TMACC_Amendment_0002.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1 4

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

0002 1/06/2017 21-17-827PMV089 7944899

6. ISSUED BY CODE 51290 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

Commanding Officer

CG CEU OAKLAND (CN)

1301 Clay Street 7th Floor, Suite 700N Oakland, CA 94612-5203

Commanding Officer

CG CEU OAKLAND (CN)

1301 Clay Street 7th Floor, Suite 700N Oakland, CA 94612-5203

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code) () 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

X HSCG88-17-R-TMACC

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

To All Prospective Offerors

December 13, 2016

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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.

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 one (1) copy 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 DATA 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 data 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 1 copy to the issuing office.

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

INDEFINITE DELIVERY-INDEFINITE QUANTITY NATIONAL TOWER/ANTENNA MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (IDIQ- TMACC)ATVARIOUS COAST GUARD FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND TERRITORIES

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal due date to January 31, 2017 and to respond to Requests for Information:

Continued to Page 2

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

JEFFREY A. CROSS

Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY ___________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE COMPUTER GENERATED Prescribed by GSA

HSCG88-17-R-TMACC

Amendment 0001

A. Requests for Information:

Question 1: After reviewing the site information for Sault Ste. Marie, I found that the Requirements call for the replacement of LED lights on the tower. I wanted to confirm that this is only calling for LED light bulbs to be installed, not entirely new LED Fixtures. If you could please confirm, I would appreciate it.

Answer 1: The contractor shall replace the entire LED fixture.

Question 2: RFP Section L.9.C.1.(d), page 75 - Under the Price Proposal Instructions, the RFP states “FAPIIS Certification. Offeror shall ensure Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) Certification as required by FAR 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (July 2013).”

Please clarify what is required to be inserted into the Price Proposal for FAPIIS Certification. Are we supposed to provide a screen shot from the Government FAPIIS website?

Answer 2: A print out of your FAPIIS Company’s certification information will be sufficient.

Question 3: RFP Section M.2.5.b, page 80 – Under Past Performance Basis of Evaluation, the RFP states “In evaluating past performance the Government will consider contracts performed during the last five years.” RFP Attachment 4 – Experience & Project Information instructions state “List no more than five (5) CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS from the last six (6) years.” Since there is a relationship with the projects in Relevant Experience section of the Technical Response and the Past Performance section of the Technical Response, there appears to be a difference in how many years back we can go for our references (5 years vs 6 years). Please clarify the difference.

Answer 3: Solicitation Section M. 2.5.b, page 80 – Under Past Performance Basis of Evaluation, the RFP shall read “In evaluating past performance the Government will consider contracts performed during the last six years.”

Question 4: RFP Section M.2.5.b, Past Performance, page 80 – The instructions state to provide the completed CPARS, if available, with the proposal but if CPARS are not available for the reference, a Past Performance Questions (Attachment 6) is sent directly to the Government. If none of the projects has a CPARS, is there something specific the government wants submitted in this section?

Answer 4: The contractor shall include a one page note stating that you do not have any CPARS, but that completed past performance questionnaires will be sent directly to the Government.

Question 5: RFP Section L.8, page 74 – The RFP instructions states that the “technical proposal is limited to 95 pages (including past performance information submitted separately).” Please clarify what past performance information is to be submitted separately? We understand that the Past Performance Questionnaires will be submitted directly to the government. Are we supposed to account for the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted directly to the government in our proposal page count? Is there other past performance information that is supposed to be submitted separately that we are supposed to account for in our proposal page count?

Answer 5: If the contractor does not have any CPARS reports for their relevant experience, a past performance questionnaire (Attachment 6) shall be sent directly to the Government. The past performance questionnaires are included in the proposal page count. The proposal page count for past performance includes CPARS reports as well as past performance questionnaires for projects that do not have a CPARS report.

Amendment 0002

Question 6: RFP Section L.8, page 74 and Section M, pages 79-80 – The RFP instructions states that the “technical proposal is limited to 95 pages (including past performance information submitted separately).” After reviewing the page limits of the Relevant Experience sheets that can be submitted (page 79), the fact that the Past Performance section would only have a significant page count if any of the references have current completed CPARs (page 80), and the Technical Approach to Seed Project is limited to a four page narrative, there seems to be a disconnect in the technical proposal limited 95 pages given the restrictive page count for each of the sections of the Technical Proposal.

Please clarify?

Answer 6: The technical proposal shall be limited to 50 pages. For the technical proposal, offerors are required to submit a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 relevant tower projects. If a maximum of 5 projects are selected, the maximum page count is as follows:

1. One page for the Attachment 6 Experience & Project Information summary (1 page)

2. Four pages x 5 projects for Attachment 6B Project Information Form (20 pages)

3. One page x 5 projects for pictures (5 pages of pictures - not counted for page limit)

4. One page to summarize if past performance questionnaires will be sent directly to USCG (1 page)

5. Four pages x 5 projects for CPARS or past performance questionnaires (20 pages)

6. Eight pages for technical approach to seed project (8 pages – refer to answer 7)

Question 7: RFP Section M.2.5.c, Technical Approach to Seed Project, page 80 – The RFP instructions states that the “Offerors are to submit a narrative not to exceed four pages that discusses their technical approach and provides any project specific documentation that is related to the seed project requirement.” Given the requested amount of information that is to be addressed in the Technical Approach to Seed Project section of the Technical Proposal (technical approach and any project specific documentation that is related to the seed project requirement), it seems that the four page limit to this section is extremely limiting to be able to address the information required in the RFP.

Please clarify?

Answer 7: The sentence is change to read, “Offerors are to submit a narrative not to exceed eight pages that discusses their technical approach and provides any project specific documentation that is related to the seed project requirement.

Question 8: RFP Section M.2.5.a Relevant Experience (2nd paragraph) states that “The aggregate experience of the projects submitted shall be evaluated from the perspective that they demonstrate a diverse ability to work in different geographical areas within the scope of this contract; that they demonstrate a diversity in the different types of work activities outlined in the scope of work; and that they demonstrate diversity in working on both guyed-towers and self supporting towers. For each area in which diversity is demonstrated, a higher rating may be provided”.

Section M.2.5.a Basis of Evaluation (first paragraph) states “Significant experience working in diverse locations nationwide may result in a higher rating”.

Question/Comment: Using the word “may” leaves the evaluation open to subjectivity. Could the government include additional criteria to explain how a higher rating will be determined? For example: are diverse locations viewed as 2 in different regions, 3, 4, etc….

Answer 8: USCG will retain this language.

Amendment 0002

Question 9: RFP - TMACC Seed Project Scope of Services, Task 4 – CMD CEN Tower Sector Sault Ste Marie South – 17134. Contractor Requirements state “Replace with LED lights to meet FAA requirements.”

Question/Comment: Please confirm that the scope of this requirement is to replace the entire lighting system with an LED lighting system that meets the FAA requirements. If the scope is not intended to replace the entire lighting system with an LED system, please provide the type of the current system and whether it is compatible with LED bulbs.

Answer 9: The scope is to replace the entire lighting system. It is unknown if the current system is compatible with LED bulbs. The contractor should assume that it is not.

Question 10: RFP - TMACC Seed Project Scope of Services, Task 7 – CMD-CEN TOWER Hobucken- 10228 - Contractor Requirements states “Install a lightning protection system on the tower” and “Repair bent cross members at 85’ and 89’.”

Question/Comment: Can the government provide the current structural drawings for this tower?

Answer 10: USCG does not have any current structural drawings available.

Question 11: RFP - TMACC Seed Project Scope of Services, Task 8 – CMD-CEN TOWER Northport – 9723.

Please provide the latest inspection report and any structural drawings?

Answer 11: Attached is the most recent inspection report.

Question 12: CMD-CEN tower Hobucken – 10228; Tower drawings are required to know the type of cross members that are to be repaired, i.e. steel thickness, type of cross member, etc.

Answer 12: Attached photos 7 and 8 have a tape measure in the picture. There are 2 bent cross members, one at 85’ and another at 89’. These bends have not broken or affected the supporting welds securing them to the tower leg.

Question 13: CMD CEN tower Sault Ste. Marie South – 17134; Is the contract to replace the entire LED fixture or only the light bulb?

Answer 13: The contractor shall replace the entire LED fixture.

Question 14: CMD-CEN Tower Northport - 9723; Tower drawings are required to know what type of diagonal members are to be replaced. i.e. steel thickness, type of cross member, etc.

Answer 14: Replace the three bent diagonal members at 61', 62', and 79'6". Attached are three (3) photos that correspond to these repairs.

Question 15: I am reaching out to you today in order to get some clarification in regards to access to some of the sites within the TMACC Seed Project, specifically at the Hawaii and Alaska sites. Will any of these sites need specialized vehicles for access, i.e. helicopters, ATV, snow mobiles? These types of vehicles may affect our pricing overall.

Answer 15: DGPS Tower Biorka Island requires a float plane or boat to get to the site.

END