N6247020R4011 0006.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

Design-Build (DB) Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Construction Contract for Projects, Primarily Located at Rota, Spain and Worldw ide

PLEASE SEE SF-30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Feb-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 N6247020R4011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Dec-2020

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 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

24-Feb-2021

CODE

COMNAVFACSYSCOM ATLANTIC

6506 HAMPTON BLVD

NORFOLK VA 23508-1278

N62470 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247020R4011

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 0006

Design-Build (DB) Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Construction Contract for Projects, Primarily Located at Rota, Spain and Worldwide

The proposal due date is unchanged and remains 5 March 2021 at 2:30 PM (Eastern U.S. Time). Pre- Proposal Inquiries shall be accepted until 17 February 2021.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the following:

1. Responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI’s)

2. Specifications Revisions

3. Additional Attachments

1. Responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI’s)

PPI

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

Factor 3, Corporate Experience

1. We would to know if we can include an alternate DOR within our proposal? We are convinced this is in the best interest of both the Government and all the companies that will be awarded contracts in the MACC. This will permit flexible design capabilities and have already in place or a pre-approved alternate should unforeseen circumstances occur during the life of the MACC with the primary DOR. Would submitting an alternate DOR be grounds to disqualify our proposal if we propose a secondary/alternate Design Firm? Is case that we may submit this alternative, can we propose design projects within the maximum 5 design projects coming from the Alternate Design Firm? (i.e. 3 design projects from primary DOR and 2 from Alternate DOR)

The RFP only permits identification of a single DOR with the MACC proposal.

Secondary/alternate Design Firms will not be considered.

Would the Gov considering an electronic submission to have the same time for all the offerors from Spain and USA to prepare all the documentation for the offer?

Bid per RFP requirements.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

Is the Government considering the one week timeframe required to physically send the proposal from Spain? What steps need to be taken in case we receive responses or amendments after we have sent our proposal by land carrier? (Depending on COVID restrictions this could be more than a week) We will not be able to acknowledge any amendment in our offer, so we will request time to resend. In other words we need at least two week as a minimum, before the proposal due time, to analyze any response or modification in the RFP and to include any new change in the proposal.

Bid per RFP requirements.

of 19 Amendment

PPI #49

In the Responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI’s), the Government's Response in PPI #49 states: “The statutory cost limitation for the task order applies to the award of the task order per the terms of FAR 36.205.

That said, it also forms the basis of the Government’s overall pricing evaluation…

We do not fully understand to what extent is the Government’s overall pricing evaluation affected by the application of the statutory cost limitation required in Section 00 21 00

– Instructions (Page 4 of 66), subparagraph

2.1 under GENERAL OVERVIEW OF

THE SEED PROJECT.

Please, we would like to confirm if an offeror’s price proposal exceeds mentioned statutory cost limitation for CLIN 0001, the offeror would still be considered for evaluation and further award, or if such bid may be directly rejected from the evaluation process.

Offerors must submit pricing at or below the statutory cost limitation for the seed project to be eligible for award of the seed project.

Exceedance of the statutory cost limitation, however, does not per se eliminate the firm from consideration on the MACC.

MACC award is still possible, as long as the firm is determined to be one of the best value offerors with a fair and reasonable price.

117 20 of 66 112100 Para. 5.2

Paragraph 5.2 of Section 112100 states:

ELECTRONIC/FACSIMILE

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED

PROPOSALS MAY NOT BE HAND

DELIVERED. ALL PROPOSALS MUST

BE MAILED VIA POSTAL SERVICES

OR COMMERCIAL COURIERS SUCH

AS FEDEX, DHL, OR UPS

Since the proposal will be mailed from outside the USA, the offer package must be mailed at least five workdays before the

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

offer due date (05 Mar 2021).

Our concern is that a new amendment is issued by the Government during that mailing period.

Please, we would like to know how to proceed in that situation.

Again, we would request that you consider acceptance of an electronic submission of the proposal before the due date, provided it includes a voucher of the mailed original proposal package via a commercial courier.

118 26 28 10 05 2.5

ESS Products, Sytem Description: Is the ESS of the new buildings stand alone or must it be integrated into Navsta's existing

SCC?

Integrated into basewide ESS.

119 26 28 10 05 2.5

ESS Products, Security Command Center:

What is the Lenel Onguard platform currently used in Navsta's SCC; Basic ADV or Enterprise? What is the Lenel Onguard software dongle?

Bid per RFP.

120 15 28 10 05 2.4

ESS Products, Access Control System:

Should we provide an identification card printer for the ACS?

No printer station required.

121 8 28 10 05 CLIN 0013

Document 00 22 13.00 20, CLINT 0013: It is indicated that the ESS should include ACS, IDS and CCTV; however, we could not find the CCTV system equipment on the drawings. How many cameras should be provided at a minimum? Where should the cameras be located inside and outside of this building? How many video recorders should be provided at a minimum? How many workstation should be provided at a minumum?

CCTV not a project requirement. See Amendment for revised Specification 28 10 05.

122 8 28 10 05 CLIN 0013

Document 00 22 13.00 20, CLINT 0013: It is indicated that the ESS should include ACS, IDS and CCTV; however, we could not find CCTV system equipment specifications in Specification Section 28 10 05.What are the specifications for cameras, video recorders and workstations?

CCTV not a project requirement. See Amendment for revised Specification 28 10 05.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

123 8 28 10 05 CLIN 0013

Document 00 22 13.00 20, CLINT 0013:

Should the new CCTV system be stand alone or integrated into the current VMS (Video Management Software)? What is the current VMS model - Milestone, Onguard, Axis...?

CCTV not a project requirement. See Amendment for revised Specification 28 10 05.

124 9 28 10 05 CLIN 0014

Document 00 22 13.00 20, CLIN 0014: It is indicated that the ESS should include ACS, IDS and CCTV; however, we could not find CCTV system equipment on the drawings.

How many cameras should be provided at a minimum? Where should the cameras be located inside and outside of this building?

How many video recorders should be provided at a minimum? How many workstation should be provided at a minimum?

CCTV not a project requirement. See Amendment for revised Specification 28 10 05.

125 28 10 05

In relation to Division 25, is it necessary to include in the bid the hardware infrastructure to support the cybersecurity services indicated?

Yes, bid per specification.

Drw. S-

Davit Notes

Drawing S-002 includes a block for "DAVIT NOTES" describing the technical characteristics of the mentioned Davit.

However, we have not been able to locate on the subject solicitation drawings where the davit(s) is(are)to be installed, nor how many davits we should incorporate into our price proposal. Please indicate how many davits should we included in our bid, and if possible, the davit locations.

Refer to Note 6 on SF104A for davit information.

Att H Specs 26

32 13.00 20 2.2.4.2

Attachment H, Specifications, Section 26

32.13.00 20, Paragraph 2.2.4.2 Diesel Fuel Day Tank System: The plans and specifications discuss 24-hour day tanks for the generators. No location for these day tanks is identified on the drawings. Please provide the desired location of the day tanks for both generators. In addition, since a location for day tanks was not provided on the drawings, is there a main bulk tank somewhere on base that is currently providing fuel?

Provide base tank under generator for 24-hour requirement.

Separate day tank not required. See Amendment for revised Specification 26 32 13.00 20.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

128 10 of 66 RFP 5.2

Because we are not permitted to hand deliver our proposals, would the Government consider putting someone in the Base Pass Office for a short period of time, for example one hour prior to the due date/time for proposals, to accept proposal packages? We have concerns with the reliability of commercial carriers (FEDEX, UPS, DHL, USPS) given the challenges they currently face (increased delivery demands, COVID, inclement weather, flight cancellations, etc.).

No. The Government does not intend to station an individual at the base pass office as suggested in this PPI.

129 10 of 66 RFP 5.2

Will the Government reconsider its requirement for hard copy proposals and instead accept electronic upload to the DoD SAFE site?

No change will be made to the RFP in this regard.

Bid per RFP requirements.

11 95 of

SECTION 41 22

13.12

20-TON

OVERHEAD

ELECTRIC

TRAVELING

BRIDGE

CRANE4

1.2.1 Design, and

2.2.1 Structural

Design

Paragraph 1.2.1 Design Requirement calls to provide a crane design in accordance with

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179, ASME B30.2,

CMAA No. 70, Class C service (minimum).

No Host Nation Regulations are listed.

QUESTION:

Please confirm if Government would accept a crane with structural design equivalent to requirements detailed in specification but in accordance Spanish Normatives (Host Nation) such as DIN EN 13001 «Grúas - Diseño general» y DIN EN 15011 «Grúas.

Grúas puente y grúas pórtico», and CMAA Class C service (minimum), instead of

ASME B30.2.

If the contractor plans to provide submittals based on standards other than those specified, it is the contractor's responsibility to provide complete documentation either demonstrating equivalency or where the alternate standard is more conservative than those stated within the specification.

1208 of

SECTION 41 22

13.12

20-TON

OVERHEAD

ELECTRIC

TRAVELING

BRIDGE

CRANE4

1.5.1 Qualifications

Specification section 41 22 13,12 paragraph

1.5.1 Qualifications, calls to provide a PE

register in U.S. or Canada to acomplish the crane design o directly design supervise. No Host Nation equivalent Qualifications are included.

QUESTION:

Provide Services from US or Canada engineers for satandarized task in Europe and in Spain, unnecesarily increase the construction period, cost and the risk of delays. Please confirm if an Host Nation/ EU crane design would be accepted to avoid the above mentioned issues, please also confirm that an homologous Host Nation / EU Professional Engineer would be

PE requirement cannot be waived.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

accepted, thanks.

132 11 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pdf

Amendment 0004 document

N6247020R4011 +0004

Factor 1, Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal

Requirements:

The Goverment's answer provided to PPI#60, included in Amendement 0004, indicates the requirement of a single DOR /AE firm identification with the MACC Proposal. Bid per solicitation.

We are commited to Submitt the best Proposal, and we would like to have further clarifications. According the RFP, the effective period of the resultant contract will be a one (1) year Base Period, plus seven

(7) possible one-year option periods, and in order to anticipate future potential issues that may arise during such time frame, including, but not limited to an event in wich the Primary Design Firm may be work-overloaded, have financial troubles due to current/future uncertain economical situation, close for bussiness in Host Nation and/or worldwide, or the needs to cover specific engineering services in Rota (Spain) and/or worldwide, under different Host Nation´s regulations, or to comply with special classification and certifcations, required for any worldwide task order under this MACC Contract. For all these mentioned situation (and many other) we consider a more ventagous for Goverment the Proposals including an anternate/secondary Design Firm, that may act as DOR, always after the prevoius approval of the Contracting Officer as required in the RFP. We assume a Proposal with One Primary Design Firm-DOR submitting the Design Proyects information required in the RFP and additional Alternate/Secondary Design Firms, having demonstrated that the design firm and Prime contractor have worked together in relevant projects, as also is stated in the RFP, maybe considered favorable by the Evaluation Board.

QUESTION: Please confirm if an offeror may be evaluated unfavorable, when duly complying and fullfill all the requirements of the RFP for teaming with the A&E-DOR and additionally, include an Alternate or Secondary Design Firm to act as DOR, after

Proposals are evaluated solely on the evaluation factors contained in the solicitation and all applicable laws and regulations.

Secondary/alternate Design Firms will not be considered.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

the required Contracting Officer evaluation and approval, under specific future event and/or project location.

Please confirm if Goverment would consider an offeror more favorable, if an altenate design firm/DOR is included and explainined within the documentation of the Proposal, Tecfhnical Factors: Narrative and Organizational Chart, Design Past Performance and Design Experience.

133 6 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pd

2. GENERAL

OVERVIEW

OF THE

SEED

PROJECT

According to FAR 36.205 Statutory cost limitations. Section C

."...unless laws or agency procedures provide pertinent exemptions. However, if it is in the Government’s interest, the contracting officer may include a provision in the solicitation which permits the award of separate contracts for individual items whose prices are within or subject to applicable statutory limitations"

Please confirm that laws or agency procedures do not provide pertinent exemptions and that there is no include a provision in the solicitation which permits the award of separate contracts for individual items whose prices are within or subject to applicable statutory limitations.

Bid Per RFP.

134 6 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pd

2. GENERAL

OVERVIEW

OF THE

SEED

PROJECT

According to 252.236-7006 COST

LIMITATION (JAN 1997)

" (d) Offers may be rejected which

(1)Are materially unbalanced for the purpose of bringing items within cost limitations; or (2)Exceed the cost limitations, unless the limitations have been waived by the Government prior to award."

The contractor respectfully asks, Could the government reconsider that the limitations are waived by the Government prior to award according to point (2) of the aforementioned 252.236-7006 COST

LIMITATION (JAN 1997)?

Bid per RFP.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

135 6 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pd

2. GENERAL

OVERVIEW

OF THE

SEED

PROJECT

According to 252.236-7006 COST

LIMITATION (JAN 1997)

" (d) Offers may be rejected which

(1)Are materially unbalanced for the purpose of bringing items within cost limitations; or (2)Exceed the cost limitations, unless the limitations have been waived by the Government prior to award."

We observe that the cost Limitation affects the seed project. Please confirm that exceeding the Statury cost may be grounds for rejection and therefore not being awarded the Task Order, but does not imply being expelled from the MACC contract as a whole.

See response to #116, above.

136 19 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pd

5.2

PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIO

N

INSTRUCTIO

NS

As of today, February 17, 2021, not all questions sent to the government have been received. As a consequence of the government's responses, the contractors will have to re-analyze our technical and economic proposals.

Likewise, the courier companies endorsed to enter the facilities, offer a travel time of approximately 7 days to 9 days if they want to guarantee delivery in a suitable time and manner.

In this sense, we respectfully ask the government to reconsider the possibility of the offers being sent electronically and thus guarantee a correct and thorough preparation of our proposals.

No change will be made to the RFP in this regard.

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

137 6 of 66

Solicitation Document

N6247020R4011 .pd

2. GENERAL

OVERVIEW

OF THE

SEED

PROJECT

According to 252.236-7006 COST

LIMITATION (JAN 1997)

" (d) Offers may be rejected which

(1)Are materially unbalanced for the purpose of bringing items within cost limitations;

Due to the magnitude and nature of the contract, it is expected that a significant number of contractors will attend this tender. Many of these contractors have never worked for the government of the United States of America and consequently are unaware of the quality procedures, applicable regulations and high standards demanded by the government.

As a consequence, they can propose completely off-market prices. Could the Government please explain the above clause

(1) in wich Offers may be rejected which re materially unbalanced for the purpose of bringing items within cost limitations?

Refer to 252.236- 7006 and consider enlisting the help of consultants to the extent you need assistance interpreting the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

138 19-20

STANDARD

FORM 1442

PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIO

N

INSTRUCTIO

NS

ALL SUBMITTALS MUST BE

RECEIVED AT THE LOCATION

SPECIFIED and

ELECTRONIC/FACSIMILE

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED. PROPOSALS MAY

NOT BE HAND DELIVERED. ALL

PROPOSALS MUST BE MAILED VIA

POSTAL SERVICES OR COMMERCIAL

COURIERS SUCH AS FEDEX, DHL, OR

UPS. The documentation to be submitted includes an electronic copy in CD format.

This means that said documentation has to go through customs, which lengthens the delivery time up to 7 days if it is sent from Spain.

This means that US-based companies have more time to prepare the offer.

It may also happen that the answer to the questions and the publication of a new amendment occurs with the documentation sent.

In that case, how would the amendment be recognized? And how would a documentation in transit be rectified, due to the needs of adaptation to the requirements and responses contained in that

REFERENCE QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

Page Section Para.

amendment?

PRICE

PROPOSAL

Due to the new modifications and the number of clins that make up the offer, the total amount could exceed the limit foreseen for the cost of the contract.

If that happens, would the offer be considered ineligible?

See response to #116, above.

2. Specifications Revisions:

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 28 10 05, ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS) and Section 26 32 13.00 20, SINGLE OPERATION GENERATOR SETS are deleted and Section 28 10 05, ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS), dated 23 Feb 2021, and Section 26 32 13.00 20, SINGLE OPERATION GENERATOR SETS, dated 24 Feb 2021 are added to the Project Table of Contents and they accompany this Amendment.

3. Additional Attachments (Attached Separately):

1. 28 10 05 (23 Feb 2021)

2. 26 32 13.00 20 (24 Feb 2021)

(End of Summary of Changes)