N62473-18-R-2201_RFP_Phase_One_Amendment_0001.pdf

ACQR4204063

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

Description of amendment continues on follow ing page(s).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Feb-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 N6247318R2201

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jan-2018

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

15-Feb-2018

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

DESERT IPT

CODE ROPDA

1220 PACIFIC HWY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247318R2201

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The number of offeror copies required has increased by 1 from 5 to 6.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

AMENDMENT 0001 – DATED 15 FEBRUARY 2018

Contract: N62473-18-R-2201 CS/email: Brandon Spaulding / brandon.spaulding@navy.mil Solicitation/RFP Date: 23 January 2018 Subject: FULL AND OPEN, TWO PHASE, DESIGN BUILD, SINGLE AWARD, BEST VALUE TRADEOFF, FY18 P-282 F/A 18 AVIONICS REPAIR FACILITY

REPLACEMENT AT NAVAL AIR STATION

(NAS) LEMOORE, CALIFORNIA

This is an amendment to subject RFP:

1. Proposal receipt deadline remains unchanged at 22 February 2018 by 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time.

2. The following information is provided in response to RFIs:

Question 1: Section of the RFP: Factor 2 - Experience, Page Number: 13-15, specific to shallow foundation and Stone Column experience:

The evaluation criteria for both the construction experience and the design experience include at least one project with “shallow foundation with stone column soil improvement within the last 5 years”.

There have NOT been a lot of Stone Column Foundations done in the last 5 years. Also, there is no prime Contractor that self-performs Stone Column Foundation work; it is always performed by a subcontract specialist or other qualified subcontractor.

Can the experience be met by a sub-contractor’s experience, since they are the experts at Stone Column design-support and installation? Or alternately, can this experience requirement be extended to 10 years?

Since the design of this type of foundation system is more the responsibility of the geotechnical consultant, and supported by the Stone Column subcontractor specialist - can the design experience requirement be met by the geotechnical consultant's experience if a teaming agreement between the offeror and consultant exists?

Answer 1: Yes, the experience requirement may hereby be met by a sub-contractor’s experience.

Yes, the experience requirement is hereby extended to 10 years.

No, the design experience requirement cannot be met by the geotechnical consultant's experience even if a teaming agreement between the offeror and consultant exists?

Question 2: #13 SF1442 states, 1 original and 5 copies. Page 4 paragraph 6 states, 1 original and 6 hardcopies.

Please clarify how may Phase One hardcopies are to be submitted.

Answer 2: Submit 1 original and 6 copies.

Question 3: Factor 2: item (1) Construction Experience, bullet four, page 13, requires projects with special shallow foundations with structural fill and deep stone column systems, being that this is a design build and through soils reports and structural engineered systems, other types of columns could be used in place of stone columns. Can this requirement/experience be expanded to allow other types of special/deep foundation systems?

Answer 3: No

Question 4: Factor 2: Experience defines relevant projects to include “an accredited ICD-705 compliant facility (physical and electronic security)”. Many secure access facilities built within the allowable time frame of 5 years were constructed under the guidelines of DCID 6/9. Can secure facilities constructed under the guidelines of DCID 6/9 be used as an equal to ICD-705?

Answer 4: Yes

Question 5: Can you provide access to the Drawing Plan Set?

Answer 5: No

Question 6: Will NAVFAC consider excluding the Organizational Chart from the 2-page requirement for the Technical Approach, allowing the Organizational Chart to be provided on a separate page from the two-page narrative?

Answer 6: Yes

Question 7: In recent years, other 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.

Answer 7: No

Question 8: Under (2) Design Experience, the last item in the "Minimum submission requirements" list states that "When combined the submitted CONSTRUCTION projects must include all of the above relevancy criteria.”

Please confirm that the sentence should read: "When combined the submitted DESIGN projects must include all of the above relevancy criteria.”

Answer 8: Yes, Under (2) Design Experience, the last item in the "Minimum submission requirements" should read: "When combined the submitted DESIGN projects must include all of the above relevancy criteria.”

Question 9: Under RFP pages 13 and 14 items (1) Construction Experience and (2) Design Experience: Please confirm that the bullet point, "Each project submitted must include a minimum of two (2) of the above relevancy criteria", is referring to the 6 preceding relevancy items, including " • At least one (1) relevant project with a construction cost of $20M or above; and • At least one (1) relevant project with a Maintenance Facility".

Answer 9: No, each bullet under "Minimum submission requirements" applies to the four (4) "relevant project" bullet points listed above the "Minimum submission requirements."

3. All other paragraphs, provisions, and conditions to this proposed contract remain unchanged.

The offeror must acknowledge receipt of all amendments on the offer schedule.

(End of Summary of Changes)