Attach 2_PPI Response Spreadsheet.pdf

Govt Tracking

PPI Tech/CS Govt Response:

Addressed in Amendment

Number

RFP Section: Part 1 Page Number: 11 & 12 Paragraph: 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), please confirm the Offeror may use the CPARS/ACASS for both construction and design experience.

CS/Tech Confirmed, please submit separate CPARS/ACASS sheets for design and construction. Amend 0003

RFP Section: Part 1 Page Number: 9 & 11 Paragraph: Factor 2 - Corporate Experience (1) Construction Experience and (2) Design Experience

Please confirm that applicable project documentation that was validated and/or certified through a "Sustainable Third Part Certification program" will not be counted towards the page limit.

CS/Tech Confirmed, please provide one single-sided "Sustainable Third Party Certification" document per applicable project. Amend 0003

Reference: Evaluation Factors, Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

DPS’ management team has assessed the solicitation’s requirements for Construction Experience and find the Criteria for projects restrictive for small businesses. We would ask that the Government consider the following changes in the criteria for Small Business project experience:

1. Consider changing the “completion” criterion to projects completed within the past 10 years from the date of issuance of the RFP (rather than 5 years).

2. Consider changing the “completed projects” criterion to projects that are 75% or more complete (rather than 100%).

3. Consider changing the “similar in size” criterion to “all projects with a minimum of $10M or more with at least three projects over $15M” rather than requiring a minimum value of $15M for all projects.

These requests are based on the fact that small businesses typically do not have the ability to complete five or more projects worth a minimum of $15M relevant projects during a five-year period.

CS/Tech The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

The following RFP Attachment Forms have the 8a Small Business MACC Solicitation Number referenced, please confirm if you want contractors to make the changes or Gov’t to issue revised forms.

Attachment A – Offeror Team Composition Management Attachment D – Safety Data Sheet Safety Narrative Attachment E – Please confirm the NAVFAC POC listed in the instructions are correct for this RFP Attachment F – PPI Form (See above) Attachment L – Task Order Editable Clauses & Provisions

CS Revised via Amendment 0002 Amend 0003

The minimum size for past experience projects is currently set at $15M. For small businesses proposing under this NW MACC, would extending the look back to 10 years be considered to allow for past projects that meet the minimum threshold but completed beyond the past 5 years?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

029 Please confirm that the HUBZone price evaluation preference will be applicable to each task order. CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

030 What is the estimated magnitude of the seed project? CS Per FAR 36.204, More than $10M Amend 0003

RFP Section 00 21 16, page 11 of 96

In Paragraph (b) “Basis of Evaluation” under Factor 2 Corporate Experience, there contains the following statement:

“Proposals demonstrating relevant project experience for each JV partner may be more favorably considered.” We believe this creates an unfair advantage for JV firms over integrated design-builders (non-JV) because a JV firm would qualify for a more favorable evaluation than integrated design-builders that do not have access to this more favorable evaluation element. Can this evaluation factor be removed or revised to give integrated design-build firms an equal or better opportunity for a more favorable rating?

CS Factor stands as written. Amend 0003

Reference Section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience states “Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.”

The SF 1442 states that the solicitation was issued on 29 April 2022. However, on sam.gov, it shows the solicitation was not released until 04 May 2022.

Please clarify the date the solicitation was issued.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

The minimum task order size is listed as $10M with smaller orders reserved for small business competition. Will the government consider reducing the value of the relevant construction experience projects for the small business pool to $10M.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Attachment C2_PPQ_Design Experience has a title of Attachment E2 on the document Attachment K_SB Participation has a title of Attachment F on the document Attachment L_SB Subcontracting Record has a title of Attachment E on the document Attachment M_Task Order Editable Clauses and Provisions has a title of Attachment L on the document

Will NAVFAC reissue these attachments to reflect the correct reference?

CS Revised via Amendment 0002 Amend 0003

Regarding Evaluation Factors, Factor 3 – Past Performance, page number 11 of 96, since a 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 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 on the offeror’s team for this solicitation.

CS

If the construction firm and design firm were a team on a submitted project for Experience. There is no separte design CPARS or PPQ. Submission of the project’s CPARS is acceptable for the design experience.

Amend 0003

Regarding Evaluation Factors, Factor 3 – Past Performance, page number 11 of 96, in a government design-build project where the prime construction contractor holds the design-build contract, government clients are frequently not in a position 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. And, of course, there is no CPAR provided to the design partner, for the same reason. Please clarify if a PPQ, filled out by the design-build contractor offeror of this solicitation, is an acceptable evaluation for the AE partner’s design past performance, since the contractor is a client of that AE firm.

CS

If the construction firm and design firm were a team on a submitted project for Experience. There is no separte design CPARS or PPQ. Submission of the project’s CPARS is acceptable for the design experience.

Amend 0003

Regarding Evaluation Factors, Factor 2 – Corporate Experience, Construction Experience, page number 9 of 96, please clarify the governments intent regarding simultaneous complexity. The RFP states “(iii) Similar in complexity: Involving multiple trades, working in areas with limited access, constructing various projects simultaneously, or managing multiple work sites simultaneously.” Is the intent for offerors to demonstrate that the performance of the featured project successfully occurred simultaneously with other contracts?

CS Demonstrate complexity within the 5 projects. All complexity factors need not be demonstrated on each project. Amend 0003

Regarding Standard Form 1442, please confirm the stated acceptance period 365 calendar days. An acceptance period of 365 days is much greater than the governments typical period and is different from the key procurement milestones noted in the presolicitation notice.

CS This is a MACC, and evaluation of many firms takes longer than the standard timeframe. Amend 0003

Under Evaluation Factors, Factor 2 – Corporate Experience: (1) Construction Experience, the RFP states “Projects submitted for the offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.” Please confirm that projects that have received beneficial occupancy of the facility within the referenced timeframe is allowable.

TECH Confirmed Amend 0003

Reference: Factor 4 – Safety requirements (solicitation pp. 12 & 13)

DART and TCR information is required for the “specified five (5) CY”. Paragraph (1) states “Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ CY2015, CY2016, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020 worth of data…”

Is this statement correct? Please clarify or confirm.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Reference: Cover Letter requirements (Solicitation pages 6, 7 & 16)

Pages 6 & 7 list 8 items to be included in the cover letter. Page 16 also includes:

Standard Form 1442, Letter from Offeror’s Surety, Ensure the SAM info is updated, and Confirm filing of current VETS- 1412 report.

Please clarify whether statements regarding SAM information and VETS-4212 information are sufficient, or whether documentation is required. If documentation is required, please explain what is needed to comply.

CS

Documentation is not required. The Government is requesting firms to ensure SAM and VETS 4212 are current. SAM will be reviewed by the Government.

Amend 0003

Reference: Factor 1, Technical Approach.

The solicitation states: “Include a brief description of the role and responsibility of each entity not to exceed (1) single-sided page.

Attachment A, Offeror Team Composition and Management was provided as part of the solicitation package; however, it contains a different solicitation number, and it states “Do not exceed two (2) pages.”

Should this attachment be used for the NAVFAC NW MACC proposal, and if so, please confirm the number of pages allowed.

Also please confirm that this information is in addition to the Organization Chart.

CS Revised via Amendment 0002 Amend 0003

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience (Page 9 of 96), states the projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

Given the small 5-year window would the Government please allow Construction projects where at least 75% construction progress has been completed?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

The RFP lists the required information for the Phase 1 Cover Letter content on Pages 6 and 7 of 96. It then lists the required information for the "Phase 1" Seed Project Cover Letter on Page 16 of 96. Please clarify if Offeror's are to provide only the information listed on Pages 6 and 7 of 96 or if we are to also include the following from Page 16 of 96:

- Letter from the Offeror’s Surety.

- Offeror is to ensure the System for Award Management (SAM) is updated and current. Supplemental Representations and Certifications in Section 00 45 00, are current, completed and posted in SAM; and

- Confirmation of filing of current VETS-4212 report

On Page 8 of 96 under Factor 1 - Technical Approach, section (a)(1), it states that Offeror's are to "Include a brief description of the role and responsibility of each entity not to exceed (1) one single-sided page." Please clarify if Offeror's are to provide a standalone narrative or should we use Attachment A - Offeror Team Composition and Management, provided with the RFP documents for this section?

If Offeror's are to use Attachment A, please clarify whether the page count for this section will be increased to two pages, as allowed on the original form.

CS Revised via Amendment 0002 Amend 0003

Under Factor 4 – Safety, please confirm that Attachment D – Safety Data Sheet Safety Narrative should be used for the requirements listed on Pages 12 and 13 of 96, items (a)(1)(2)(3).

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

The RFP as currently written requires firms to provide construction projects and design projects that are greater than $15M to be deemed relevant. With this contract being partially set-a-side for small businesses this seems overly burdensome for the small business proposers. Most small businesses doing several projects of this size would no longer BE a small businesses. Could the government please reconsider the dollar threshold for those submitting as a small business. We recommend a $6M threshold for those submitting as a small business with at least one project being over $12M. This would allow the government to evaluate a more comprehensive review of a small business proposer’s past experience.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Currently it is taking several months for SAM registrations to become active. Would the government please consider removing SAM registration as a requirement for phase I proposals and, instead, allowing SAM registration to become active after the phase I proposal due date but prior to selection of Phase II participants. For firms submitting as joint ventures, this additional time is necessary. Alternatively, this problem could also be alleviated by adding 4 weeks to the current due date for Phase I proposals.

CS See attached GSA 60 Day Extension via Amendment 0003. This is a LIMITED exception. Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16, Factor 1 – Technical Approach (RFP page 8 of 96) does not reference inclusion of Attachment B Offeror Team Composition and Management. However, Attachment B indicates it should be included in Factor 1. Please confirm Attachment B should be included with the Factor 1 response.

CS Confirmed Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16, RFP page 16 of 96 references a Letter from the Offeror’s Surety requirement. Please confirm this surety letter is separate from the Attachment G – Surety Form required in Phase II?

Amendment 0002 reissued the list of solicitation attachments and no longer references the previously titled Attachment F Pre Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Form. Consistent with PPI 020, please confirm offerors are still required to use the PPI Form to submit inquiries.

CS Provided as an attachment in Amendment 0001, also providing as an attachment in Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Amendment 0002 reissued the list of solicitation attachments and no longer references the previously titled Attachment D Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative. Please confirm that offerors are no longer required to address the Factor 4 – Safety requirements on this form.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003, prividing as an attachment Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16 Factor 4 – Safety specifies “Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ CY2015, CY2016, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020” in reference to DAR and TCR rates. Please confirm offerors should include CY2017 rather than CY2015 to show safety information for the previous 5 complete calendar years.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16, RFP page 16 of 96 indicates the contents to be included in the Phase I cover letter. However, several of the items listed seem to be separate requirements from the cover letter (e.g., SF1442, Letter from Offeror’s Surety, SAM registration and Supplemental Representations and Certifications Sections 00 45 00 and Confirmation of VETS - 4212 filing). Can you please confirm each of these items should also be included in the Phase I response, separate from the Cover Letter?

CS Confirmed Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16, RFP page 6 of 96 states “A cover letter shall accompany both the technical and price proposals, and shall include..” Please confirm that the Phase I proposal does not require the submission of a price proposal.

CS Confirmed Amend 0003

Solicitation Final, page 4 of 96, paragraph 7. “Price evaluation preference will be given to HUBZone firms, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4.

1. Will the HUBZone preference apply to any of the Small Business set aside contracts issued in the MACC over the 8 years?

2. Will the HUBZone preference apply to any of the Large Business, Full and Open, contracts issued in the MACC over the 8 years?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Will NAVFAC consider a one (1) week delay for Phase I submission thereby allowing adequate time for Contractors to review all Government responses to questions?

CS The due date remains unchanged. Amend 0003

Solicitation Final, page 9 of 96, Factor 2 (a) (1) Construction Experience.

“…maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects…minimum value of $15,000,000... within the past five (5) years…”

This would be very difficult for a Small Business to achieve within the past five years. Will NAVFAC consider ten (10) years for Small Businesses?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

RFP Document Page 18 of 96, clauses incorporated by reference.

DFARs Clause 252.219-7010 OCT 2019 (Dev) Notification of Competition limited to Eligible 8(a) participants-partnership agreement (Deviation 2019-O0003).

Is this DFAR clause 252-219-7010 relevant to solicitation N44255-21-R-4000?

Our understanding is that there are two NW MACC in the solicitation phase.

1. Solicitation N44255-21-R-4000 NW MACC is a partial small business set-aside (FAR 19.5)

2. Solicitation N44255-21-R-4001 NW 8(a) Small Business MACC (FAR 19.8)

Please confirm solicitation N44255-21-R-4001 8(a) NW Small Business MACC is NOT the partial small business set-aside identified in solicitation N44255-21-R-4000. There are multiple references to solicitation N44255-R-4001 found throughout the attachments of associated with solicitation N44255-21-R-4000.

CS

The solicitation is revised. See Amendments 0001 - 0003

There are two (2) Multiple Award Construction Contracts in solicitation from NAVFAC Northwest:

N44255-21-R-2001 8(a) MACC, a 100% 8(a) set-aside N44255-21-R-4000 NW MACC, a partial Small Business Set-aside

Amend 0003

RFP Section: Part 1 Page Number: 11 Paragraph: Factor 3 – Past Performance a)The RFP states "If a completed AE CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience"; however, the Government rarely provides CAPRS that includes evaluation of the DOR. Would the Government please consider allowing design PPQs for Factor 2 Design Experience in lieu of the existing CPARS? b) If a CPARS does exist, would the Government allow the Offeror to provide both the CPARS and a design PPQ?

CS If no CPARS are available submit a PPQ Amend 0003

Reference: Amendment 0002

Amendment 0002 removed Attachment D Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative from the RFP and did not provide a revised attachment. Please advise if the Government is requiring Factor 4 - Safety to be provided on an attachment, and if so please provide the required attachment.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Reference: Factor 4, Safety

We note that the “Attachment D, Safety Data Sheet” that was initially part of the solicitation package was not included with the Amendment #0002 documents, and Attachment D is replaced by Design and Construction PPQ forms. Please clarify as to whether the Safety Data Sheet should be used, or whether we should simply provide the information as stated in the solicitation.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience, para (a) of the RFP states in part “The Offeror MAY NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor unless specialized subcontractor experience is stated as acceptable.”

When navigating similar IDIQ contracts that mingle Unrestricted and Small Business Offerors, other NAVFAC offices have allowed Small Business Offerors to utilize the experience of a first-tier Small Business subcontractor that will provide major or critical aspects of the requirement in order to demonstrate relevant construction experience under an evaluation factor.

With regard to the Small Business Pool, and given the Government’s previous responses to request to reduce the minimum project value relevancy requirements (Am0001 PPI Response Matrix), we would like to request the Government please consider allowing Small Business Offerors the option of utilizing the experience first-tier Small Business Subcontractors to meet the Factor 2 - Construction Experience requirements.

The solicitation remains unchanged. Amend 0003

The RFP details the required composition of the Proposal Cover Letter in two (2) separate locations, of which both differ. Page 6 thru 7 of 96 requires the Cover Letter include “acknowledgement of all amendments” while page 16 of 96 references FAR 52.215-1(c)(2) and requires inclusion of the SF1442, Surety Letter, Section 00 45 00, and VETS-4212 Confirmation.

Please clarify what Offerors are required to include in their Cover Letter.

In addition, in order to assist Offerors in providing the Government requested documents and attachments in a consistent order for the Government to review, will the Government consider providing a consolidated list of the items Offerors are required to submit and the order in which they should be provide in Phase I – Technical Proposal? As an example:

-Cover Letter

-SF1442

-Section 00 45 00 -Surety Letter -VETS-4212 Confirmation -Factor 1 – Technical Approach -Factor 2 – Corporate Experience -Factor 3 – Past Performance -Factor 4 - Safety

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 10 00, #7 states, “this acquisition will be solicited as an unrestricted procurement with an internal small business set-aside with full and open competition. Price evaluation preference will be given to HUBZone firms, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4.

Would the Government please clarify if a HUBZone company will get a 10% price preference on each 20M+ task order intended for the Large Business (LB) pool of contractors?

This logic would put every LB at an automatic disadvantage for the entire duration of the MACC.

CS

The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003

FAR Clause 52.219-4 is applicable to the solicitation and Task Orders Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16 – states, “Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.”

Would the Government please consider moving back this requirement to within the past (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 21 16

Would the Government please clarify if a HUBZone SB JV partner must also show a past experience project of $15M+ (highly unlikely) or would the past project experience of the LB JV partner suffice?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Solicitation Final, page 9 of 96 Factor 2 (a) (1) Construction Experience. In general, the RFP is structured for large businesses, full and open.

Would NAVFAC consider changing the minimum project size to $10M for “similar in size”?

In Factor 2 (a)(1) (i) the solicitation states “Construction projects with a minimum value of $15,000,000. Is this also the requirement for Small Business competing for the internal Small Business set-aside seats.

CS See Amendment 003 Amend 0003

RFP/PDF Page number 9; Factor 2 – Corporate Experience;

Per the RFP, Construction Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

Will NAVFAC consider an extremely relevant project that is more than 80% complete in the construction phase and has a recent PPQ, acceptable.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Amendment 2 provided a new list of Solicitation Attachment Forms. It appears the original Attachment D Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative form was removed from the list of attachments in Amendment 2.

Please confirm that the Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative form is no longer required to be submitted with proposal.

Please confirm Offerors are still required to provide DART/TCR rates and a 2-page Safety Narrative, per Factor 4 – Safety of the RFP.

Please confirm that the DART/TCR rate information is or is not included in the 2-page Safety Narrative count.

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation

“7. This acquisition will be solicited as an unrestricted procurement with an internal small business set-aside and full and open competition. Price evaluation preference will be given to HUBZone firms, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4.”

Will the HUBZone preference apply for all task orders or only for the Small Business set-aside portion of the procurement?

CS See Amendments 0002 & 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation

“7. This acquisition will be solicited as an unrestricted procurement with an internal small business set-aside and full and open competition. Price evaluation preference will be given to HUBZone firms, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4.”

If the HUB Zone preference is given to the Open and Unrestricted Task Orders this MACC will essentially be a complete SB set aside. Large GC’s will be forced to form a JV with a HUB Zone firm to compete. Please confirm that the Open and Unrestricted Task Orders will not include the 10% HUB Zone preference.

CS See Amendments 0002 & 0003 Amend 0003

Factor 2 Corporate Experience

In showing relevant corporate experience, there would be very few if any small business that would have gotten numerous $15 million (minimum) dollar projects and still somehow remained a qualified small business. This high minimum will certainly limit small business participation in this MACC. If small businesses are truly desired for this NW MACC, and to ensure NAVFAC NW has a larger pool of qualified small business applying and competing for the NW MACC, would NAVFAC consider that in the best interest of the government that the minimum value for past performance projects for small businesses be set at $5 million?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience:

Pg 10 first paragraph “The Offeror shall also submit a SIGNED copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member.”

Please confirm there are no page limits to the signed copies of JV agreements for projects submitted under construction project experience. (Many JV agreements range from 15-20 pages, sometimes more.)

Additionally, please confirm if you would like each JV agreement placed immediately following the respective construction experience form.

CS Confirmed Amend 0003

Proposal Due Date – In awaiting answers to previously submitted PPIs and ability to react to those answers and upcoming federal holiday, would the government extend the proposal date a minimum one week?

CS The solicitation due date remains unchanged. Amend 0003

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience:

Pg 10 first paragraph “The Offeror shall also submit a SIGNED copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member.”

Please confirm there are no page limits to the signed copies of JV agreements for projects submitted under construction project experience. (Many JV agreements range from 15-20 pages, sometimes more.)

Additionally, please confirm if you would like each JV agreement placed immediately following the respective construction experience form.

CS Confirmed Amend 0003

FACTOR 4 – Safety Pg 12 Amendment 2 included several updated/relabeled attachments for proposal forms.

The safety form was not included in that batch of updated forms.

Are we to use the safety date form from the original attachments labeled “Attachment D Safety Data Sheet Safety Narrative”?

CS See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Price Phase Volume Submission Requirements Pg16 Bullet 6 – Surety:

Letter from the Offeror’s Surety.

Are offerors to submit attachment G from amendment 2 only, or are we to include the completed form and a letter from our surety? Please clarify. Thank you!

CS Both are required. Amend 0003

Reference: Amendment 0002

Please clarify if the Small Business firms awarded into the MACC can bid on projects over $20M.

CS Confirmed, Small Businesses awarded into this MACC may propose on projects over $20M Amend 0003

Factor 4 – Safety, (4) Technical Approach for Safety, page 13 of 96, the RFP states under item d. “The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.” Please consider modifying the allowable number of pages to four (4) single-sided or two (2) double-sided pages to satisfy a sufficient response to the criteria required within this section.

The solicitation remains unchanged. Amend 0003

Reference: Amendment 0002

As this program already has a restricted SB set aside dollar amount, please confirm that the Hubzone price evaluation preference of 10% will not be included in the unrestricted portion of this program. If the significant advantage of the Hubzone price evaluation remains in the unrestricted portion of the program, it could result in a decreased amount of participation by well qualified large business Offeror’s.

CS See Amendments 0002 & 0003 Amend 0003

Factor 2-Corporate Experience (a) (1) (iii) reads: Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

Will a project that is 85%+ complete be acceptable for use as Construction Experience?

CS The solicitation is revised. See Amendment 0003 Amend 0003

Section 00 50 00 Attachment F Pre-Proposal Inquiry Form The PPI Form is under the wrong Contract number and appears to be the one from the 8(a) MACC that has the same due date. (the form this is written on has been changed to reflect the correct contract number)

Please provide the correct PPI attachment form with the correct PCO email information.

CS See Amendments 0001 & 0003 Amend 0003

Evaluation Factors, Factor 2- Corporate Experience: (1) Construction Experience: (i) Similar in Size:

It requires a project minimum value of $15M.

We are requesting this minimum value for project size be changed to $13,750,000 to allow Small Business’s to utilize more potential relevant projects.

Attachments with Amendment 0003:

Attach 1 GSA 60 Day Extension (SAM) Attach 2 PPI Response Sheet Attach 3 Pre Proposal Conference Attendance Sheet Attach 4 Pre Proposal Conference Slides Attach K Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative Attach L PPI Submission Form (Same document as provided in Amend 0001)