Amendment 0007.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

This amendment is being issued to provide solicitation revisions and address questions recieved in response to the solicitation. The Government has endeavored to mark any changes w ith blue strikeout text for deletions and green text for new additions. It is the offeror's responsibility to read the entire solicitation including all amendments.

The proposal due date remains unchanged. Proposals are due on March 24, 2022 at 2:00 EST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Mar-2022

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 N4008521R2534

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Jan-2022

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

18-Mar-2022

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

CONTRACTING CORE

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:

N4008521R2534

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 0007

Solicitation Revision:

The requirement to provide Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-Up Rates in the Volume #2 Price Proposal has been removed from this solicitation. Please disregard any references to Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-Up Rates Form.

Section L.9.3.1.4 have been revised:

FROM: Change Order Mark-Up Rates (Section J Attachment J-3);

TO: Change Order Mark-Up Rates (Section J Attachment J-3);

Please note the responses to questions 89 and 137 have been updated:

89. Because of the variation in tank size and therefore sump’s size, proper disposal of contact water is essential for conducting the Triennial testing. These tests often lead to cost overruns if volumes are not accurate. Can the Navy provide the dimensions of the sumps to be tested for the triennial tests?

Original Response: Please refer to the attachment "UST_drawings_1" for sump size information. These are the only UST tank diagrams showing sump size available. The triennial testing attachments show how much water was removed during the last event. Between the 4 facilities there are 7 STP sumps and two of those facilities have 5 dispenser islands each with UDC’s. The Contractors shall state their assumptions in their proposal for the STPs and UDCs not found in the diagrams.

Updated Response: Please refer to the attachment "UST_drawings_1" for sump size information. These are the only UST tank diagrams showing sump size available. The triennial testing attachments show how much water was removed during the last event. Between the 4 facilities there are 7 STP sumps and two of those facilities have 5 dispenser islands each with UDC’s. During the previous triennial testing, a 2000 gallon water truck was used to collect the wastewater. The total volume of wastewater disposed of was less than 2000 gallons, however NAVFAC was unable to locate a disposal ticket to give an exact volume of wastewater disposed of for the last triennial testing. The Contractors shall state their assumptions in their proposal for the STPs and UDCs not found in the diagrams, in addition to the equipment to be used and the estimated quantity of wastewater to be disposed of.

137. Can generator knowledge, based on the waste profiling analyses completed for the initial phase of OWS work be used for future disposal of the wastes or will the wastes from the second and later rounds of OWS maintenance need to also be characterized for disposal purposes? For example, does the waste from maintenance of 325-OWS need to be characterized initially during the first round of work and every round of maintenance thereafter?

Original Response: Generator knowledge based on the initial analyses completed for the initial phase of OWS work can be used for the future disposal of the wastes. If based on the Contractors inspection and communication with users, the OWS waste appears to be different or processes have changed, then the Contractor will be expected to sample the OWS waste for characterization again. The Contractor will also be expected to characterize the waste again in

Updated Response: Generator knowledge based on the initial analyses completed for the initial phase of OWS work can be used for the future disposal of the wastes. If based on the Contractors inspection and communication with users, the OWS waste appears to be different or processes have changed, then the Contractor will be expected to sample the OWS waste for characterization again. The Contractor will also be expected to characterize the waste again in Option Year 3.

Questions and Responses:

147. Per Attachment J9 PTO 001 Combined Enclosures (Enclosure N) Page 65 and (Enclosure O) Page 86, please provide specifications for the OWS at the Marina Operational Center installed in 2017.

Response: The OWS installed at Building 13 (marine ops center) is standard OWS of three sumps with a total volume capacity of approximately 200 gallons.

148. The bonding requirements for this solicitation, given the nature of the services planned, seems excessive and may prevent qualified SDVOSB firms from being able to participate as bonding is a barrier to bidding the solicitation. Would SDVOSB firms that cannot meet the bonding requirement be considered for portions of the scope of work? For instance, if just doing the EPCRA reporting, would a bond be required if self-performing work? Will a proposer be considered unresponsive to the solicitation if unable to provide the surety letter by the due date for solicitation responses?

Response: Offerors that cannot meet the bonding requirement cannot be considered for portions of the scope of work. Yes, an offeror will be considered unresponsive to the solicitation if a letter from their surety showing proof of bonding at the required amounts is not provided with their proposal.

149. Please clarify the 51% SDVOSB participation requirement for the various tasks outlined in the solicitation. Much of the work to be performed (e.g., testing of USTs and ASTs by OSFM-licensed contractors; pumping/cleaning oil-water separators including furnishing drums and decontamination of equipment; laboratory analyses, etc.) would be subcontracted services from “special trade” contractors that are not “similarly situated” and not self-performed by the SDVOSB’s own forces. It is probable that subcontracted services to specialty trade contractors that are not similarly situated with the prime contractor will exceed 51% of the project cost for many of the tasks outlined in the solicitation. Per FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2021-O0008), we understand that up to 75% of the contract value may be subcontracted to specialty trade contractors that are not similarly situated. We request that the SDVOSB self-performance requirement is considered 25% for tasks related to the oil-water separators and aboveground/underground storage tanks.

Response: For tasks requiring special trade subcontractors that are not similarly situated, the SDVOSB prime contractor’s performance requirement is 25%.

150. Reference: Solicitation, Sections C.1.2.1, G.2.2.3.4, H.1 For Joint Venture offerors – When a task order requires a bond in contract execution and the Task Order is being performed by only one partner of the Joint Venture, will the government accept a bond from the performing partner with a dual oblige extension naming both the Joint Venture and the agency. Our intent is to minimize duplication of bonding efforts and reduce the expense arising from the bonding requirement.

Response: If the JV entity has received the award, then the bond must be in the name of the JV even if only one entity of the JV is performing.

151. Reference: Attachment J-3: Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead references Form 4330/43.

Our firm has provisional pricing that is consistent with our DCAA-accepted CAS disclosure statement. It appears that the breakdown of overhead and markups on this Form 4330/43 are not consistent with our CAS disclosure statement. For example, the form requests our field overhead rate and home office overhead rate for subcontractor’s work. Our firm does not apply overhead rates to our subcontractor’s work; we apply G&A. Can we modify Attachment J-3 to be consistent with our CAS disclosure statement?

If the answer is no, can you please provide further direction on how to fill out Attachment J3? In particular, how we are to generate a $/day in Summary Item H?

Response: The requirement to submit Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead has been removed from this solicitation.

152. Reference: Attachment J-3: Please confirm this Attachment only applies to the Base Year.

Response: The requirement to submit Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead has been removed from this solicitation.

153. Reference: Attachment J-3: For a Joint Venture – please confirm that it is acceptable for each member of the JV to provide a separate Attachment J-3, as each JV member has a different CAS Disclosure Statement for how we account for costs.

Response: The requirement to submit Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead has been removed from this solicitation.

154. Reference: Attachment J-3: Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead references Form 4330/43.

Our firm has provisional pricing that is consistent with our DCAA-accepted CAS disclosure statement. Can we provide our DCAA provisional letter (including provisional pricing and workbook calculations) in lieu of Attachment J-3?

Response: The requirement to submit Attachment J-3 Change Order Mark-up and Extended Overhead has been removed from this solicitation.

155. Can we leave blanks in the “REVISED-Attachment_J2_Price_Proposal_Form.xlsx” file if we don’t anticipate to use some of the Labor Categories for the seed project PTO001? Also, please respond to our earlier question related to this - We noticed that there are 11 different labor categories on the REVISED- Attachment_J2_Price_Proposal_Form.xlsx and 18 different labor categories on the Attachment+J2+Price+Proposal+Form – ML GL EMAC 1-27-22.xlsx. Are we allowed to add to the Labor Categories on the REVISED excel file to match the 18 labor categories provided on the 1-27-22 file?

Response: Yes, you can leave blanks in “REVISED-Attachment_J2_Price_Proposal_Form.xlsx” file if we don’t anticipate to use some of the Labor Categories for the seed project PTO001.See response to Question 149.

156. While further reviewing Amendment 3 as we prepare for production and submittal, there seems to be some confusion on Question 36 shown below. Section L.8.5.5.1 is referring to Volume I, Tab C the PTO 0001 Technical Proposal – Technical Approach Breakdown. The Navy’s response references a price proposal spreadsheet. L.8.5.5.1 asks for information regarding labor mix, man hours, etc. and is not to include any pricing. Section L.8.5.5.1 says it shall be submitted in an excel spreadsheet. Can you please verify that you would like the excel spreadsheet without pricing, showing the labor mix, man hours, equipment included on the CD, but also that the information should be included within the text of Tab C, Volume I? Also please verify that no electronic deliverable is expected for Volume II, including the Price Proposal spreadsheet.

Response: For the Volume I General Proposal Factor 5 PTO 001 Technical Proposal Tab C Technical Approach Breakdown- Technical Approach Breakdown Spreadsheet (Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form) shall include labor mix, man hours, material, and equipment for prime and any proposed subcontractors and shall be included in the electronic (CD) proposals as a separate attachment in accordance with Question 36 as well as the printed in the paper proposals within Tab C. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY RATES, COSTS, OR PRICING in the Technical Approach Breakdown Spreadsheet.

Proposals that contain rates, costs, and or prices in the technical proposal may be rejected.

For Volume #2 Price Proposal- Only paper copies of the price proposal are required. Only a paper version of Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form will be submitted for Volume #2 Price Proposal.

157. Would the Navy consider a one week extension of time for submittal of proposals to allow respondents time to assimilate information provided today in Amendment 005?

Response: Please see Amendment 0006.

158. J2: In Row of 61 “Attachment_J2_REVISED_03.09.22_Price_Proposal_Form.xlsx” file for the Base Award and all the Options, we noticed that the cell referenced for calculating G&A for Travel is pointing to $B$44; however it should be $B$61. Could you please confirm that the correct cell should be $B$61?

Response: Yes, $B$61 is the correct cell. Attachment J2 was G&A rates were the same for all Parts, however if that is not accurate for your proposal please change the formula to use $B$61 instead which corresponds directly to the Travel G$A.

159. There is an inconsistency between Amendments 3 and 5 regarding when the last triennial testing was conducted. Amend 3 Response 49 Response: "All triennial testing was last completed in 2019 and is due to be completed again CY2022." Conversely Amend 5 Response 144 states UST triennial testing was last conducted in 2021 and will not need to be performed in 2022. However, Annual UST And AST testing required in 2022 had not yet been completed and the regulatory due date is July 31st. If the award time allows, we will expect that the contractor perform testing under CLIN001 by July 31, 2022.

Please advise when the last Triennial Testing was completed.

Also, if the triennial testing was completed in 2019, this will mean that the triennial testing will be required to be completed before July 31, 2022. Given that the Period of Performance is scheduled to start on July 1, 2022 and there is two month planning period, should we assume (per Amend 5 Response 144) that Triennial Testing will be completed by July 31, 2022 (before the two month planning period is complete)?

Response: Response 49 is correct. "All triennial testing was last completed in 2019 and is due to be completed again CY2022."

Response 144 is incorrect. It should be corrected to say that UST triennial testing was last performed in 2019 and will need to be performed in July 2022. Both triennial testing and annual UST/AST testing that are required in 2022 had not yet been completed and the regulatory due date is July 31st. If the award time allows, we will expect that the contractor perform testing under SLIN003 and CLIN001, respectively, by July 31, 2022.

Yes, you should assume triennial testing needs to performed prior to July 31, 2022.

160. For Factor 2 projects, if an ID/IQ contract is used as a project, please confirm that each individual TO included must be over $50,000.

Response: For Factor 2, if an IDIQ contract is listed as an example project, the significant task orders listed in the discussion section do not have to be over $50,000.

161. For Factor 2 projects, if an ID/IQ contract is used as a project, please confirm that each individual TO included must have been completed within the past three years

Response: L.8.2.2.2 states "If an IDIQ contract is listed as an example project, the Offeror shall list in the discussion section all significant task orders (to include task order number and title) that have been completed since November 2018 or currently in progress on which the Offeror has been performing for 10 months or more."

162. How many resumes for Project Manager should be submitted?

Response: Offerors shall submit a detailed resume for each key personnel member proposed.

163. We respectfully request an extension of one week. Currently, the contractors must print, produce, and ship copies no later than Tuesday, March 15th to ensure timely arrival via commercial carriers. With outstanding questions, this timeline is unreasonable for contractors to meet.

Response: The proposal due date will not be extended at this time.

164. If the due date is not extended, please allow contractors to submit the proposal electronically on the current due date of March 17, with hard copies to follow

Response: Please see response to question 4.

165. As a more sustainable approach for proposal production, can divider pages be used for the individual Tab sections in each Factor in lieu of actual tabs?

Response: Bid per solicitation.

166. For the Technical Approach Breakdown in Factor 5, Tab C, do you want the LOE for the optional CLINS or just the base contract?

Response: Yes, LOE is needed for the optional CLINS in addition to the base award. Please use Attachment J2 REVISED 3.09.22 for your price proposal for all scope items.

167. Since the Statement of Work references shop fabricated above ground storage tanks throughout, please verify that there are no field erected tanks under this scope.

Response: Yes, please refer to the SOW and Appendix B of the SPCC Plan. All ASTs are shop fabricated.

168. Since the PTO requires technical expertise (AST/UST inspectors, sampling technicians, etc.) not captured in the labor categories provided on the revised Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form, please either add a technical manager, technical specialist, or technician labor category to the Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form or waive the requirement for an undergraduate degree for the scientist position

Response: Please see response to question 141. The Scientist requirement remains unchanged.

169. Please verify that sample analyses subject to QSM 5.3 requirements must be performed by a laboratory certified under DoD ELAP for those analyses

Response: Yes, sample analyses subject to QSM 5.3 requirements must be performed by a laboratory certified under DoD ELAP for those analyses

170. Is draft Method 1633 required for the PFAS analyses per the December 7, 2021 DoD memo?

Response: Please use your technical expertise to propose an EPA method suitable for analysis. Be sure to include your assumptions in your proposal. Proposals are reviewed for technical approach and price.

(End of Summary of Changes)