Eastern?

ANSWER: As indicated on FBO, proposal due date and time is 2pm Eastern on September 14,

91) Amendment 3, Questions 43-45 (Concerning EIF Form, Factor 1): It states in the RFP that “For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP. Offerors shall submit a completed Experience Information Form (EIF) not to exceed two (2) pages. The offeror may choose the format of the EIF; however, each EIF shall include the following at a minimum:”, followed by a list of the minimum requirements (including different requirements for design projects). Based upon our interpretation of this, we can format the EIF in any manner as long as it contains the minimum information listed in Factor 1 for Design and Construction.

However, in Questions 43-45 (Amendment 3), it is indicated that even if blocks are not required, we cannot remove them. This implies that we must use the original form and simply indicate N/A for blocks that do not apply. What is the correct answer? Please advise.

ANSWER: The Government has determined, in order to “level the playing field”, that if a block is not required on the EIF, the Offeror may delete the blocks.

92) Amendment 1, Question 25 (referencing Reps/Certs, FAPIIS, and VETS-4212): In Question 25, we were told that Reps/Certs, FAPIIS, and VETS-4212 information must be provided by the name offeror in Block 14 of the SF 1442. If Block 14 is a joint venture, both companies must submit the forms. Is this stating that if a joint venture is formed with two or more companies, all the individual Joint Venture firms must submit individual Reps/Certs, FAPIIS, and VETS-4212 documents? This is a very unusual requirement – usually, only the JV is required to submit these documents (the named offeror in Block 14).

ANSWER: See Amendment 0002

93) Amendment 1, Question 7 / Amendment 2, Question 38 (Referencing Factor 4 / PPQs): In Amendment 1, Question 7, it was stated that a new PPQ is to be submitted “(1) day prior to the due date of 7 September 2016.” (This is also stated on Attachment J.2.) In Amendment 2, Question 38, it is stated that “Only new PPQs being filled out for this procurement must be sent, by the person filing out the PPQ, directly to the contract specialist on 9/6/16.” We are assuming that (new PPQs that are required to be submitted directly to the Owner) that the requirement is that it must arrive on or before one day prior to the due date as amended? Requiring these forms to arrive on one particular date and not any time prior to it would not be practical as these forms will be arriving from various locations across the country.

ANSWER: The newly filled out PPQ’s must reach the Contract Specialist on or before one day prior to the technical proposal due date.

94) Amendment 1, Question 7 / Amendment 2, Question 38 (Referencing Factor 4 / PPQs):

Additionally, is the new final PPQ due date to be extended to one day before the bid due date (September 13, 2016)?

ANSWER: See answer to question #93

95) Reference “Factor 6 – Organization and Key Positions”, second paragraph under item “a.

Identity”: if the offeror has teaming agreements with first-tier architect-engineering firms, are teaming agreements between those first-tier architect-engineering firms and the design firms that are second-tier subconsultants to those first-tier architect-engineering firms required and, if they are, would letters of commitment be sufficient?

ANSWER: Only teaming agreements between Prime and first-tier architect-engineering firms need be submitted.

96) Amendment 2, Question 34: Based on the response to Question 34, executed teaming agreements should be placed behind the SF 1442 in the proposal – however, the RFP states that both the JV and Teaming agreements should be in Factor 6. Where should we place all agreements? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Submit JV and Teaming agreements as answered in Amendment 002.

END OF AMENDMENT

LAST DAY TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS IS 29 AUGUST 2016

SEE CONTINUATION PAGES

5505 Robin Hood Rd, Suite K Norfolk, VA 23515