AMENDMENT 0002.pdf

ACQR5607219

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

N40080-19-R-0001-8(A) SMALL BUSINESS MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC) FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF VARIOUS FACILITIES AT NAVFAC WASHINGTON AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

WASHINGTON, DC, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

This amendment includes responses to PPI and include revised Safety Form Attachment D.

Proposal due date is hereby extended to 26 April 2021, time remains unchanged. No new PPI w ill be accepted.

CONTINUED ON PAGES 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Apr-2021

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 N4008019R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-2021

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 X is extended, 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

14-Apr-2021

CODE

NAVAL FACILITIES ENG COMMAND WASHINGTON

1314 HARWOOD ST.

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:

N4008019R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

Amendment 0001 Response #1 is hereby corrected. A Bid Bond is not required for Phase I.

Attached is a revised Attachment D Safety Data Sheet.

1. Spec Section : 00 21 13 – Instructions to Bidder; Designer Experience

Can the government please clarify that the designer is to submit 1 design-bid-build project in their experience factors?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

2. Factor 4 – Past Performance

Per the solicitation submittal requirements, If a CPARS evaluation is not available for past performance, then a PPQ can be provided. Can a previously completed PPQ be used for this?

Note: Many agencies are now refusing to complete PPQ’s multiple times and some are refusing to do them altogether. Being able to use a previously completed PPQ would be extremely helpful.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

3. Phase 1: Factor 1 Management approach.

Phase 2: Factor 5 Technical Solution

Under these two factors will Management Experience count towards the technical evaluation?

For example, Management Experience that directly relates to NAVFAC and specific to the Navy Yard, will that be viewed as more favorable or have no effect on the evaluation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE THE

SUBMISSION ACCORDING TO THE RFP.

4. Amendment 0001 response to PPI #4 is updated to include additional information.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES. THIS PROCUREMENT IS LIMITED TO

CERTIFIED 8(A) FIRMS LOCATED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

SERVICED BY THE SBA BALTIMORE DISTRICT OFFICE, THE SBA

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA DISTRICT OFFICE, AND THE SBA

RICHMOND DISTRICT OFFICE.

5. REP – Page 16 of 60 – Joint Ventures While considering the joint venture guidelines per the recent Mentor Protégé program amendments, will the past performance experience of the SBA approved mentor be considered more favorably than the first-tier subcontractor? Kindly advise.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: JV MEMBERS PAST PERFORMANCE IS MORE

FAVORABLE THEN SUBCONTRACTORS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AE.

6. If a completed CPARS evaluation is NOT available, can we submit a previously completed PPQ in Factor 4 – Past Performance in lieu of obtaining a new PPQ?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

7. The pre-solicitation notice for this RFP dated 3/2/2021 specifically discusses projects contemplated for this RFP from $250,000 - $5,000,000. Factor 1 of the RFP which was released on March 18,2021 states the projects submitted for Construction Experience must have a final construction value of $1,000,000 - $5,000,000. We believe this is not a best value for the government based on the following criteria and suggest modifying Factor 2 Construction Experience FINAL contract Value to $500,000 - $5,000,000.

It is standard and historically accurate that most projects available to an 8a contractor to offer as recent and relevant Construction Experience and Past Performance are Category 4 PBC’s, usually less than $100,000 and Category 3 that are $750,000 or less. Typically, Category 2 and 1 contracts are competed by the government utilizing existing 8a MACC vehicles. This pattern of contract solicitation and award was particularly prevalent during the last four-year administration and limits firms who were not participants on previous MACC vehicles to propose utilizing Category 2 or 1 contracts which Factor 2 requires. Additionally, Category 3 and 4 contracts which are most common for 8a contractors are typically solicited with limited design, requiring the 8a firm to provide DB services and have rapid execution requirements which require significant coordination with the end user and partnering with NAVFAC for a mutually beneficial contract solution. This is particularly important and relevant since it is also an evaluation item listed in Factor 4 of the RFP. The complexity of a project is not always demonstrated by the cost in the final construction value.

Finally, since this MAC contract is slated for a significant time period and amount (seven years and $750M) we believe the government is not allowing a Best Value scenario to be established.

In limiting the lower dollar value projects proposed for Factor 2 Construction Experience the government is effectively limiting the competition on this contract to older 8a contractors with higher dollar value Construction Experience which most likely only have a few years left on their 8a set aside certification. This is not only an unfair but requires younger very capable 8a’s to either rely on a Mentor Protégé / Joint Venture relationship for construction experience which, historically drives up prices for the government or be excluded all together from this significant contract for NAVFAC Washington. Additionally, this also allows for 8a firms which may be close to having an expiring set-aside code to participate on a set-aside contract well past their official SBA 8a certification. I understand this has been the case in the past but since this contract is contemplated for such a significant time period (almost double from typical) and dollar amount ($750M) this is point is particularly relevant and may invite a protest based on objective review of project dollars amounts vs. project complexity.

Question:

With this contract being solicited as a Best Value and Two Phased type that is heavily weighted on Construction Experience and Past Performance as noted in the “Evaluation Factors for Award” as shown below (FACTOR 4):

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand

Will the Government please consider allowing qualified 8a firms to provide projects with a FINAL construction value from $500,000 - $5,000,000 for evaluation in Factor 2 Construction Experience and Factor 4? This will allow the Government to receive proposals from the most competitive and qualified contractors for this mission critical contract.

Will the Government consider FAR 15.305(a)(2(iii) in relation to Factor 2 Construction Experience provided the 8a firm can provide meaningful involvement as described relating to specific commitments of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that the subcontractor or key person or personnel commits in the performance of this contract? The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the subcontractor or key person in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: REQUIREMENT REMAINS UNCHANGED, SUBMIT

PER THE RFP

8. Please consider change to clarify conflicting statements, Page 15 Solicitation, 1. Construction Experience (Also listed in 2. Design Experience) “similar in size, scope, and complexity to the projects proposed for this MACC.” This section then states $1M-$5M for size value for experience, but further in the solicitation it defines under Page 36 “DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND ORDER VALUE” as well as in section 01020, $250K-5M is listed as the proposed projects value for the MACC. Please consider changing Page 15 experience range for construction and design to match $250K-$5M as this notion by definition of “Similar in size… to the projects proposed for this MACC.” This will allow offerors to show the full range of experience for the project range proposed for this MACC.

Per FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iii), please confirm “Key Personnel” of the offeror who individually have relevant experience and past performance will be evaluated as part of Factor 2 and Factor 4 and will NOT result in a lower rating as such. Will additional documentation be required indicating the connection and key roles of these Key Personnel? If so, what documentation?

(Key Personnel in this context is not in reference to subcontractors or other outside sources, but rather management, and principles of the offeror.) This is only partially identified on Page 14, Factor 1, Line 3.

Is this contract replacing a similar MACC contract? If so, please provide historical data for understanding of potential volume and usage.

Since the offeror is required to provide construction experience “similar in size, scope, and complexity” please provide either historical data relevant to a similar MACC contract with task order titles and contract values or provide further details on the Seed project such as scope, drawings, and/or such. This will be in order to identify specific experience that relates to the “size, scope, and complexity.”

Will PPQ’s previously obtained in different format be acceptable? (IE. Air Force format, and signed/dated prior) or will only the PPQ format provided with the solicitation be acceptable?

What locations will be covered under this contract?

Please consider additional time for the proposal due date based on the timing of the RFI Responses.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: REQUIREMENT REMAINS UNCHANGED, SUBMIT

PER THE RFP

9. Concerning the above referenced RFP, we would like to bring to your attention few requirements which in the RFP which we believe require changes . The SBA guidelines were amended in Nov 2020 and it seems that NAVFAC has not taken into consideration those guidelines . We are submitting this as a direct mail to you rather than thru the Q&A due to the attachment for the revised guidelines we wanted to provide for your quick reference. We have highlighted the specific clauses for you ready reference

RFP Page 17 of 60 paragraph 1 states that the evidence of JV agreement submitted to SBA is required. Please refer to page 1 of attached revised guidelines which eliminates the SBA approval of the JV . SBA no longer has a link to upload the JV agreements and the approval is now with the agency and not SBA .

RFP Page 15 of 60 - Construction Experience states that experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered. Please refer to page 81 of the revised SBA rules attachment. Which states that experience of first tier subcontractor has to be considered for award.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE REVISION FACTOR 2 EXPERIENCE.

REVISED TO:

EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED

FOR CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE, UNLESS THERE IS A FORMAL

AGREEMENT (I.E., MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ. JV, PARTNERING, TEAMING

AGREEMENT)

JOINT VENTURES OF AN SBA APPROVED MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ AGREEMENT:

REVISED TO:

IF THE JOINT VENTURE IS AN SBA APPROVED MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ, RELEVANT

PROJECT EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR PROJECTS COMPLETED

EITHER BY THE MENTOR, THE PROTÉGÉ, OR THE JOINT VENTURE ENTITY.

THE OFFEROR SHALL SUBMIT A SIGNED COPY OF THE JOINT VENTURE

AGREEMENT INDICATING THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION OF EACH JOINT

VENTURE MEMBER. OFFERORS CONTEMPLATING A JOINT VENTURE SHALL

SHOW EVIDENCE IN THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THE JOINT VENTURE

AGREEMENT HAS BEEN DRAFTED PRIOR TO PROPOSAL DUE DATE. FAILURE

TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN THEIR PROPOSAL OF THE JOINT VENTURE

AGREEMENT PRIOR TO PROPOSAL DUE DATE MAY RESULT IN A LOWER

RATING.

10. RFP page 14, Phase 1, Factor 1 – Management Approach: Can we name multiple subs to the same discipline?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES.

11. The construction cost limitations for Construction Experience state that projects above or below the set limits of $1M and $5M will not be considered relevant. The construction costs limitations for Design Experience have the same range of $1M and $5M, but state that projects submitted below $1M will not be considered relevant. Please clarify if projects submitted for Design Experience above $5M will be considered relevant and if there is an upper limit that is too high.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #7

12. Please clarify if Past Performance Questionnaires which were signed prior to the date of this solicitation are acceptable. Some of the folks that have signed our PPQs have moved on to other positions and cannot be located and others have retired. In these cases finding someone who has knowledge of the project is challenging. PPQs are filled out by the person who has the most knowledge of the project just after completion. Those are the folks most qualified to fill it out at the appropriate time. Having someone else fill out a review with limited knowledge will likely be less accurate to the true performance of the team.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #2

13. We would like to submit a project that meets the Design Experience requirements. This project was part of an Term Design Contract for the Army. We have an ACASS for the entire Term Contract which lists all the projects on it including the one we would like to submit. The Army has refused in the past to write a separate review for individual projects. Will a previously signed ACASS for a term contract which lists the specific project being submitted be acceptable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

14. On page 15 of 60 under Construction Experience, it states that for a project to be relevant for size, the FINAL contract value must be between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Projects submitted above or below this stated dollar range will not be considered relevant. The requirement then goes on to the Design Experience and under size it states that for the design submission, the FINAL contract value must be between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Projects submitted below $1,000,000 will not be considered relevant. Please confirm that our design firm’s size experience can be greater than $5,000,000.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #7

15. Solicitation Section 00 21 13 – Instruction to Bidders Factor 4 Past Performance (i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements] The Government has requested a CPARS or PPQ for “each project the offeror included in its proposal for Factor 2 Experience” Please confirm if this only pertains to Factor 2 Experience Subfactor 1: Construction Experience or if the Government is requiring the Design Firm to submit PPQs or potentially CPARS.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

16. Solicitation Section 00 21 13 – Instruction to Bidders Factor 1 Management Approach] Would the Government please consider allowing the Organizational Chart requested as a part of Narrative to be provided as an Appendix and thus not be counted towards the 2-page limit.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

17. Solicitation Section 00 21 13 – Instruction to Bidders] Would the Government please confirm if Cover Pages, Tables of Contents, Tabs, etc. are desired as they are not listed as the Solicitation is written. If the Government determines its desire to include Cover Pages, Tables of Contents and Tabs, would the Government please state that these documents will not count against any designated page limitations.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

18. Solicitation Section 00 21 13 – Instruction to Bidders Factor 4 Past Performance (i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements] If only an Interim CPARS is available on a completed project due to a Government Representative’s position change resulting in the Offeror’s inability to receive a Final CPARS, would the Government accept a PPQ on that project when a final completed CPARS does not exist in the system?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

19. Solicitation Section 00 21 13 – Instruction to Bidders Factor 2 Experience 2 Design Experience] Please confirm if projects submitted by the Design Firm that exceed $5M will be considered relevant.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

20. Please confirm the number of projects required for Factor 2 Experience: 3 to 5 construction projects and 3 to 5 design projects, totaling no more than 10 projects for submission. Page 15 of 60 from the document titled “Solicitation 19R0001”.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP. SEE BASIS OF EVALUATION

PAGE 17 OF 60.

21. (Pg. 15) Factor 2, Sec. 1. – Construction Experience states “A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.” As a small business we have been awarded multiple IDIQs and have successfully completed various individual task orders under the single IDIQ. When combined, the total awarded value of all completed task orders to date is greater than $1M. Can a small business utilize the total awarded and completed task order amount under the IDIQ as One (1) past performance relevant construction project reference if the total of all awarded task orders is greater than the $1M minimum threshold?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

22. (Pg. 36) Section 00 70 00 and (Pg. 15) Factor 2 – Given the government’s assertion that individual Task Orders for this contract are expected to range between $250,000 and $5,000,000 in value, as well as the fact that this procurement is an 8(a) set-aside, would the government consider changing past performance experience requirements to allow projects between $250,000 to $5,000,000 in value?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

23. RFP Reference: Factor 2 – Experience, Page 15 of 60, 1. Construction Experience, Size; 2.

Design Experience, Size. Would the Government accept contracts submitted for experience that are above the $5,000,000.00 threshold?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP. SEE PAGE 15 OF 60

PROJECTS SUBMITTED ABOVE OR BELOW THIS STATED DOLLAR RANGE

WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT.

24. RFP Reference: Instructions to Bidders, Page 16 of 60., Recency of Past Performance Projects, Projects submitted shall be completed within the past seven (7) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Is the government able to extend the completion date of projects to include the past 10 years?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

25. Page 20 of 60 – Factor 4 – Past Experience In case of a same relevant project that has been completed by both the DOR for design experience and the contractor for construction experience, do we need to submit separate evaluations / CPARS, or the single evaluation/CPARS will suffice.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PROJECTS PROVIDED TO

DEMONSTRATE EXPERIENCE IN FACTOR 2.

26. Can you please confirm that a bid guarantee is not required in Phase I as the Price Proposal is not required until Phase II? (Page 1, RFP states “An offer guarantee is required).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A BID BOND IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PHASE I.

27. We would like to have two design firms submitting projects as past performance under the Design Experience requirement in Factor 2. Would the Government look more favorably upon our teaming arrangement if a) the two design firms are both listed as design partners or b) one of the design firms is listed as the design partner and the second firm is listed as a design subcontractor? It appears the RFP states both are acceptable. (Factor 2 – Experience, Page 16 RFP, “The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide the supporting subconctractor agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor….A maximum of two (2) design firms is allowed”.)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: THE RFP IDENTIFIED FAVORABILITY UNDER

FACTOR 2 PAGE 17 OF 60. SUBMIT PER THE RFP

28. Would past projects that we completed as the lead member of a Joint Venture be considered experience as a prime contractor if we are bidding as a sole entity for this RFP? ((ii) Basis of Evaluation, page 17 “Experience may be strengthened, and considered more favorably, by demonstrating the following:…Experience as the Prime Contractor on all three (3) construction projects”)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

29. Can you please confirm that the projects submitted for Design Experience must have a final construction value of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, which includes the non-design elements of the contract? (Design Experience, P. 15, RFP states, “A complete design for a construction project with a FINAL contract value of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.”)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP; SEE RESPONSE #7

30. Can you please confirm that there is no minimum or maximum value for the FINAL design contract value of the past projects submitted in Factor 2 for Design Experience? (Design Experience, P. 15, RFP states, “A complete design for a construction project with a FINAL contract value of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.”)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP; SEE RESPONSE #7

31. We kindly request that PPQs previously submitted under other RFPs be accepted. Many of our Government Contracting Officer and Project Manager clients are no longer with the Government and, as such, there are lengthy delays in replies for new PPQs.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #2

32. Our design partner does not have CPARS for their projects in Factor 2 – Design Experience, as they were not the Prime contractor on these projects. They do, however, have PPQs completed by their client, the general contractor or architect of record, which were completed on the same template provided in the RFP (Attachment B NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIREs (Form PPQ-0). Would it acceptable if we submit design PPQs completed by the Prime contractor for previous proposals on the same template requested for this RFP?

(Specification Section and Page Number: Factor 4 Past Performance, Page 20 of the RFP states “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs.”)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

33. Factor 4 Past Performance, p.20 RFP, Item (i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Please clarify the following two statements:

(1) “If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal.” (2) “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs.”

Does this mean that if a CPARS evaluation was submitted or referenced in a proposal to another Agency – we may not submit it for Past Performance in this proposal? Our understanding is that every CPARS evaluation is valid and available to all Agencies.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

34. Construction Experience Item 3 page 17: Joint Ventures of an SBA approved mentor/protégé Agreement “If the Joint Venture is an SBA approved mentor/protégé, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed either by the mentor, the protégé, or the Joint Venture entity. The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors contemplating a Joint Venture shall show evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required. Failure to submit evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required may result in a lower rating.” Based on SBA changes to rules on mentor protégé programs (10/16/2020 - Document Number: 2020-19428), 8(a) Participants in SBA approved mentor/protégé programs that seek to be awarded an 8(a) contract as a joint venture are no longer required to submit the joint venture to SBA for review and approval prior to contract award. Since SBA pre-approval is no longer required - please confirm that we will not receive a lower rating if we provide a statement concerning the aforementioned SBA ruling in lieu of providing evidence that the JV Agreement has been preapproved by SBA.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #9 CONFIRMED

35. Section 00 21 13 | Page 20/60: The government requires that we submit PPQ’s for each relevant contract we select. Can we use previously filled out PPQ’s?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: YES

36. Section 00 21 13 | Page 15/60: The government describes a relevant project as one that is between 1M-5M. Would the government consider projects that are over the $5,000,000 threshold?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: NO SEE RESPONSE #23; SUBMIT PER RFP

37. RFP Factor 2 Experience, (ii) Basis of Evaluation: states “Experience may be strengthened, and considered more favorably, by demonstrating the following:

1. Submitting five relevant construction projects.

2. Amount of relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together.

3. Experience as the Prime Contractor on all three (3) construction projects.

4. Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with renovation of existing facilities.

5. Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with essential facilities, per IBC definition.

6. Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features, which are validated through the requirements of UFC 1-200-02 Sustainability.

7. Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with construction of new or the renovation of State Historical Preservation Office properties.

8. Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing significant, definable features of work (i.e., Concrete Placement or HVAC Installation).

For #7 relevant projects that demonstrate experience with construction of new or the renovation of State Historical Preservation Office properties, would the Government please confirm that this includes Historic-Eligible facility work as these projects involve much of the same coordination and considerations as work on listed facilities?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER RFP

38. If we have a previously submitted PPQ, can we reuse that for this submission? (Factor 4 - Past Performance, Page 20)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #2

39. Can we add consultants to the team in the future, if deemed necessary for the scope of work?

(This is in regards to Factor 2 Experience on Page 16 for the number of design firms)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: THIS QUESTION HAS NO BEARING ON THE

EVALUATION. GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE SELECTION BASED ON OFFER.

40. Is the limitation of the two design firms for the entire contract. Is this for the 8a and the design firms? Are any subconsultants allowed underneath one of the design firms? (This is in regards to Factor 2 Experience on Page 16 for the number of design firms)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE #7; SUBMIT PER THE RFP

41. Spec Section : 00 21 13 – Instructions to Bidder; Designer Experience The designer max dollar value is not specified. Is there a max? The range is $1M-$5M but there is no statement stating “Projects above the value will not be considered relevant” as it is specified in the construction area.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: REQUIREMENT REMAINS UNCHANGED, SUBMIT

PER THE RFP

42. The Safety Data Sheet requests for safety records for the last 3 years and on Pg. 18, Factor 3- Safety (a) it states to provide for 5 calendar years? – Instructions.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEE REVISED ATTACHMENT D

43. May the management plan page limitation be increased to give us space to describe each team member and fit an organizational chart as well?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

44. Construction Experience Item 2 page 15-16: Design Experience In addition to relevancy parameters, “AT LEAST THREE (3) relevant design projects SHALL be submitted and SHALL collectively demonstrate the following experience:

a. At least one (1) relevant design-bid-build project.

b. At least two (2) relevant design-build projects.”

“A maximum of two (2) design firms is allowed. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) design projects combined.”

If two design firms are offered, and the above parameters are satisfied, then one of the firms must be considered non-responsive. Since the minimum for a single firm is 3 relevant projects (2 DB and 1 DBB) – in order to satisfy the requirements, 6 design projects need be submitted.

For two design firms, we request that 6 design projects be allowed. Please advise.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SUBMIT PER THE RFP

END OF AMENDMENT 0002

The following have been deleted:

AMENDMENT 0001

(End of Summary of Changes)