RMACC_Amendment_0002.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

Mark W. Snell

Responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries are provided with this amendment.

The cutoff date for Pre-Proposal Inquiries is August 30th 5PM Eastern.

United States Coast Guard SILC Construction

915 2ND AVE., RM 2664

Seattle, WA 98174

HSCG5016RCGRMAC

08/17/2016

SNELL.MARK.W.1245182810 Digitally signed by SNELL.MARK.W.1245182810 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USCG, cn=SNELL.MARK.W.1245182810 Date: 2016.08.17 15:05:33 -07'00'

08/17/2016

Row Inquiry Response

We request confirmation that the proposals are to be submitted to the various regional contacts in the Table L.5 instead of the address in Block 7 of the Standard Form 1442.

It is confirmed that the proposals are to be submitted to the various regional contacts in the Table L.5 instead of the address in Block 7 of the Standard Form 1442.

I wanted to make sure I understood the number of contracts being contemplated by the subject RFP. Specifically, are Region 11/13 being combined into one regional IDIQ? So that prospective bidders should demonstrate ability to work in both regions?

Regions 11 and 13 are being combined into one regional IDIQ. This is a similar approach to the original RMACC for regions11/13.

Region 11/13 Offerors should submit their Phase One propoal with that in mind.

When demonstrating multiple desired characteristics of previous corporate experience (geographical area, completed within the past 6 years, value greater than $500,000, design/build, demonstrates experience with design firm for this MACC, etc.), will projects valued at slightly more (approximately 1‐2%) than $10,000,000 be considered relevant projects under Factor 1?

For Factor 1 ‐ Corporate Experience, projects within 10% each end of the stated range of $500,000 to $10,000,000 wil be considered.

1. The solicitation asks for past performance information related to Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build, and One‐Step Turnkey projects valued at $500,000 to $10 million. Additionally, many of the regions are set‐aside for small business type participation. However, projects to be accomplished as part of this opportunity vary in scale from $2,000 to $7 million, in accordance with FAR 52.216‐19. And the 7‐year value for the District 7 SBA 8(a) portion of the work is $150 million, equating to approximately $21.5 million annually. With multiple awards anticipated (up to 10), this further decreases the potential individual project size if the program is to be robust. Again, however, the past performance value range is from $500,000 to $7 million. This seems inconsistent with the actual expectation as to RMACC assignments for purposes of presenting experience consistent with the HSA USCG project portfolio for these successful contractors. While the complexity of projects of this size is important, the ability to successfully execute smaller projects (and multiple concurrent small projects) may reflect an additional critical skill set for the successful awardee. Can the range of past performance project descriptions be expanded to include lower value (especially concurrent) project descriptions, for example, $100,000 to $7 million?

The USCG is assessing corporate expericence of a representative scope and complexity. We set a project range for experience between $500,000 to $10 million and we have received requests to both accept projects below this range and accept projects above this range. In consideration of these requests, we conducted an analysis of task orders on the current contract and have decided to provide a 10% variance on both ends of the range, thus extending the effective range from $450,000 to $11M. In our analysis we looked at the subset of all task orders awarded to the current contractors on the RMACC. The average task order value was $459,000 and approximately 25% of task orders were in the range of $500k to $2M.

For Factor 1 ‐ Corporate Experience, the dollar range for submitted projects will remain unchanged with the exception of allowing a 10% variance. For Factor 2 ‐ Past Performance ‐ The Government may take into consideration other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

Amendment 0001 identified an 11 pt minimum font size for proposals.

Please confirm this minimum font size applies to text, and that figures, graphics, and tables can be a smaller font size provided they are readable.

Figures, graphics, and tables can be a smaller font size provided they are readable.

For the 8(a) set‐aside contracts, if an awardee graduates from the 8a program during one of the option years, will the firm still be eligible for the remaining option years?

In accordance with CFR 124.514(b) The procuring activity contracting officer may exercise a priced option to an 8(a) contract whether the concern that received the award has graduated or been terminated from the 8(a) BD program or is no longer eligible if to do so is in the best interests of the Government.

RMACC Pre‐Proposal Inquires

As a follow‐up to the question above, how would a change in status from SDVOSB or HUBZone impact the ability to exercise option years? I believe in the past competitions, if the status of a HUBZone contractor changed during the life of a contract, we could still exercise options and still make awards. Please confirm.

Please see 13 CFR 125.15(e) for SDVOSB and 13 CFR 126.601(h) for HUBZone.

The SBA acceptance letters for the 8(a) regions state that “competition is limited to 8(a) firms with a bona fide place of business in the geographical area (each SBA letter identifies the states or regions for the geographical area). FAR 52.219‐18(d)(3) states that “the offeror’s approved business plan is on file and serviced by the appropriate SBA district and/or regional office.” Please confirm that if an 8(a) firm with an SBA bona fide office in, say Florida, has an original SBA 8(a) determination out of say, the San Francisco SBA district, they would still be eligible, as long as the office in Florida has been approved by SBA as a bona fide place of business?

Answer: In accordance with 13 CFR 124.507 a bona fide place of business, for purposes of 8(a) construction procurements, means a location where a Participant (a small business concern admitted to participate in the 8(a) Business Development program) regularly maintains an office which employs at least one full‐time individual within the appropriate geographical boundary. The term does not include construction trailers or other temporary construction sites. If the Participant meets the definition of bona finde place of business then the example provided is acceptable.

Regarding Region 14 (an 8(a) set‐side region), a potential offeror submitting as an 8(a) JV. The firm looked at 13 CFR 124.513, and the question is do they have to consider combined gross receipts of both companies in the JV or just the receipts of the 8(a) member company?

Answer: The coverage at 13 CFR 124.513(b)(1) has been modified. There is no longer a reference to less than half the size standard.

Therefore your response stating that all of the JV partners would need to individually be a small business under the size standard for this NAICS is correct: See below: (b) Size of concerns to an 8(a) joint venture. (1) A joint venture of at least one 8(a) Participant and one or more other business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a competitive 8(a) procurement, or be awarded a sole source 8(a) procurement, so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement.