Amendment-05-P-440.doc

Subject: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N62473-19-R-1208 P-440 PIER 8 REPLACEMENT AT NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Date 18 March 2019 A. The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to requests for information RFI 88: The noted reference indicates a required quantity of 4ea, 4 MVA substations. The single line diagram on sheet E-002 of Attachment N6247319R12086.1-P440-Pier-8-RFP-DwgsR1 shows 8 ea, 4 MVA substations. Part 3, Ch. 6 G4010, Pier 8 Equipment, Line item 1 also includes 8 ea, 4 MVA substations. Please confirm the quantity and identify the location of the substations.

(Revised) Government Response RFI 88: Overall there are ten (10) substations similar to Pier 12. These consist of eight (8) 4MVA, 12.47kV-480Y/277V skid-mounted shore power substations / two (2) – 7.5/10 MVA, 12.47kV-4160V skid mounted shore power substations / four (4) 1 MVA 12.47kV-480Y/277V skid mounted industrial substation. See S-004 and E-005 for the general location of the substations. Contractor design-build team to finalize exact locations during design phase.

RFI 111: Sheet E-002 Note 2 calls out to provide (2) 6” spares on each side of the pier. Sheet E-005 Note 10 is shown on both sides of the pier and calls out for (4) spare 6” conduits. Please confirm if 2 or 4 spares are required on each side of the pier.

(Revised) Government Response 111: Provide three (3) 6” spares per side. Per UFC 3-550-01 “For primary distribution circuits, provide spare conduits such that at least 1/3 of the duct-bank contains empty conduits with a minimum of at least one spare conduit.

RFI 120: Part 3, 2.3.4 Pier Commissioning It is our understanding that there are no permanent buildings on the existing Pier 8 with the exception of the guard tower and a small restroom facility (including one water closet and one lavatory). It appears that the building commissioning (Cx) is limited to 1) the guard tower (space heating(?), lighting / data systems), 2) the restroom facility with its associated lighting, power, space heating, and plumbing including a small domestic hot water heater for the lavatory, and 3) the RPBPs (reduced pressure backflow preventers) at the potable water risers. Please confirm that there are no other buildings on the pier and that building commissioning is limited to the above.

Government Response 120: Refer to the RFP documents Parts 6.1 and 6.8 for information regarding the building structures on the pier.

RFI 121: It is our understanding from this paragraph that there are no buildings to be constructed in this project except the guard tower (per paragraph 2.3.6, page 10) and a small restroom facility (per Part 3, section 1.0, third from the last paragraph). Please confirm that there are no other buildings to be constructed except the above.

Government Response 121: See Government Response to RFI 120.

RFI 126: Reviewing the electrical list of collateral items that need to be priced. Please furnish better description of the material. What type wire? What type of plugs, caps boots, etc. Note enough information for suppliers to furnish a quote. Please forward better list information for this bid option.

Government Response 126: See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 129: The Part 6 attachment “Draft Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting for Pier 8” states on Page 11: “Crush and Recycle an estimated 75-90% of the concrete debris from the demolition of Pier 8. Landfill only the concrete that cannot be recycled.” As the procedure of action to be taken on this requirement it states: “Crush concrete debris and stockpile at approved location on NBSD and make available for reuse by other construction project.” Please provide the approved location as indicated above. This location will need to be able to store 26,000 cubic yards of concrete and accommodate a crushing plant operation. Also, please define the requirements of the statement above on “Crush concrete debris.” What size must this be crushed too? Will 2-foot by 2-foot by 2-foot size be acceptable? Will rebar need to be removed?

Government Response 129: Contractor is responsible to haul concrete and excess soil generated by demolition and construction activities to off-site recycler and soil broker, respectively, in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The material shall be processed in compliance with recycling (receiving) facility requirements.

RFI 138: Under Section 00210 Basis of Award, paragraph 4., Factor 6 – Small Business Utilization, (1) Small Business Achievement Record, it states: “All offerors (SBs and other than SBs) shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor whether performed as a prime or subcontractor. This information is required regardless of whether a subcontracting plan was incorporated into the contract award.”

The RFP does not include a Corporate Experience Factor. Should this be revised to “Construction Experience”.

If a project included in the Corporate Experience Factor was a non-Federal contract and was not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations nor any other state or local agency small business goals, is Attachment H, Small Business Achievement Record still required even though small business goals were not required under the contract?

Please confirm that Attachment H documents are only required for the offeror’s Construction Experience projects and not the Design Experience projects since the lead design firm is not the offeror.

Government Response 138: Corporate Experience refers to Factor 2 Experience.

RFI 148: General Note 2 on RFP Drawing E-004 states: “Existing Manholes being modified to be adjusted to meet current safety standards. Final adjustments required to be determined with Navy guidance during detail design.” It is impossible to quantify these adjustments until a detailed Manhole survey has been completed. Please provide additional detail as to what we should include in our bid at this time.

(Revised) Government Response 148: Contractor will provide structural repairs to walls, floor and ceiling; also replacement of man-hole cover, cable racks, ladder and other interior parts.

RFI 149: The bid form Option item 0001 “to replace Vesta – J Substation Splices” Part 3 G40 Site Electrical Utilities states: “Option 1 Splices: Replace potentially defective splices in existing 15kV cabling between Vesta Substation and Switch Station J. Cables consist of two (2) three-phase sets of 1/C 500 kcmil copper, 15Kv, 133% EPR. Assume 1 set of splices in located every 250 lineal feet.” Unless told otherwise, we are going to assume that there is enough slack in the cables that we would be allowed to cut cable and make slices without any new purchase of cable. We are also assuming all of these splices will be in existing manholes, unless told otherwise.

Government Response 149: There will not be enough slack and contractor will need to add cable, and all splices shall be inside existing man-holes.

RFI 154: Paragraph G102004 describes work related to the flotation barrier. Please provide information on the floating barrier. Information needed is the floating barrier length, details of the barrier including anchorages, location for where to move barrier to during pier 8 construction and conceptual details as to how the fence is to be reinstalled.

Government Response 154: No work will be related to the floating barrier.

RFI 161: The document states to “Classify the concrete debris that can be reused/recycled. Crush concrete debris and stockpile at approved location on NBSD and make available for reuse by other construction projects. Haul the concrete debris that cannot be recycled to the upland Miramar or Otay Landfills that have capacity to accept this waste.”

1. Please specify location of the stockpile on NBSD and the trucking route.

2. Please specify the maximum acceptable size of the crushed concrete rubble.

3. Please specify whether the Navy will provide voucher for the landfills.

Government Response 161: See Government Response 129.

RFI 166: The RFP and specifications don’t mention any action on the ship to shore cables. Who is to furnish ship to shore cables, what is the specification and voltage or the cables? Are these cables furnished by the owner? Please submit for action.

Government Response 166: Ship-to-shore cables are to be provided as collateral equipment. See Part 6 for more details. See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 167: This paragraph mentions 1 receptacle & 1 plug. However the DD drawing show more than 1 set receptacles & plugs. Please refer to drawing E-002 bottom right Skid 3SA. Please advise if it is just (1) or use the total show on the drawing E-002.

Government Response 167: Part 3, paragraph G401001 Substations, subparagraph 4 under “Design features for the substation medium voltage 4.16kv metal clad switchgear.” The paragraph states to provide one cable mount type plug with weatherproof cover and provisions for terminating 500 kcmil cables for each receptacle.

RFI 168: This paragraph mentions new duct bank and vaults to upgrade from (800Amp) to (1200Amp)

Drawing E-004 note #1 says to penetrate existing manholes. Which is required? Please advise NAVFAC requirements and wishes.

Government Response 168: Additional conduit will parallel the existing duck banks and will connect to existing manholes.

RFI 169: Sheet G-004 of Attachment N6247319R12086.1-P440-Pier-8-RFP-DwgsR1 indicates a “Proposed Contractor Laydown Area” of approximately 106,800 sf. We have been advised that for a similar area provided on the Pier 12 replacement project this entire area was repaved including removal and replacement of 6” of base and 6” of asphalt concrete.

The Pier 8 Replacement RFP does not include directions to remove and replace this section. Please confirm that removal and replacement of the pavement in this entire area is not required in the scope of this contract. Also, please confirm that removal and replacement of this pavement is only required where new construction disturbs the area or contractors operations damage the existing pavement.

Government Response 169: The area is to be returned in equal or better condition than before construction began. Any pavement area damaged shall be replaced by the contractor.

RFI 170: Please explain how the Government established the 750 calendar day contract performance period.

Government Response 170: See Government Response to RFI 86.

RFI 171: Condensate Return pumps. Note previous design for Piers 1, 2, 7 & 13 removed all electric condensate return pumps. Current design is returning High Pressure Condensate directly to the Deaerator in the Boiler plant. Please confirm Condensate Pumps are still required.

Government Response 171: Electric powered condensate return pumps shall not be used. Steam powered condensate pumps are acceptable. Pumps may not be required as long as the condensate return system is designed in a manner in which the condensate is gravity fed back to the plant.

RFI 172: Drawing M-015 detail 2 indicates Float/Bucket trap. Please confirm which is required, Float & thermostatic or inverted bucket traps.

Government Response 172: Inverted bucket traps are required.

RFI 173: Will dump tickets be provided for the excess dirt generated from the landside electrical ductbanks?

Government Response 173: See Government Response to RFI 129.

RFI 174: Please confirm that Attachment I – Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted with the Price Proposal.

Government Response 174: See Government Response to RFI 27.

RFI 175: In the section “System Description” it describes the removal and salvage of pier fender system components for reuse. Are any of the salvaged components to be reused on the new pier 8? If so which items?

Government Response 175: See Government Response to RFI 162.

RFI 176: Part 3 of the RFP requires a stormwater system that treats 0.25 inch per hour of storm event from Pier 8. No reference is made to the requirement of an on-site detention system to reduce the additional peak flows that will be generated from the hydromodification of the site due to the proposed development (additional impervious areas). Please confirm if an on-site detention system is required, and if so, please provide the design storm to be used for the analysis of the on-site detention system.

Government Response 176: An on-site detention system is not required. Storm water volume/flow calculations should be based on the design of the new pier 8 deck and the storm water treatment system shall be designed to treat 0.25-inch per hour of rainfall from the new Pier 8.

RFI 177: Can the government provide specifications for all the equipment in this list? Examples Cable Type W, Boots 3 Legged, All Male/Female plugs etc.

Government Response 177: See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 178: Reviewing the electrical list of collateral items that need to be priced. Please furnish better description of the material. What type wire? What type of plugs, caps boots, etc. See attached list of Items that are unknown to contractor on how to price.

Government Response 178: See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 179: Part 3 Chapter 6 G20 Site Improvements: Please provide the live load requirements for the land side area of the project.

Government Response 179: The live load requirements on the land side area are to match the main pier deck live load requirements as specified in the RFP.

RFI 180: The first paragraph of RFP Part Section H10 states, “The substructure, superstructure and deck shall be designed for a 75-year service life. The service life of the concrete elements shall be validated by a NACE certified cathodic protection specialist and a registered Professional Engineer. Concrete mix designs for US Navy Piers 12 and the Fuel Pier, which both have a 75-year life, can be found in Part 6 for guidance. Nonetheless, whether the contractor decides to use the same or similar concrete mixes, he is still solely responsible for the performance of the concrete and shall document by design calculations that the substructure, superstructure and deck all have 75year life.”

1. Please provide clarification whether RFP requires “Service Life Modeling” using STADIUM finite element software. Does STADIUM modeling constitute validation by design calculations as required by the RFP?

2. The RFP Part 6 includes concrete mix design for Pier 12 for guidance. Please clarify if STADIUM modeling has been performed on the Pier 12 concrete mix design.

3. General Structural Note #4 on Pier 12 Asbuilts Drawing S-002 states, “Epoxy coated reinforcing shall be provided where indicated on the drawings and shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A934.” However, the structural drawings with reinforcement details do not show epoxy coating. Please clarify whether any epoxy coated reinforcement have been used on Pier 12 project. This information will help understand what role Pier 12 concrete mix design and/or Stadium modeling played in corrosion protection.

Government Response 180: STADIUM modeling does constitute validation by design calculations. STADIUM modeling was performed on the Pier 12 concrete mix design.The Pier 12 reinforcement was not epoxy coated.

RFI 181: RFP Part 4 – Section H10 – 1.2.2.3 Marine Concrete requires that: The Designer of Record must utilize UFGS Section 03 31 29, Marine Concrete, for the project specification covering concrete components used in waterfront superstructure, substructure, deck and mooring and berthing systems, unless noted otherwise. Please clarify if the provisions of UFGS Section 03 31 29, Marine Concrete that require that the STADIUM® methodology be utilized for predicting the service life of concrete structures will apply to Pier 8, or will utilizing the suggested mix designs provided with the RFP from the previous projects be sufficient analysis to determine the service life of the structures

Government Response 181: Service life modeling of the concrete mix designs is required.

RFI 182: Under Section 00210 Basis of Award, paragraph 4., Factor 6 – Small Business Utilization, the offerors are required to include Attachment J – Small Business Subcontracting Plan and if offeror is a large business, Attachment I – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Given that both of these attachments require the offeror’s “Total Contract Value” to be included, we respectfully request that these two attachments not be required to be furnished on the CD similar to the Price Proposal. This reasoning is similar to the previously answered RFI 51 in Amendment 0003.

Government Response 182: Attachment I and Attachment J are not required to be furnished on the CD.

RFI 183: The referenced section indicates a coating for steel elements on the pier exposed to saltwater immersion, splash, or spray per UFGS Section 09 97 13.26 Coating of Steel Waterfront Structures. The coating systems specified in 09 97 13.26 are typically intended for steel sheet piling and occasionally steel pipe piling. However, the RFP indicates that this applies to “mooring hardware and other miscellaneous steel items”. Would it be acceptable to coat mooring hardware and misc. steel elements per the previous version of UFGS 09 97 13.26 dated April 2006? The coating system in the previous specification has a successful record of use with similar steel elements.

Government Response 183: The current version of UFGS Section 09 97 13.26 "Coating of Steel Waterfront Structures" shall be used instead of the 2006 version.

RFI 184: The schedule for this project is aggressive and the demolition work is on the critical path. Unless told otherwise, we are going to assume that we control the sequence of how we wish to remove the existing Pier 8. The Environmental Assessment Report suggests a sequence; however, we do not agree and are going to assume that the removal sequence is up to the contractor.

Government Response 184: The Contractor may deviate from the sequencing provided in the Environmental Assessment however demolition and construction, including methodology and equipment, shall remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and all project-specific environmental documents. The Contractor shall ensure coordination with environmental personnel to maintain compliance throughout the life of the project.

RFI 185: The Part 6 attachment “Draft Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting for Pier 8” states on Page 11: “Crush and Recycle an estimated 75-90% of the concrete debris from the demolition of Pier 8. Landfill only the concrete that cannot be recycled.” For the procedure of action to be taken on this requirement it states: “Crush concrete debris and stockpile at approved location on NBSD and make available for reuse by other construction project.” Yet in the Part 3 Project Program section G102002 it states: “All demolished material, rubbish and debris generated by this project shall be hauled off-site and off station by the Contractor.” Other conflicts in the RFP include: Part 2 - SECTION 01 74 19.05 20 - CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR DESIGN-BUILD, paragraph 1.1 GOVERNMENT POLICY: “Military installations are required to direct at least 60 percent of their non-hazardous solid wastes (including waste from construction and demolition operations) from the waste stream.” Part 3, 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, paragraph 2.3.1 Sustainable Design, h. MR-2 Construction Waste Management: “Divert 50% from Disposal.” Please clarify if we are to Crush and Recycle and stockpile on site or remove all demolished material offsite.

Government Response 185: See Government Response to RFI 129.

RFI 186: The RFP drawings, specifically Note 2 on Drawing S-014, indicate: “Contractor to determine sea level rise and adjust pier deck elevation to fulfill UFC criteria.” UFC 4-152-01 (24 January 2017) – Design: Piers and Wharves indicates on Page 5 that sea level change is a factor that should be considered. UFC 4-152-01 refers the designer to UFC 4-150-06, Military Harbors and Coastal Facilities. On Page 4 of UFC 4-150-06 (12 December 2001, with Change 1, 19 October 2010), Military Harbors and Coastal Facilities, the designer is referred to the USACE’s Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM), as follows:

“2-6.3 Water Surface Elevation Datums. Section II-5-4 of the CEM describes the various means of defining water surface elevation datums and the relationship between tidal observation-based datums, which account for spatial variability of sea level and vary according to locale, and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), which does not. It also discusses several processes that result in long-term changes in relative mean sea level. An additional discussion of datums and relationship to coastal geology is contained in Section IV-2-4 of the CEM. The selected datum and a rationale for its choice should be stated specifically in the design documentation.”

In Section II-5-4 h (2) of the CEM (on page II-5-38), the designer is referred to National Ocean Service data to predict sea level rise rates for design.

In predicting potential inundation impacts, the National Ocean Service uses a range of sea level rise scenarios, using the same methods as the USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator (ref. FAQ: Sea Level Rise Viewer). The Calculator is located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/rccinfo/slc/slcc_calc.html

Given the variability between the Low, Intermediate, and High Curves for sea level rise at Pier 8, there is significant potential for variability between respective Offeror’s responding to this RFP for Firm Fixed Price Bids, and pier deck design elevations submitted to the Government. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Government provide guidance on which Sea Level Change Curve to use, or provide a specific sea level rise value for all of the bidders. For bidding purposes, unless advised otherwise, we will base our design on the 1 foot identified in the Part 6 documents, which we interpret to fall between the Low and Intermediate curves for this location.

Government Response 186: See Government Response to RFI 93.

RFI 187: We request to obtain a complete copy of the pile testing results (PDA and/or CAPWAP) of the indicator piles at Piers 12 and 10, and associated pile installation/driving records, including blow count and driving hammer data.

Government Response 187: See Government Response to RFI 64.

RFI 188: Electrical Demolition includes the salvaging of Substations and 3-Way switches per Sheet Note 1. Please confirm wire and all other materials being removed from the pier become the responsibility of the contractor to properly dispose.

Government Response 188: Confirmed, wire and all other materials being removed from the pier become the responsibility of the contractor.

RFI 189: Please confirm the dimensions for the width (Clear Inside Guardrails) for the 35-foot and 40-foot Brows.

Government Response 189: See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 190: Please confirm the size (length and width) for the platform for the various heights requested on the Equipment list.

Government Response 190: Refer to Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 191: Are we to design for a 10-year storm per UFC 3-201-01, paragraph 3-1.2 Design Storm Frequency as referenced in the RFP Part 4 - Section G30, page 28, Subsection G3030, or are the pipe sizes and slopes as shown on RFP drawings M-011 and S-004, and as similarly indicated on the Pier 12 Record Drawings C-300 and M-200 through M-207, acceptable? Both Pier 8 RFP plans and Pier 12 Record Drawings appear to accommodate a smaller frequency storm than is required by UFC 3-201-01.

Government Response 191: Follow the UFC 3-201-01 requirements.

RFI 192: Part 3 (Page 38) H1050 Appurtenances (3rd bullet) & Pier 12 replica Drawing S-650/4 “Oil containment boom – The oil containment boom shall be compatible to the systems in use at the Naval Base San Diego.” We are not able to locate the NAVFAC SW Oil Containment Boom requirements. Please provide a specification for all of the contractors.

Government Response 192: See Government Response to RFI 57.

RFI 193: In the project specifications Part 3, paragraph 2.3, top of page 7, it states: “The contractor shall perform a survey of the sea bottom prior to construction of Pier … that will expose any debris in the area under the Pier 8. Contractor shall expect some debris that will have to be removed in order to build the new Pier 8.” Unless told otherwise we are going to assume 5 dump truck loads for the extent of the debris removal. Anything more than this shall be considered a change in the contract.

Government Response 193: See Government Response to RFI 77.

RFI 194: In the project specifications Part 3, Paragraph 3.2.5, Page 14 it states: “a dedicated monitor will be required for all pile driving activities” In the environment assessment it is stated that the Navy will provide these monitors for sea turtle and marine mammal observation” Unless told otherwise we are going to assume that the Navy will provide these monitors.

Government Response 194: The Contractor shall provide a dedicated monitor for sea turtle and marine mammal observation. The Monitor shall keep a log of animals observed which will be provided to the Navy as needed and at the end of the project.

RFI 195: Please provide dimensions for Brows, Platforms, and Loading Cradle & Ramp for Steel Fabrication teams to accurately estimate the items being requested.

Government Response 195: See Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 196: As of the deadline for submitting questions, a large majority of our previously-asked questions have not been answered (as of 10 days before bid date). We are concerned that the questions will not be answered in time to incorporate the answers into our bid. In light of this, and in order for the Navy to get the best possible proposals, we request that the due date be adjusted so that it takes place 7 days after all of the questions have been answered.

Government Response 196: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

RFI 197: In Part 3, Paragraph H1050, Page 39, it states: “Munitions and Explosives of Concrete (MEC) may be present within berthing areas at NBSD. Contractor shall provide support to Government personnel to draft an Explosive Site Safety Determination Request (ESS DR).” Unless told otherwise, the extent of our support will be to provide administrative personnel to assist in the preparation of this plan. No underwater work will be provided unless directed by owner and defined to what extent it shall be required.

Government Response 197: No underwater work will be required. Administrative support may be required to assist in developing the ESS DR, and the contractor will be required to comply with any conditions in the approved ESS DR.

RFI 198: The Government’s responses to RFI’s 35 and 44 in Amendment 0003 regarding Collateral Equipment are unreasonable. The photos and lists of equipment that were provided in the RFP are incomplete and are insufficient for bidding. You have instructed us to bid this work “as listed” and “as is”, and then in Part 3 also inform us that this information “shall include, but is not limited to”, that it is an “anticipated list, which may change”, and that we are responsible for “providing all required hoses/floats/separators/cables” while also being fully responsible for the design, procurement, delivery, and installation of this undefined, unknown, and apparently unlimited list of equipment. Additionally, Page 5 of the Anticipated List states “the existing equipment shown may not fulfill current design requirements”. How can the contractor provide pricing and take responsibility for equipment that may not fulfill the design requirements? All of this imposes an unfair burden of responsibility upon the bidders and the awarded contractor as it is currently contractually stipulated for in the RFP.

The scope of collateral equipment must be defined and limited pre-bid by the Government. To allow the bidders to design and price this equipment in our proposals, the following is required:

· Remove the language “but is not limited to”, “anticipated list, which may change”, and “providing all required” from the RFP as described above.

· Provide the current design requirements for all collateral equipment.

· For all ramps, platforms, brow assemblies, assembly platforms provide the design criteria including loading, length, width, height, conceptual geometric details including footprint dimensions, stair widths, separator lengths and widths, material requirements, coating requirements.

· Provide information including design criteria of each ship/vessel connection for the Ramp for Loadout Cradles.

· Provide the Government’s definitions for an “assembly platform” and a “platform”

· Provide information for the DDG Separator including specification, manufacturer(s), model/part number(s), design criteria, loading and geometric requirements.

· Provide information for the DDG Separator Assembly including specification, manufacturer(s) and model/part number(s).

· Information on where cable protection is required including the required width and height and length of the cable protection, what is the design loading, material requirements, manufacturer(s), and model/part number(s).

· Provide for all power pumps, remote controls, remote cable cutters, remote knockout rams, and other equipment on Page 4 of the list the specification, manufacturer(s) and model/part number(s).

Alternatively, please reconsider how the Government requires the bidders to price the Collateral Equipment in Option Item 0002. The suggestion in RFI 44 is a simple, fair and reasonable solution.

Government Response 198: See Government Response 35.

RFI 199: The Government’s delay in the issuance of responses to Requests for Information is placing a significant burden on the dissemination of accurate information to critical small business subcontractors and suppliers who require these responses to base their bids. Accordingly, it is requested that the bid date extended another two (2) weeks, or at least three (3) weeks following the issuance of the final Government’s responses to the RFI’s.

Government Response 199: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

RFI 200: Factor 2 – Experience, Construction Experience. The solicitation states “Submit at least one (1) new construction project that was design build of Pile-Supported Waterfront Berthing Structure and provided greater than or equal to 1,000 LF of berthing.”

There have been very few design build Pile-Supported Waterfront Berthing Structures that have provided greater than or equal to 1,000 LF of berthing within the past 10 years.

For increased competition, and to ultimately obtain better value for the Government, we respectfully request that the design build mandate be removed from the minimum criteria. There have been several design-bid-build Pile-Supported Waterfront Berthing Structures projects completed within the past 10 years that should provide relevant construction experience. If the design build requirement is not removed, the Navy will likely receive very few responsive bids to this solicitation.

Government Response 200: Factor 2 remains unchanged.

NOTE: ALL OTHER PARAGRAPHS, PROVISIONS, AND CONDITIONS TO RFP N62473-19-R-1208 REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE OFFEROR MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ALL AMENDMENTS ON THE OFFER SCHEDULE.