rmacc amendment 0003.doc

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Contracting Officer

USCG CEU Oakland

2000 Embarcadero, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94606 Same as Block 6

9B. DATE (SEE ITEM 11)

03/04/2009

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FORMCHECKBOX

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers FORMCHECKBOX is extended, FORMCHECKBOX is not extended. 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 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 ACKNOWLEGEMENT 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 data, etc)

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO 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 FORMCHECKBOX is not, FORMCHECKBOX is required to sign this document and return 1 copy to the issuing office.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to questions from prospective offerors .

A. See attached for the responses to the questions from prospective offerors.

B. This amendment applies to HSCG88-09-R-623066, HSCG88-09-R-623066(A) and HSCG88-09-R-623066(B)

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.

JEFFREY A. CROSS

3/25/09

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

30-105

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

Prescribed by GSA, FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (CONT):

Delete the existing clause M.1 and replace it with the revised clause M.1 shown below. The relevant experience rating definitions were revised to ensure relevant experience was addressed in five areas.

M.1

EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1. Awards will be made to the offerors whose proposals, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to offer the best value to the Government, price and all other evaluation factors considered. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest price offerors. The Government intends to make multiple awards for each region.

2. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the proposed contract. Such proposals may be rejected as unacceptable without further discussion. In addition, the Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration those proposals so deficient in information as to require a major re-write or revision in order to become acceptable.

3. In selecting the best value, the following factors will be considered: price & technical factors; past performance and relevant experience. Price, past performance, and relative experience are of approximately equal value.

4. Price - Prices will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, proposal analysis techniques. Analysis will be made of the separate cost elements and profit in each proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. The breakdown must include sufficient detail to permit an analysis of profit, and of all costs for material; labor; equipment; subcontracts; and overhead. Overall prices and rates may be compared among offerors.

5. Technical Factors - The following technical factors, past performance and relative experience, will be used to evaluate technical capabilities of offerors. Past Performance Surveys will be evaluated to assess relevant past performance.

a. Past Performance - The following sub-factors will be used to evaluate past performance. All sub-factors are of equal importance. Most past performance information will be obtained from past performance evaluations received prior to the proposal receipt date. Following are factors to be considered as part of past performance.

(1) Timely Completion of Previous Projects.

(2) Quality of Design Services.

(3) Quality of Construction Services.

(4) Management/Oversight.

(5) Customer Satisfaction.

Following is the rating system for evaluation of Past Performance.

Rating

Definition

No Rating The offeror has no relevant past performance.

Superior

One or more examples where past performance significantly exceeded requirements.

Satisfactory Past performance met requirements.

Marginal

One or more examples where past performance failed to meet requirements due to fault of contractor.

Unsatisfactory

One or more examples where past performance significantly failed to meet requirements due to fault of contractor.

An offeror with no record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

b. Relevant Experience: – b. Relevant Experience: – Contractor should demonstrate successful relevant experience (projects valued between $3,000 and $5,000,000) in the following types of construction:

(1) Design-build construction,

(2) Performance-based construction,

(3) General construction,

(4) Marine construction,

(5) Demolition,

(6) Historical restoration.

(7) Design

(8) Design and construction to LEED standards.

In order to be considered for award the offeror shall have demonstrated relevant experience in at least five (5) of the eight (8) areas listed above. All subfactors are of equal importance.

In the technical proposal the contractor shall address their relevant experience ensuring the factors shown above are addressed. If a Contractor seeks multiple awards in different regions their proposal must provide an explanation why the proposed relevant experience is applicable to the regions proposed upon.

Following is the rating system for evaluation of Relevant Experience.

Rating

Definition

Superior Exceeds the requirements in a way which yields significant benefits to the government; weaknesses, if any, are of small impact and NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Has relevant experience in more than five areas.

Satisfactory Meets all requirements; proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements yet NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist. Has relevant experience in at least five areas.

Marginal Fails to meet minimum requirements or has one or more significant weaknesses. Deficiencies and significant weaknesses are correctable without major revisions to the proposal. Has failed to demonstrate adequate experience in at least five areas.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet the requirement; one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. Does not have experience in at least five areas.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Dutra Group Questions:

Scope:

As Mr. Cross will recall from the CG Island Bridge Project, we are primarily a specialized marine construction company. Our particular interest would be in work associated with construction, improvements of, and repairs to berthing facilities. Typically, such work could require dredging, bulkhead construction or related shoreline work, and the construction of piers or wharves.

Question: Do the projects contemplated involve such work?

Answer:

Yes.

Would marine work be a primary, or secondary focus?

Answer:

There are numerous areas of focus of which marine work would be one.

Would marine work be combined with significant onshore work, such as pier superstructures?

Answer:

There will be significant work that is marine construction and “onshore work.” At this time I am unable to determine how projects will be packaged.

Procurement:

Mindful of the fact that Region 11 & 13 work is planned for award to SDVBE’s:

Question: Do you plan any consideration for overlapping classes of Small Businesses such as HUBZone Small Businesses?

Answer:

Regions 11 & 13 are Service Disabled, Veteran Owned, Small Businesses (SDVOSB). We will not overlap different socio-economic classes.

Question: If so, how would that work?

Answer:

Not applicable.

Question: What is the percentage of self-performed work required of an SDVBE?

Answer:

As shown above, SDVBE is not an acronym for a socio-economic group. FAR clause 52.219-14 (Dec 1996) states, “(3) General construction. The concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.”

Question: Is there a list of SDVBE’s who have expressed interest in the above solicitation?

Answer:

No.

Question: Is that information otherwise available?

Answer:

Check with FedBizOps (www.eps.gov) for the list of firms that have requested the RFP.

Question: Is there a list of SDVBE’s who have previously received contracts from DHS/USCG, Regions 11/13?

Answer:

No.

Is that information otherwise available?

Answer:

No.

I assume the above RFP results in a pool of pre-qualified contracting teams, who would then be invited to propose on an RFP for a specific project. I also understand that a pre-qualified team may delete or add subcontractors as appropriate to the scope of a specific task order RFP.

Question: Are these assumptions valid?

Answer:

Yes.

Question: Are there any requirements attendant to the addition of a subcontractor to a pre-qualified team?

Answer:

No.

Miscellaneous:

Question: Are procurements requiring marine work in Regions 11, 13, 14, & 17 being contemplated which would involve other RFP’s in addition to those flowing from HSCG47-09-R-3EFK03 and the above RFP?

Answer:

Those forecasts are unknown.

Question: What would be the timing on such additional RFP’s, to the extent they might be in planning?

Answer:

Those forecasts are unknown.

Question: What is the overall extent of USCG planning for additional facilities, or improvements to existing facilities?

Answer:

Forecast for future planning throughout the nations are unknown.

Question: Is there something like a five year CIP available?

Answer:

No.

Question: Would such a document answer some of the questions posed above?

Answer:

If such a document existed it would probably answer your questions.

Slade, Sansone & Kumar, Inc. Questions:

1) Can we increase the dollar amount for the relevant experience projects in some of the categories to show LEED (LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN)experience?

Answer:

No. There is no correlation between LEED and the dollar amount of relevant experience.

2) What type of facility construction is required to show in the relevant experience?

Answer:

All relevant experience in facility construction should be addressed in relevant experience, particularly valued at $3,000 - $5,000,000.

EM SURV Questions:

Under to the solicitation above, what is the bonding amount for the contractor to bid to any work projects?

Answer:

Task order limits are $5,000,000. Each proposer should have bonding capacity up to $5,000,000.

B. Does specific works has a percentage of bonding amount?

Answer:

No.

C. Can I bid and used the same past performance and bonding capabilities of my team partner or subcontractor?

Answer:

Submission of relevant experience information for team partners and major subcontractors is acceptable.

D. My partner company’s is an 8(a ), Hub Zone status and or my subcontractor, and I am a SDVOB, VOB,WMOB,SMDBE. Can we bid on the same task or different task order projects, using each our status?

Answer:

Awardees are expected to submit proposals for all task orders within their respective region. Each region is set-aside for either 8(a) firms, SDVOSB firms, or Hubzone firms. Different socio-economic groups cannot submit proposals for the same task order after these contracts are awarded.

Tooke & Smith Consultants LLC Question:

In the Past Performance Section, can we provide past performance information in addition to the required past performance questionnaire copies?

Answer:

Provide relevant experience, not past performance. This should contain some of the same information.

CCI Building Questions:

We are submitting on the RMACC solicitation for District #5, and have a question in reference to the sample task. The scope is outlined very well. However; is this to be treated as a design/build project?

Answer:

No.

If so, we will need to include architectural and engineering fees. Is it to be a LEED project that will require commissioning?

Answer:

LEED requirements will be delineated in individual task orders.

Hardie Industries Questions:

In your amendment 2, when referencing the “Performance Questionnaire’s”, we have already submitted our questionnaire’s do we have to re-submit them again to out clients?

Answer:

No, but it would be helpful if they provided the “Description of the Project” when they submit the Past Performance Questionnaire.

If we do not submit them will there be an evaluation penalty.

Answer:

There will be no penalty, but you may be asked to clarify the project description.

If we do submit them and the client does not re-submit can we use the Past Performance questionnaire’s in our evaluation?

Answer:

Yes.

SLM, Inc. d/b/a Straight Line Masonry Question:

Could you email or fax us the list of General Contractors that are bidding HSCG88-09-R-623066(B).

Answer:

No. You will have to obtain the Bidder's Mailing List from FedBizOps (www.eps.gov). It is called the “Interested Venders List.” We do not maintain a list of General Contractors.

AMES Corporation Question:

Are there any bid bonds required with these?

Answer:

No, but bonding limits for your firm must be provided as part of the technical proposal.

J2 Engineering, Inc. Question:

Question regarding Relevant Experience: What format do we use to prepare project descriptions? What categories about the project should be shown? Each agency has different requirements. How many projects (minimum and maximum) do we provide?

Answer:

There is not a set-format for ”relevant experience.” Follow the instruction in Clauses L.10 and L.11.

Panorama Consulting, Inc. Question:

Regarding solicitation paragraph K.4 (page 90 of Amendment 0001):

Information requested in (2) requests the principal place of performance of the work required under the resulting contract (city, county and state); information requested in (3) requests the congressional district of the principal place of performance.

Answer:

Provide the location of your office and the Congressional District within which it lies.

Jeffrey Brown Contracting Questions:

1. Does a teaming agreement have to be in place in order to use a team member’s experience to fulfill the technical requirement for relevant experience?

Answer:

No.

2. Is it acceptable to collect the past experience questionnaires from clients in sealed envelopes from them and send same from the proposer’s office to ensure timely delivery to you?

Answer:

Yes.

Souza Construction Inc. Question:

Is a Hubzone “Bona Fide “office required at the time of proposal or the time of award?

Answer:

At the time of proposal.

Rockford Corporation Question:

The restriction of 20 pages for the relevant experience in the technical proposal, is inadequate. This section includes 8 sub-factors and key personnel relevant experience. We request this limit be increased to 40 pages. This would allow sufficient space to address relevant experience in each sub-factor and include key personnel experience.

Answer:

The 20 pages are for relevant experience, not “key personnel relevant experience.” We are expecting to award a minimum of 50 contracts and we expect to received 100-200 proposals. As a result we are limiting each proposer to 20 pages per submission.

Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc. Question:

Obviously I am blind. The answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 on page 14 of amendment 2 indicate that a floorplan was provided in the RFP. I can’t find any floorplan anywhere in documents provided to date. Am I missing something?

Answer:

You are not blind, there was no floor plan included in the solicitation for the sample project. The overall footages for the building is 2500 square feet. The contractor should determine the appropriate size of the various offices, rooms, and closets included.

Question:

Amendment 2 deletes Page 78 and replaces Page 78 “Performance Questionnaire” by revising “G Description of Project”. We have submitted the original form to the Contracting Officers. Since these folks are so busy and it is difficult to get them to complete the form, we hesitate to resubmit for their completion. Is this acceptable for us to submit the old form and not use the new form as it only change the title of “G.” The form was filled out providing a description of the project and not services.

Answer:

We understand your dilemma. All Past performance questionnaires received will be evaluated.

Cayo, LP Question:

Is there a sample list of projects for the IDIQ task order that the contractors can review to better determine the focus of solicitation work?

Answer:

The following website delineates the type of contracting performed, http://www.fido.gov/dhs/aap/publicview.asp you may want to use the Advanced Mode search vehicle using construction NAIC’s codes.

ARC Inc. Question:

Is the seed project a real project that will be awarded from the contract, or is it just a sample project just for evaluation purposes? If so, where will be it be located?

Answer:

The sample project is not a real project. It is being used to help evaluate price.

What is the last day questions will be accepted and answered for this solicitation?

Answer:

The last day questions will be accepted and answered is 3/26/09.