Amendment_0002_Q892_Q964.pdf

ACQR4813894

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

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to Request for Information (RFI).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Nov-2017

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 N6247317R0824

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Nov-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 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

29-Nov-2017

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

COASTAL IPT CODE ROPMA

NAVAL STATION SAN DIEGO

2730 MCKEAN ST BLDG 291

SAN DIEGO CA 92136

N62473 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247317R0824

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 0002

AMENDMENT 0002

Subj: SOLICITATION N62473-17-R-0824, DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT Q-892 AND Q-964 SPECIAL

OPERATIONS FORCES, SEA, AIR, AND LAND (SEAL) TEAM OPERATIONS FACILITIES

FOR SEAL TEAMS ONE AND THREE AT THE NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE COASTAL

CAMPUS, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

29 November 2017

1. The following are responses to Request for Information (RFIs):

Contractor RFI #7: Factor 1 - Technical Approach, page 14 of 60 and Exhibit A Factor 1 - Technical Approach requires the Offeror to draft a 2 page narrative explaining our DB team composition and include a simple organizational chart.

Also included in this RFP for Phase 1 is Exhibit A which appears to ask for the same information except the organizations chart.

Is the governments intent to have the Offeror draft a 2 page narrative or fill-out Exhibit A "Team Composition"?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response to RFI #3, Amendment 0001.

Contractor RFI #8: Factor 2 – Experience, paragraph 1, page 14 of 60; Exhibit D:

In reviewing the past experience criteria described on page 14, along with the verbiage included in Exhibit D Construction Exhibit Project Data Sheet – Offeror, can you please clarify if past joint venture projects will be acceptable to show previous experience for the Offeror only?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: As stated in Factor 2 – Experience, if the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

Contractor RFI #9: Factor 4 – Safety, (a) Submittal Requirements, page 17 of 60:

Are we to assume we should be using "Attachment G - Safety Data" to report our EMR and DART rates as well as our Safety Narrative? Their seems to be conflicts between the Safety submittal requirements and Exhibit G?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Use Exhibit “G”, Safety Data Sheet to report EMR, DART, and TRC rates and provide a two (2) page narrative as stated in Factor 4.

Contractor RFI #10: Factor 1 (1) Provide a narrative… and Factor 4 (1) EMR, (2) DART TRC and (3) Technical approach…, page 14 of 60 and 17 of 60:

Factor 1-Technical Approach: Is the government requiring a 2 page written narrative with Org chart part of the proposal or completion of Exhibit A only or both?

Factor 4 - Safety: Is the government requiring in narrative form our EMR, DART, TRC rates and a 2 page Safety Narrative or completion of Attachment G only or both?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For Factor 1, see response to RFI# 3, Amendment 0001. For Factor 4, see response to RFI# 9.

Contractor RFI #11: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Evaluation Factors, page 16-17 of 60:

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

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A previously completed PPQ may be submitted.

Contractor RFI #12: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Evaluation Factors, page 16-17 of 60:

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?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The same CPAR/CCASS or ACASS may be provided only if the CPAR/CCASS or ACASS addresses both the Construction and Design Experience of the project. Otherwise, the Offeror must provide completed PPQ in the proposal for projects that do not have a completed CPAR/CCASS or ACASS.

Contractor RFI #13: 3. Pre-Proposal Conference, page 6 of 60:

Can you please share the site visit attendees list on FBO?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Pre-Proposal Conference sign-in sheet is loaded in NECO.

Contractor RFI #14: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Evaluation Factors, page 16-17 of 60:

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.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, PPQs filled out by the design-build contractor will not be accepted.

Contractor RFI #15: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Evaluation Factors, page 16-17 of 60:

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.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The CPAR/CCASS may be provided for Design Experience on a design-build project only if the CPAR/CCASS addresses both the Construction and Design Experience of the project. If the CPAR/CCASS does not address the Design Experience, the Offeror must provide a completed PPQ for the design firm for the project. See response to RFI #12.

Contractor RFI #16: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Evaluation Factors, page 16-17 of 60:

Paragraph (a) 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. 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.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response RFI #11.

Contractor RFI #17: Exhibit G- Safety Data Sheet:

On the Exhibit G- Safety Data Form, Section 9. Technical Approach, the same question is asked twice (see below.)

Would NAVFAC please clarify if the first question is intended to ask about subcontractor work ONLY, and the second is intended to ask about self-performed work?

Describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels:

Describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The PDF and Word documents for Exhibit G provided on NECO do not repeat any questions. The first item under Section 9 in Exhibit G is the following:

“Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors:”

Contractor RFI #18: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: The Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 2 Experience, (2) Design Experience, Page 16 of 60 states: “The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor 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 an Offeror is utilizing a “Design Subcontractor” comprised of two individual Design Firms, what is required to satisfy the submission requirements? It is not clear what entities should be a party to the referenced “joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, etc.” Should the agreement or commitment be between the two Design firms? Between the “Teamed Design Entity” (i.e., Design Subcontractor) and the two individual Design Firms? Between the each individual Design Firm and the Offeror (Contractor)? Between the “Teamed Design Entity” and the Offeror (Contractor)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Factor 1 of the RFP.

ALL OTHER PARAGRAPHS, PROVISIONS, AND CONDITIONS TO SOLICITATION N62473-17-R-

0824, REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE OFFEROR MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ALL

AMENDEMENTS.

(End of Summary of Changes)