18R0002_Amendment_0002.pdf

ACQR4887160

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY SMALL BUSINESS MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND RENOVATION OF VARIOUS FACILITIES AT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANNAPOLIS, PAX RIVER, SOUTH POTOMAC AND ROICC ANDREWS NAVFAC WASHINGTON AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WASHINGTON, D.C., MARYLAND

AND VIRGINIA

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to RFIs.

Proposal due date/time remains 2:00 PM EST JANUARY 23, 2018.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jan-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008018R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Dec-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 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 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 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 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 copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Jan-2018

CODE

NAVAL FACILITIES ENG COMMAND

1314 HARWOOD STREET SE

WASHINGTON DC 20374

N40080 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION

SUMMAR

SECTION

The follow

AMEN

INDEFINI

CONSTRU

FACILITIE

ROICC A

LIMITED

The purpos

Proposal d

All other te

3. Under constr betwe entity that “ Contra Factor

R

4. Are o experi

5. Is the pr

6. The S

2.

7. Contra

Millio 00010 01010

SF 30 BLOCK

RY OF CHAN

SF 30 - BLO

wing have been

NDMENT 000

ITE DELIVE

UCTION CON

ES AT PUBL

ANDREWS N

TO WASHIN

se of this amen due date/time re erms and cond r Factor 1 – ruction and prim en the entities.

must be name

“Submitted rel actor on all the r 2 from primar

Response: Pro fferors permit ience?

Response: It is offeror permitt

Response: Ye reviously subm

F 1442 states a

Response: Cor act Clause 52.2 on, but Section 0 (Pages 6-7) li 0 and 00010 are

K 14 CONTIN

NGES

CK 14 CONTI

n added by full

ERY INDEF

NTRACT FOR

LIC WORKS

NAVFAC WA

GTON, D.C., M

ndment is to pr emains 2:00 PM itions remain u

Technical, it mary design fir . As such the R ed in the above levant project e submitted pr ry subcontracto pose in accord tted to use the s at the offeror ted to use prev es, however, O mitted for oth a Bid Bond is rrect.

216-19 (Page n 01010 (Page ists the max co e correct and th

NUATION PAG

INUATION PA

text:

FINITE QUA

R NEW CONS

DEPARTMEN

ASHINGTON

MARYLAND

rovide response

M EST JANUA

unchanged.

Resp states that th rms represente RFP states, “If e narrative and t experience s rojects…”. Do ors if it shows dance with the e same projec r’s discretion.

viously submitt

Offerors shal her RFPs.

required. Plea

57) states that

23) states the ombination of hat Clause 52.2

GE

AGE

ANTITY SM

TRUCTION, R

NT ANNAPOL

AREA OF R

AND VIRGIN

es to RFIs.

ARY 23, 2018.

ponses to RFIs he offeror mu ed in a simple o f the experienc d organizationa shall demonst oes this mean that they were e solicitation’s ct(s) for each ted Past Perform l not incorpo ase confirm tha t the max orde e max single o orders at $48

216-19 is not.

MALL BUS

REPAIR, AND

LIS, PAX RIV

RESPONSIBI

NIA

s ust show a re organizational ce on an entity al chart.” Und trate the follo that offerors c e the prime con s requirement set of project mance Questio orate by refer at this is only er $10 Million order is approx Million per ye

INESS MUL

D RENOVAT

VER, SOUTH

LITY INCLU

elationship bet chart clearly sh y is being claim der Factor 2 – owing: Experi can in effect su ntractor and rel ts.

ts under Desig onnaires (Attac rence into th required to be and combinat ximately $15 ear. Please c

N4008018R

Page

LTIPLE AW

TION OF VAR

H POTOMAC

UDING BUT

tween the pro howing the aut med in Factor Experience, it ience as the ubmit experien evant experien gn and Constr chment D)?

heir proposal submitted for tion of orders o Million and S confirm that Se

R0002

WARD

RIOUS

AND

NOT

oposed thority 2, that t states Prime nce for nce?

ruction

PPQs

Phase of $33 Section ections

N4008018R0002

Response: Task orders range is from $2M to $15M. See revised Clause 52.216-19.

8. Can we assume that CCASS or ACASS reports may be submitted in lieu of CPARS? Please confirm.

Response: If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If not, CCASS or ACASS is acceptable.

9. Reference FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE: “For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as follows: Size: A construction project with a final contract value of $2,000,000 to $15,000,00.” And: (d) A construction project completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For each of the projects we submit, we must provide CPARS or PPQ references to match the project experience. Yet – the Basis of Evaluation for those projects submitted under Factor 2 Experience and Past Performance is stated as projects having a value of $1M or greater and completed within the past seven (7) years. So our question is: If the Experience and Past Performance documentation (which must match up project-by-project when we submit them) is based on projects valued at $2M - $15M, why would the evaluation of this information be based on $1M projects or greater, performed within the past seven (7) years?

Please consider matching your Basis of Evaluation to our requirements for submittal of information.

Response: The factor remains unchanged at this time. Propose in accordance with the solicitation’s requirements.

10. In the RFP, the Evaluation Factors For Award on Page 15 states that under Factor 2 - Design Experience, Design-Build Projects may be used. In the Basis of Evaluation section on Page 17, it is stated that offerors that submit more design-build projects may be viewed more favorably than those that don’t. Factor 4 on Page 18 states to submit a CPARS evaluation if one is available for each project submitted in Factor 2. As you are aware, a CPARS evaluation is completed for the Prime Contractor of each project whether that be a General Contractor for a Construction or Design-Build project or a Design firm for just a design contract. If we utilize Design-Build projects for the Design Experience in Factor 2 in which a General Contractor was the Prime Contractor on the contract, then the available CPARS evaluation will be for the Prime Contractor. If the General Contractor on those Design-Build projects is the same that is submitting as an Offeror on this Solicitation (same General Contractor and same Design Firm team), would submitting the General Contractor’s CPARS evaluation be acceptable for submission for Factor 4 for the Design Firm’s Past Performance since the CPARS evaluations on Design-Build projects evaluate the entire project team and the entire design-build process? If not, then for Design-Build projects submitted in Factor 2 for the Design Experience, should we submit the PPQ instead?

Response: Yes, however, it is at the offeror’s discretion.

11. There is a conflict between Factor 2 Experience and Factor 4 Past Performance. Page 14 of 83 it states the final contract value of $2,000,000 to $15,000,000 are to be submitted. Page 19 or 83 it states for the purpose of past performance evaluation, a relevant project with a value of $1,000,000 or greater within the past 7 years. What is the correct range of cost for Factor 2 and Factor 4?

Response: Propose in accordance with the solicitation’s requirements.

12. Please advise if Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 1442 and if so where should it be included?

Response: Submit Completed SF 1442 signed with all amendments acknowledged with the technical proposal.

13. Please confirm, for Technical Factor 1 – Technical Approach, the letters of commitment are not included in the maximum number page count?

Response: Correct.

14. Please confirm, for Technical Factor 2 – Construction Experience (i) Scope/Complexity, c, an exterior renovation project with a scope of work which entailed repairs, redevelopment, alteration, and/or renovations (e.g. site civil, marine, underground and/or overhead utilities, infrastructures etc.) to exterior real property facility (e.g. pier, historical masonry wall, underground chilled water line etc.), which required multiple-disciplines, architectural and engineering efforts, is an acceptable project that meets the stated requirement of “Building Renovation Exterior”? NAVFAC routinely solicits RFPs under their MACC contracts with these scopes of work requirements. This approach has been acceptable for prior NAVFAC SB MACC Technical Proposal submissions.

Response: See evaluation criteria.

15. For Technical Factor 2 – Design Experience (i) Scope/Complexity, c, it states for design-build projects the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Although the design development portion for a design-build project is a significant portion, it is not the only responsibility for the Designer of Record (DOR) on a design-build project. The DOR is responsible for many other significant duties through-out the construction process, such as but not limited to: design construction administration (e.g. submittal review/approval, quality control, revisions etc.), routine inspections, commissioning, and project close-out to name a few. Therefore, we respectfully request that NAVFAC consider eliminating the requirement that the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five years of the date of issuance of this RFP and aligning the use of the project similar to the Construction Experience requirement.

Response: Factor remains unchanged at this time.

16. Please confirm that a Teaming Arrangement is considered a subcontractor relationship and therefore is not permissible for an Offeror to use in response to Technical Factor 2 – Construction Experience?

Response: As stated in the solicitation, “Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered for construction experience.”

17. Technical Factor 2 – Experience (ii), it states Offerors who submit more than two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate Design-Build experience may be considered more favorably than those who demonstrate experience on only one (1) Design-Build project. Please advise if this is correct or should it be Offerors who submit more than one (1) relevant project that demonstrate Design-Build experience may be considered more favorably than those who demonstrate experience on only one (1) Design-Build project?

18. Please advise if Offerors that submit more than two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate Design-Build experience may be considered more favorably than those who demonstrate experience on fewer Design-Build projects?

19. Will you allow previously received Past Performance Questionnaires in lieu of new ones?

Response: See RFI # 5 response.

20. For Phase I, are we required to include any of the items from pages 22 – 84? There are places which need to be filled, for example Section 00600 (page 40) Section 52.203-2 (2) (i) and other places on pages 47 & 48. Or is this information only required to be submitted in Phase 2?

Response: Submit Copy of Online Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for Award Management (SAM) with Phase I technical proposal.

21. Please consider extending the range of past performance projects from $2 million to $15 million to $2 million to

$16 Million.

Response: Factor remains unchanged at this time.

22. Under Factor 2 – Experience / Design Experience / (ii) Basis of Evaluation – “Relevant projects where the

Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.” Can the design firm submit a relevant Design/Build project, performed with the offeror, for which the design is 100% complete but the project’s construction phase is less than 80% complete? A PPQ for the project’s completed design effort would be submitted under Factor 4. Will a project submission of this type submitted under Factor 2 - Design Experience be considered relevant by the government?

23. The Factor 1 Technical Approach states, “Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities.” The page count for the narrative and the page count are limited to two (2) pages. For good clarity can the organizational chart be formatted to fit on a tri-folded 11 x 17 page and can the page count be increased to four (4) pages?

Response: The factor remains unchanged at this time.

24. In review of Factor 2 (Experience) the contract value of the size range is $2,000,000 to $15,000,000 and projects above or below this dollar range will not be considered relevant. Our concern is that our projects under the SBA approved 8(a) Mentor Protégé Agreement (MPA) that is supported in Factor 2 will be above the current $15,000,000 limit but these projects meet all the design-build, new property and renovation requirements with multiple disciplines.

Understanding the Contractor team arrangements of the FAR 9.6, the SBA Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) elements of the solicitation and the fact that projects with our Mentor have allowed our small business concern to increase our size and scope capacity experience, can you revise the upper size limit of Factor 2 in both the Blue and Gold MACC solicitations (N40080-18-R-0001 & N40080-18-R-0002) to include projects above $15,000,000 as long as they meet baseline compliance requirements and more favorable requirements of design-build, new property and renovation with multiple-disciplines (e.g. architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and civil)?

25. Factor 3, Safety – Can safety awards be added to the Factor 3 but not included in the page count?

Response: Yes.

26. Under Factor 2 – Experience, line item c on p.15 of 84 on RFP, it states the Prime Contractor shall demonstrate

“at least one project in each of the following categories: new building construction and renovation (interior or exterior)”. Please confirm if an entire building demolition project or a stand-alone fencing with physical security project qualifies as an exterior renovation.

27. Reference: Page 14, “The information requested in item #3 below is not included in this page limitation.”

Question: Please clarify what is item #3 below.

Response: The paragraph below stating, “In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).”

28. Reference: Factor 2 – Experience: Size: A construction project with a final contract value of $2M - $15M.

Question: Projects that originated within the contract value ($2M - $15M) and completed above the $15M due to client directed changes—may these projects be submitted?

29. Reference: Page 15: item (d) – “a construction project completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.” Question: May projects that are over 5 years and less than six be submitted—for example, 5 years and 1 months or 5 years and 4 months, etc.?

30. Is there a page limit on the cover letter?

Response: No, however, it is not an evaluation criterion.

31. Reference: Factor 2, page 17, “Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features, which are validated and/or certified through US Green Building council or the equivalent organization or process, may be considered more favorably than those that do not present the required validation documentation.”

Question: Would you consider the sustainable features where we utilize our in-house experience and approach – that is to say, where we use a LEED approach to all of our projects and have staff that are LEED professionals?

32. Reference: Pg. 10 INSTRUCTIONS FOR HAND DELIVERY - The Government has indicated that only those individuals holding a current DoDCAC will be allowed to hand deliver the Technical Proposal to Bldg. 212 at the Navy Yard. Question: In the past, we have delivered proposals to the Washington Navy Yard with a valid id, proof of car insurance, and car registration and we entered the visitors center at the O Street gate to gain access. Is this delivery method acceptable?

Response: No, please see INSTRUCTIONS FOR HAND DELIVERY.

33. Are there state licensing requirements for the proposed design firm?

34. FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE: (ii) Basis of Evaluation states: “For purposes of the past performance evaluation, a relevant project is defined as building construction or renovation with a value of $1M or greater completed within the past seven (7) years.” Please confirm that a relevant project for Factor 2 Experience and Factor 4 Past Performance is defined as building construction or renovation with a value of $1M or greater.

Response: See RFI # 2 response.

35. Paragraph FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE: (ii) Basis of Evaluation states: “For purposes of the past performance evaluation, a relevant project is defined as building construction or renovation with a value of $1M or greater completed within the past seven (7) years.” Please confirm that a relevant project for Factor 2

Experience and Factor 4 Past Performance is defined as a project completed within the last 7 years prior to the issuance of this rfp.

Response: See RFI # 2 response.

36. The RFP was released on Dec 22nd, 2017. Due to the holiday season, many government personnel have not been available to address our requests for past performance questionnaires until after January 2nd 2018. We respectfully request that the due date be moved to February 6, 2018 to allow the time required to collect all past performance questionnaires for Factor 3 featured projects.

Response: Proposal due date remains unchanged at this time.

37. Paragraph FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE: (i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements states: “If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment D) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.”

In a government design-build project where the prime construction contractor holds the design-build contract, government clients are frequently unwilling to fill out PPQs for the contractor’s AE design-partner, since there is no direct contractual relationship between that government client and the AE firm. Please clarify if a PPQ, filled out by the design-build contractor, is an acceptable evaluation for the AE partner’s design past performance, since the contractor is a client of that AE firm.

Response: No, the PPQ must be completed by the client of the project and not the contractor.

38. Factor 1 asks for JV and teaming agreements. Factor 2 also asks for this requirement. Can the submittal of these documents in Factor 1 meet the Factor 2 requirements or are they required in each section?

Response: No, propose in accordance with the solicitation’s requirements.

39. RFP Page 17, Factor 3 – Safety: Is there a specific format in which the Government would like this information presented? In the past, many NAVFAC contracts have included a “Safety Form” attachment.

Response: No.

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS. (OCT 1995)

(a) Minimum order. When the Government requires supplies or services covered by this contract in an amount of less than $10,000.00, the Government is not obligated to purchase, nor is the Contractor obligated to furnish, those supplies or services under the contract.

(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor:

(1) Any order for a single item in excess of $15M;

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $48M; or

(3) A series of orders from the same ordering office within 15 days that together call for quantities exceeding the limitation in subparagraph (1) or (2) above.

(c) If this is a requirements contract (i.e., includes the Requirements clause at subsection 52.216-21 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)), the Government is not required to order a part of any one requirement from the Contractor if that requirement exceeds the maximum-order limitations in paragraph (b) above.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the Contractor shall honor any order exceeding the maximum order limitations in paragraph (b), unless that order (or orders) is returned to the ordering office within 5 days after issuance, with written notice stating the Contractor's intent not to ship the item (or items) called for and the reasons.

Upon receiving this notice, the Government may acquire the supplies or services from another source.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)