AMENDMENT_0001.pdf

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 MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR LARGE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION

PROJECTS PRIMARILY IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF VIRGINIA, NAVFAC MID-ATLANTIC

The Proposal due date of Tuesday, 23 January 2018 @ 1400 EST has been revised to 31 January 2018 @ 1400 EST.

SEE SECTION SF-30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-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 N4008518R1104

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 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 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 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

12-Jan-2018

CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

HAMPTON ROADS IPT

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008518R1104

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

FOR LARGE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIMARILY IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF

VIRGINIA, NAVFAC MID-ATLANTIC

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the following:

(1) Revised Phase I Proposal due date

(2) Response to PPIs 1-37

(2) Solicitation Revisions

(3) Clause Revisions

1. The Phase I Proposal due date has been revised from 23 January 2018 @ 1400 EST to 31 January 2018 @

1400 EST.

2. PPI RESPONSES:

Count

Reference Question

Government Response Pag e

Section Para-graph

1 NA NA NA In consideration of calendar work days lost due to the Christmas and New Years holidays and continued outages of customers needed to complete PPQs, we respectfully request an extension of the deadline to January 25th in order to provide enough time to complete and submit our proposal in advance of the deadline.

See Amendment

2 NA NA NA A signed copy of the SF 1442 does not appear to be required during Ph. I. Please confirm. See Amendment

3 13 Proposal Submission Requirements;

(2) Design Experience

2 The submittal requirements under (2) Design Experience indicate that "The Offeror shall provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S.

Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process." Please confirm this document is not considered to be part of the 2 page data sheet, as it would not be possible to address all the items requested by the data sheet while also providing the USGBC documentation (which, provided by this organization, can sometimes consume multiple pages).

See Amendment

4 13 Proposal Submission Requirements;

Factor 3 - Past Performance

1 The proposal instructions indicate an offeror shall submit a CPARs/ACASS if available for the project. In some instances a CPARS is available for the project but was not written to evaluate the designer. For example, we will be submitting projects in which a design firm performed as a subcontractor or the Designer of Record on a contract in which the construction management firm was the prime contractor being evaluated by the CPARs. A CPARS exists for the performance of the prime contractor (construction management firm), but this document does not name the design firm for which the experience was provided in Factor 2. Therefore, if submitting a design project, please confirm the intent in this instance would be to submit a PPQ from the client that specifically names and is focused on the performance of the design firm.

BID PER RFP

The intent is in cases where the Designer of Record CPARS is not a separate evaluation document from the construction contractor, submitting the construction contractor’s related CPARS evaluation is allowable. A PPQ for the designer is acceptable as well.

Proposal Submission

Requirements;

Factor 3 - Past Performance

"Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs." Please confirm the intent of the preceding statement is to direct contractors to not make a reference to a PPQ included in another proposal. And, that contractors are not prohibited from including a PPQ in this proposal that was previously submitted for another proposal. It can be burdensome on the government/customer to have to complete multiple PPQs for the same project.

The intent is that completed PPQ that offerors may have submitted for past proposals are acceptable for this solicitation but must be submitted & not referenced.

However it must

Form PPQ-0

Proposal

Requirements 5.2.1

We understand all pages are required to be numbered. Please confirm this is intended for narratives but not for the forms provided by the government (i.e., PPQ and Attachment Project Data Sheet), nor for Letters of Commitment, which aren't conducive to page numbering.

The intent is the entire contents of each proposal include sequential numbering.

Proposal

Requirements 5.2.1

Our understanding of these proposal instructions are as follows: to include just one CD-ROM, which will be included IN THE BINDER with the "Original" proposal; no-CD-ROM copies are required with the "Copy" versions of the proposal.

The intent is to submit one CD-

ROM that is to be included with the proposal marked as “Original”

13-of

Section 00100,

4. Evaluation Factors for

Award, Factor 3

- Past

Performance

If the Offeror has a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) on file previously completed by the Client that matches all fields of the required Attachment B, may this be submitted in lieu of requesting a new PPQ specific to this solicitation?

As identified in

PPQ-0

footnote, Offeror may duplicate completed questionnaire for future submission on NAVFAC solicitations.

13-of

Section 00100,

4. Evaluation Factors for

Award, Factor 3

- Past

Performance

Factor 3 - Past Performance requests inclusion of CPARS evaluations. Please confirm: If the Offeror was both the Prime Contractor and Designer of Record on a project (and was not issued a separate AE CPARS/ACASS evaluating the DOR effort), may the same CPARS/CCASS be provided for both Construction and Design Experience – or – is it preferred that a PPQ evaluating solely Design performance be provided?

Designer of Record CPARS is not a separate evaluation document from the construction contractor, submitting the construction contractor’s related CPARS evaluation is allowable.

8-of

Section 00100,

4. Evaluation Factors for

Award, 2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor,

(a) Price: (1) Solicitation Submittal

Requirements and Additional Information to be Submitted with Price Proposal Package

N/A

Please confirm that the items listed under (a) Price, (1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, which includes (i) – (vi), the Executed SF1442, Completed Proposed Price for Seed Project, Bid Bond, SAM Reps and Certs, FAPIIS Certification, and VETS-4212 Registration, as well as the Responsibility Determination Information items are to be submitted in the Price Proposal required in Phase Two, not in the Phase One submission. If any of these items should be included in the Phase One submission, please advise.

See Amendment and of

SF1442 -

Section 10;

Section 5.3 - Pre-Proposal

Inquiries

N/A

Page 1 of the SF1442 states that all Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) are due 14 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. However, on page 21 of 65 in section 5.3 Pre-Proposal Inquiries, it states that all inquiries are to be submitted 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. Please confirm which is correct.

See Amendment

12 11 of

00100 Factor2( i)(1)

Please change the requirement for construction completion from the last 5 years to the last 7 years.

13 12 of

00100 Factor2( i)(2)

Please change the requirements for both design and construction completion from the last 5 years to the last 7 years.

BID PER RFP

and

SF 1442 and 00100

Block 10 and

5.3

Please clarify the deadline for submission of PPIs. The SF 1442 states 14 calendar days prior to proposal due date and page 21 of Section 00100 states 10 calendar days prior to proposal due date.

See Amendment

5-6 and

00100 1.2.1 and 4.2

Should the SF 1442 be included with the Phase 1 proposal and, if so, where? Pages 5-6 of Section 00100 state that the Phase I will address Technical Approach, Experience and Past Performance and that Phase II is comprised of the written technical and price proposal. The SF 1442 is included in the Price Proposal (pg 9 - 4.2.a.1.i.).

See Amendment

We are requesting the addition to your Solicitation for Design Build Construction Services Number: N4008518R1104 FAR clause 52.208-9 which adds the Mandatory purchase requirements for AbilityOne products.

We are requesting the addition of “PDQ Manufacturing” as an approved alternate manufacturer to that listed in the door schedule, and under section 08 71 00 of the specification for the following products when applicable to your project; 1) Mortise Locks, 2) Cylindrical Locks, 3) Door Closers, 4) Panic Devices with Trim.

BID PER RFP

18 11 2 -1 Under Subfactor (1) Construction experience, the solicitation states that the size of the projects must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater with at least one project with a final construction cost of $35,000,000 or greater. We respectfully request that the size of the projects be reduced to a final construction cost of $10,000,000 or greater with at least one project having a final construction cost of $20,000,000 or greater.

BID PER RFP

19 12 2 -2 Under Subfactor (2) Design experience, the solicitation states that the size of the projects must have a final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater with at least one project with a final construction cost of $35,000,000 or greater. We respectfully request that the size of the projects be reduced to a final construction cost of $10,000,000 or greater with at least one project having a final construction cost of $20,000,000 or greater.

BID PER RFP

20 12 2 -2 Under Subfactor (2) Design experience, the solicitation states that the "design Portion of the contract shall have been completed within five

(5) years prior to the date of issuance of this RFP." Since design projects precede construction by a significant amount of time, it creates a burden on the design team to produce a list of completed projects in the last five years because several of them might still be on the boards or not constructed yet. Particularly if we want to show past experience working together with a prime construction contractor within that timeframe.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the time limitation for the design portion of the contract be increased from five (5) years to ten (10).

of

Factor 2, Experience

(2), Design Exprien ce, Paragra ph 3 "Size," and Paragra ph 5

Based on the reduction of MILCON funding in recent years, we would respectfully ask NAVFAC to reconsider the time lookback and dollar thresholds for the Renovation Project described in the solicitation for Relevant Experience described in Factor 2. The solicitation indicates that the construction costs will be in a range between $15-40 million, but smaller projects may be considered

Please consider extending the project completion date to ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the RFP which would allow for a broader pool of contracts with Dept. of Defense experience to participate in pursuit. Additionally we would ask NAVFAC to consider decreasing the dollar value of the final construction value for the Renovation Project to $7.5 million. This would allow participation from a greater pool of design firms that are looking to support some of the Construction Contractors that are considering pursuit of this solicitation. The complexities of renovation design and phasing are similar between a $7.5 million and $15 million construction project. A quick analysis of USASpending.gov indicates that only approximately 30 projects (in excess of $15 million) with primarily a renovation focus were completed by federal agencies during the five year period requested in the solicitation. As such, we feel the criteria significantly limits participation by the design-build industry.

of

Factor 3, Past Performance

(i), Solicitat ion Submitt al Require ments, Paragra ph 1

It is our understanding that the PPQ forms were developed by NAVFAC and other DoD agencies, so design and construction firms weren’t requesting the same information from our clients for every contract we pursue. Additionally many of the governments construction contacts that are best suited to complete these forms have either retired or moved on to positions of different capacities and cannot be located. Can responding firms use previously completed PPQs by our clients to submit with our packages to fulfill the Relevant Experience requirements?

footnote, Offeror may duplicate completed questionnaire for future submission on NAVFAC

PPQ-0 or CPARS are acceptable.

8 of

00100 4.2(a)

RFP page 8 of 65, paragraph 4.2(a) provides details for items to submit in the Price Proposal, including “Completed Proposed Price for the Seed Project”. Please kindly clarify if offerors are to submit the Price Proposal (items i through vi on page 9 of 65 and items 1 through 4 on page 9 & 10 of 65) with Phase I submission.

See Amendment of

00100 (i)(1)

RFP page 10 of 65, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, paragraph (i)(1) instructs offerors to provide a technical approach narrative and organizational chart in one double-sided page or two single-sided pages. Would the Government consider allowing the organizational chart to be on a separate 8.5 x 11 size paper, excluded from the page limit, to provide adequate details for the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the primary construction firm and design firm?

BID PER RFP

25 12 of

00100 2 RFP page 12 of 65, paragraph 2 states “both design-build and design-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC.” Please clarify if this meant to say, “both design-build and design- BID-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC.”

See Amendment of

00100 2

RFP page 12 of 65, paragraph 2, instructions regarding submission criteria for Factor 2, instructs offerors to “provide the full name of the firm, address, DUNS number, and CAGE code” for the DOR as well as provide “… signed joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment with the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designed of Record (DOR).”

Please kindly confirm if offerors are to provide these details in Factor 2 – Experience or if it is sufficient to provide the information in Factor 1 – Technical Approach, as requested on page 10 of 65, paragraph (i)(2), submission criteria for Factor 1.

of

00100 (i)

RFP page 13 of 65 states “The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. If the agreement/letter is not provided or meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the proposed designer will not be considered.” Please kindly confirm if the JV agreement/teaming agreement/letter of commitment for the design subcontractor is to be submitted under Factor 2 or if it is sufficient to provide this information in Factor 1, as requested on page 10 of 65, paragraph (i)(2).

N/ A - Att ach me nt

N/A - Attachment

N/A - Attach ment

Please kindly confirm that Attachment C – Small Business Subcontracting Record, Attachment D – Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy, and Attachment G – Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan are to be submitted in Phase II.

These forms are intended to be included with

Phase II Proposals.

N/ A

N/A N/A

The current proposal due date is Tuesday, 01/23/2018 and the delivery address is in Norfolk, Virginia. Virginia is one of the states affected by the Bomb Cyclone, experiencing heavy snow, roads closures, and facility shutdowns. Would the Government consider granting a two-week extension to allow for offerors to ensure successful and on-time delivery in areas where transporation is unreliable for the forseable future due to extreme weather condition?

See Amendment of

00100 2

Considering that Designers begin their work before construction starts, would the Government consider extending the range for past design projects from 5 years to 7 years?

BID PER RFP

1 Item 10 6

Pg 1 of the solicitation states all Preproposal Inquiries must be made in writing and emailed no later than 14 calendar days prior to the proposal due date; pg 21, 5.3, paragraph 1 states PPI's must be received 10 calendar days prior to solicitation closing time - which is the correct date?

See Amendment

Factor 2-

Experience i

Will you allow a project performed under a single task order with multiple P numbers to be submitted as one Project Data Sheet (Attachment A)?

of

Section 00100

4.

Evaluati on Factors

For Award, Factor 2 Experie nce, (2) Design Experie nce

Factor 2 Experience, (2) Design Experience states: "Offerors shall clearly state the Architect- Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designer of Record (DOR) for the seed project and future task orders under this MACC.

Provide the full name of the firm, address, DUNS number, and CAGE code. The designated firm will be required to be utilized as the DOR on future design-build task orders under the resulting MACC, unless a substitution is approved by the Contracting Officer for the proposed task order."

The reference paragraph appears to suggest that only one Architect-Engineer firm is allowed on an offeror’s design-build team for this MACC. It has been our experience on past NAVFAC multiple-award contracts that the government will realize the most beneficial, best-value responses

BID PER RFP

INTENT

COMMENT

The intent here is not to limit the number of proposed A/E Firms as DOR however submittal requirements is expected for each DOR identified in the proposal.

to this MACC solicitation and subsequent task orders if offerors are allowed to propose a team that includes multiple Architect-Engineer firms.

Benefits include: (1) Avoid potential conflicts of interest from design firms who have supplied bridging documents on various projects, (2) Multiple design firms enable offerors to provide additional expertise for the various facility types anticipated under this MACC, and (3) Multiple design firms ensures appropriate capacity in the event of multiple concurrent task orders. Please confirm that it is acceptable for offerors to have to have more than one Architect-Engineer firm as part of its design team.

of

Section 00100

4.

Evaluati on Factors

For Award, Factor 3

Past Perform ance, (i)

Past Performance Questionnaires: 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.

Designer of Record CPARS or PPQ-0 is not a separate evaluation document from the construction contractor, submitting the construction contractor’s related CPARS evaluation is allowable.

&1 4 of

Section 00100

4.

Evaluati on Factors

For Award, Factor 3

Past Perform ance, (i)

Since an ACASS or design firm CPAR is not available for government design-build contracts, please confirm if it is acceptable for a design-build prime contractor (as the Offeror) to submit the design-build prime contractor’s CPAR or CCASS evaluation as evidence of past performance of the design partner, if the design partner of the featured project is the same as the proposed design partner.

Designer of Record CPARS or

PPQ-0 is not a separate evaluation document from the construction contractor, submitting the construction contractor’s related CPARS evaluation is allowable.

&1 4 of

Section 00100

4.

Evaluati on Factors For

Paragraph (i) of Factor 3 – Past Performance, directs offerors to request past performance questionnaires from customers regarding the offeror’s (design and construction) performance on the projects featured in Factor 2 - Experience.

Award, Factor 3 Past Perform ance, (i)

In recent years, many federal agencies have allowed offerors to submit copies of completed PPQs that have been previously submitted with other proposals. This approach has proven to be much more convenient to customers because it streamlines the evaluation process, simplifies the logistics of sending PPQs, and reduces the number of times offerors need to impose on their customers to fill out PPQs. We respectfully request that the government adopt this well-established and effective approach to providing customer past performance evaluation. Please confirm that it is acceptable to submit federal PPQs (e.g., DoD PPQ-0 format) previously submitted in other proposals.

footnote, Offeror may duplicate completed questionnaire for future submission on NAVFAC

&1 4 of

Section 00100

4.

Evaluati on Factors

For Award, Factor 3

Past Perform ance, (i)

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. We respectfully request that the due date be extended an additional two weeks (to February 6, 2018) to allow government customers time to complete past performance questionnaires for Factor 3 featured projects.

3. SOLICITATION REVISIONS

(2) Design Experience

CURRENT:

Both design-build and design-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC. Therefore, the Offeror is required to address the design firm to be proposed on the seed project and anticipated future projects. Offerors shall clearly state the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designer of Record (DOR) for the seed project and future task orders under this MACC. Provide the full name of the firm, address, DUNS number, and CAGE code. The designated firm will be required to be utilized as the DOR on future design-build task orders under the resulting MACC, unless a substitution is approved by the Contracting Officer for the proposed task order. The Offer must provide a supporting signed joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment with the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designed of Record (DOR).

REVISED TO:

Both design-build and design-bid-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC. Therefore, the Offeror is required to address the design firm to be proposed on the seed project and anticipated future projects.

Offerors shall clearly state the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designer of Record (DOR) for the seed project and future task orders under this MACC. Provide the full name of the firm, address, DUNS number, and CAGE code. The designated firm will be required to be utilized as the DOR on future design-build task orders under the resulting MACC, unless a substitution is approved by the Contracting Officer for the proposed task order. The Offer must provide a supporting signed joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment with the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designed of Record (DOR).

Page 13 of 65 Paragraph 2

(2) Design Experience

CURRENT:

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. The Offeror shall provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

REVISED TO:

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. The Offeror shall provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process. The validation/certification for sustainable features documentation for is not included in the Factor 2 –Experience Page limitation.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor as the Designer of Record in order to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. If the agreement/letter is not provided or meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the proposed designer will not be considered.

REVISED TO:

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor as the Designer of Record in order to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. If the agreement/letter is not provided or meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the proposed designer will not be considered. This information can be included in Factor 1.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

ADD THE FOLLOWING:

If Offerors discover elements of the conceptual plans that do not meet RFP requirements (errors), offeror’s design should correct such errors vice strictly following conceptual plans.

5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

5.2.1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Price Proposal

ADD THE FOLLOWING:

The Price Proposal is submitted in Phase II only.

Non-Cost/Price Factors Technical Proposal

ADD THE FOLLOWING:

An Executed SF1442. For Phase I, the executed SF1442 should be included with the Non-Cost/Price Factors Technical Proposal. Offeror shall insert its company name and address in Block #14, telephone number in Block #15, acknowledge all amendments in Block #19 (if applicable), name and title of person authorized to sign in Block #20A, signature in Block #20B, and offer date in Block #20C of the SF1442. In addition, Offeror shall provide its DUNS Number, CAGE code, and Federal Tax ID number with its proposal. (Note: For Phase II, a new Executed SF1442 shall be included with the Price Proposal). With the exception of the SF1442 referenced above, all of the requirements for the price proposal shall be submitted in Phase II.

Page 21 of 65 Paragraph 2

5.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

All inquiries must be submitted in writing and received by the Contract Specialist ten calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date in order to permit adequate time to reply to the inquiry. There is no guarantee that PPI’s submitted after the cut-off date will be answered before the solicitation closes.

Submit all questions to vivienne.moore@navy.mil. Use of the PPI Log template is required. The PPI Log Template (Attachment E) can be found on the NECO website under the Additional Documents section.

REVISED TO:

5.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

All inquiries must be submitted in writing and received by the Contract Specialist 14 calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date in order to permit adequate time to reply to the inquiry. There is no guarantee that PPI’s submitted after the cut-off date will be answered before the solicitation closes.

Submit all questions to vivienne.moore@navy.mil. Use of the PPI Log template is required. The PPI Log Template (Attachment E) can be found on the NECO website under the Additional Documents section.

5.5 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

CURRENT:

In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this contract and the technical proposal, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (i) the contract (excluding the technical proposal), and then (ii) the technical proposal.

REVISED TO:

In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this contract and the technical proposal, the inconsistency shall be resolved in accordance with NFAS Clause 5252.236-9312, “Design Build Contract – Order of Precedence (Aug 2006), set forth in full later in the solicitation.

4. INSTRUCTION/CONTRACT CLAUSE REVISIONS

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The delivery order maximum amount $40,000,000.00 has been added.

The delivery order minimum amount $5,000.00 has been added.

The contract maximum amount $249,000,000.00 has been added.

The contract minimum amount $5,000.00 has been added.

The contract maximum quantity 249,000,000.00 has been deleted.

The contract minimum quantity 5,000.00 has been deleted.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been deleted:

52.216-1

SECTION 00600 - REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-1 Alt I

52.219-1

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.222-58 52.222-59 52.222-60 52.222-61

5252.228-9306 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE (JUN 1994( JUN 1994

5252.236-9305 Availability of Utilities JUN 1994

(End of Summary of Changes)