P-440-Amendment-0003.pdf

ACQR5277804

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

N62473-19-R-1208 P-440

PIER 8 REPLACEMENTAT NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO,

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

The purpose of this amendment is to update the request for proposal, add attachments and provide responses to requests for information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Mar-2019

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 N6247319R1208

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-2019

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, 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

05-Mar-2019

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACTS CORE

CODE: CINAV

1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

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:

N6247319R1208

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been deleted:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N62473-19-R-1208 P-440 PIER 8 REPLACEMENT AT NAVAL

BASE SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Date 05 March 2019

A. The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the following changes to the subject solicitation.

1. 52.217-5 -Evaluation of Options (JUL1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

2. Contract number in FAR 52.219-28 has been changed from N62473-16-C-1208 to N62473-19-C-1208.

3. FAR 52.209-7 has been moved from Section 00700 Contract Clauses to Section 00600 Representations And Certifications.

4. In Part 1, Section 00210, Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors, Item 4. Basis of Evaluation/Submission Requirements/Criteria Description, DELETE Factor 5- Technical Solution in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include all of the following:

- Driving Piles over water as a foundation for marine structures.

- Maritime Security barrier system access coordination during marine construction and demolition activities in waterways.

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages (or six (6) single-sided pages). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative, conceptual drawings (if available), and schedules considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

5. Part 6, Section 6.11, Pier 12 USACE Sample Permit on page 8, Delete paragraph 4 Condition 11 in its entirety and replace with the following:

Within 30 calendar days of completion of the project authorized by this permit, the Permittee shall conduct a post-project survey indicating the location of all new structures and their features, or the modification of structures and their features within navigable waters. The Permittee shall forward a copy of the survey, as well as a copy of this permit, to the Corps Regulatory Division (via email at:

Regulatory.SPL@usace.army.mil) and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for updating nautical charts (via email at: Lori.Powdrell@noaa.gov). Post-project surveys/as-built plans should be provided electronically in two formats: .pts (xyz) and one of, .pdf, CAD, or GIS. Include the following header metadata: project name, surveyor's name and company, area surveyed (acres), type of survey method, date of survey, geographic control points (for example: latitude/longitude, plane coordinates), geographic coordinate system (use NAD83), geographic projection, units (use US Survey Feet), and tide gage location. For all subsurface structures and dredge projects include elevation (z coordinate) datum indicated as a negative below MLLW, and also indicate the survey system and bin sizes as appropriate.

B. The following files are incorporated into the subject solicitation and are available on the NECO website.

1. One (1) updated drawing file titled: D-004_S-100-To_S-103-RevFeb202019. The drawing sheets contained in this file supersede the original drawing sheets marked 05 September 2018.

2. One (1) updated attachment titled: Attachment-D-Exhibit-D-RevFEB252019. The attachment supersedes the original provided 31 January 2019.

3. One (1) new attachment titled: Exhibit-K-Offeror_Team_Comp_Man

C. The information below is provided in response to the Request for Information:

RFI 22: In Part 3 - Chapter 6, Page 29 there are design features for the substation Low Voltage 480V Metal- Enclosed Switchgear, item 5, it calls out for a "bus differential relay". This paragraph is repeated for the substation Medium Voltage 4.16kV switchgear on page 30. We are unclear if this is supposed to be part of the substation RTU, and definitely don't know what it is. It's also unclear to me if all if the items in paragraph 5 go into the UCS section.

Previously we just have the RTU and associated components, not the KWHM or protective relays. I suppose this doesn't make any difference to us, as long as we have a clear back plane to mount the 19" rack mounted RTU.

Please comment.

Government Response 22: The bus differential relay is a power protective device. The equipment listed in Part 3, Chapter 6, page 29, item 5 are switchgear components, except for the RTU and DDIO module, for which space must be provided in the switchgear.

RFI 23: It has come to our attention some drawing are at the incorrect scale E-005 says 1”=200 FT. This would put the pier at 2400 lin feet. Please verify the scale of this drawing and advise.

Government Response 23: The scale for E-005 should be 1"=40'-0". Furthermore, the scale for C-001 should be 1"=300' (not 3000') and C-002, C-003 should be 1"=20' (not 200').

RFI 24: We respectfully request a two week extension of the proposal due date to Tuesday, March 19, 2019. Upon our initial review of the documents that were issued with the solicitation, the time currently allowed in the solicitation is not adequate for a design-build project of this type, size, duration, and complexity. We fully understand the importance of this project and that time is of the essence with regard to this solicitation. But ultimately, we believe that a time extension is an important investment and would provide the most favorable benefit to the Government in the form of design, methodology, risk mitigation, pricing, and development of a realistic project schedule. A time extension will also facilitate additional participation from the subcontracting community, including SBE contractors/vendors, as well as other project stakeholders.

Government Response 24: The proposal due date remains at 2:00 PM local time 19 March 2019, see Amendment 0002.

RFI 25: Part 3, Chapter 1, third paragraph says “Design shall be per UFC 4-152-01”. UFC 4-152-01 Section 2-4.1 references UFC 4-150-02 for pier utility design. Appendix C of UFC 4-140-02 lists the required utilities for each type of vessel. Compressed air and saltwater utilities are listed as requirements for the vessels identified in the RFP, but these utilities are not identified in the RFP. Please confirm that compressed air and saltwater utilities are not required for this project.

Government Response 25: Compressed air and saltwater utilities are not required for this project.

RFI 26: Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 2.3.1 has multiple references to LEED-NC Version 3. LEED-NC Version 3 is applicable to buildings only. As this project is for a new pier, please confirm all LEED associated credits are not applicable to this project.

Government Response 26: LEED associated credits are not applicable to this project

RFI 27: Under Section 00210 Basis of Award, paragraph 4., Factor 6 – Small Business Utilization, Note: (1) on page 19 of 24 it states: “The small business participation and commitment strategies evaluated under this factor do not replace small business subcontracting plans. Offerors representing as other than small businesses must submit acceptable small business subcontracting plans using the SBSP (Attachment I) in order to be eligible for award (FAR 19.702(a)(1)). See the SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN section of INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS for subcontracting plan submission requirements.”

If an Offeror is a large business, please confirm if the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment I) is required to be submitted under Factor 6 in addition to the Small Business Participation and Commitment Document (Attachment J). Or is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted at a later date upon request of the Contracting Officer.

Government Response 27: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment I) is required to be submitted with the Offerors proposal at 2:00 PM local time 19 March 2019.

RFI 28: Under Section 00210 Basis of Award, paragraph 4., Factor 5 – Technical Solution, it states: “Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include all of the following:

- Driving Piles over water as a foundation for marine structures.

- Dredging Turbidity Control operations during marine construction activities in waterways with moderate current, wind and wave activity for silt and sediment control.

- Maritime Security barrier system that complies with Anti-Terrorism Force Protection requirements.

Under PART 3 – Chapter 1, section 2.7 Adaptability and Flexibility it states: “The sample permit includes dredging which is not a part of the Pier 8 replacement project. Therefore the dredge and disposal related conditions from the sample permit will not be applicable to the activities associated with the replacement of Pier 8.”

Since dredging is not a part of the Pier 8 project, please advise if the requirement to describe a technical solution for “Dredging Turbidity Control operations …” is applicable to this RFP. If it isn’t applicable, please revise the requirements for the Factor 5 – Technical Solution.

Government Response 28: Dredging Turbidity Control is not applicable, see the revised Factor 5 in this Amendment.

RFI 29: Under Section 00210 Basis of Award, paragraph 4., Factor 5 – Technical Solution, it states: “Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include all of the following:

- Driving Piles over water as a foundation for marine structures.

- Dredging Turbidity Control operations during marine construction activities in waterways with moderate current, wind and wave activity for silt and sediment control.

- Maritime Security barrier system that complies with Anti-Terrorism Force Protection requirements.

Under PART 3 – Chapter 1, section 2.3.6 Antiterrorism Criteria it states: “Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) measures includes a new pier security gate and fencing, a pedestrian gate, a guard booth with a restroom, a bullet proof guard tower complete with power, data and lights, intercom, heater and cameras; and high mast lighting. The Project Work Plan should address coordination and access through the in-water ATFP Floating Barrier. The facility must comply with UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.”

Per section 2.3.6 above, the Maritime Security barrier system is not included under this RFP. Please advise if the requirement to describe a technical solution for “Maritime Security barrier system …” is applicable to this RFP. If it isn’t applicable, please revise the requirements for the Factor 5 – Technical Solution.

Government Response 29: Maritime Security barrier system that complies with Anti-Terrorism Force Protection requirements is not applicable, see the revised Factor 5 in this Amendment.

RFI 30: The RFP has multiple code and guide references that are out of date. For example, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 2.3.1 references ASHRAE 90.1-2007. ASHRAE 90.1-2013 is the current version as adopted by the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). UFC 1-200-02 General Building Requirements, Chapter 1-5, says “UFC are effective upon issuance for projects as follows… Design-Build projects that have not proceeded beyond date of RFP issuance.

When an RFP is issued in multiple phases or steps, use the date of the last phase of the RFP issuance. The interpretation is that the Design-Build team is to use the most current references as adopted by the UFCs on the date the RFP was last issued. Therefore, the more current code references would apply. Please confirm this interpretation is correct.

Government Response 30: The more current code references shall apply.

RFI 31: Please confirm that the acceleration response spectra provide in the RFP Part 6 – P440 Pier 8 Geotechnical Report (Geotechnical Investigation Report, Prepared by COWI, June 2017) are to be used in completing the design of the Pier. Section 7.2 of the COWI Report used OLE and CLE response spectra that were prepared for Pier 12 by another consultant in 2009. However, the current code that governs the design of piers and wharves is UFC 4-152- 01, dated 24 January 2017. Please confirm if it is acceptable to use the response spectra developed for Pier 12 in 2009 for the design of Pier 8.

Government Response 31: It is acceptable to use the ARS curve provided provide in the RFP Part 6 - P440 Pier 8 Geotechnical Report (Geotechnical Investigation Report, Prepared by COWI, June 2017).

RFI 32: It is our understanding that a Utility and Infrastructure Master Plan for NBSD was recently completed in 2018. This master plan will help in analyzing the required capacity of the existing storm and sanitary sewer systems and new Pier 8 impacts on those systems. Accordingly, it is requested that we be provided with the latest NBSD Utility and Infrastructure Master Plan as a reference document in Part 6 – Attachments.

Government Response 32: The NBSD Utility Infrastructure Master Plan is available on the NECO website.

RFI 33: Please verify the layout of existing concrete piles below Pier 8 and indicate which drawing(s) can be used for estimating purposes. It appears that the layout of existing piles on drawing D-004 of drawing package titled Part 6 - Attachments P440 Pier RFP Drawings (dated September 5, 2018) may be inaccurate. This in turn may alter the layout of existing and new piles on drawings S-100, S-101, S-102, and S-103.

Drawing D-004 identifies estimated 1,602 of 20” concrete piles and 242 of 20” concrete batter piles, totaling 1,844 concrete piles. When compared to historic as-built construction drawing 409053 of Part 6 – Attachments Existing Pier 8 As built drawings package, the number of concrete piles was lower by 129 piles on drawing 409053. This does not include 145 composite fender piles and 160 of 24” square concrete fender piles, included on drawing D-

004. Drawing 409054 of Part 6 – Attachments Existing Pier 8 As built drawings package shows modifications to Pier 6 with 1,403 concrete piles. Combining Pier 6 piles on drawing 409054 with Pier 8 piles on drawing 409053 yields 1,602 piles, corresponding to the pile count on drawing D-004. Please provide clarification.

Government Response 33: Part 6 is for information only. Drawings D-004, S-100, S-101, S-102, and S-103 provides the existing pile locations based on available information. The actual as-built conditions may vary from these drawing. Minor adjustments to a few of the batter pile assumed locations are provided on the attached revised drawings D-004, S-100, S-101, S-102, and S-103. The contractor is responsible to provide a complete and usable facility and meets all the most current design requirements.

RFI 34: We are a prime contractor bidding this project and feel that due to the large size and procurement method (design-build) of this project we respectively request a bid postponement of 30 days. Simply stated, the time allowance from receipt of plans to bid date of 33 calendar days would be very difficult for a normal design-bid-build, let alone design-build. With all the added risk of a design-build project, we feel the extra time is merited.

Government Response 34: The proposal due date remains at 2:00 PM local time 19 March 2019, see Amendment 0002.

RFI 35: In the Part 6 attachment you have provided us a list of “Collateral Equipment” that we are to provide. These items are to be considered as an Option Item 002 in the bid form. In order for us to properly provide a price for these items, we need more information than just photos of these items. Can you provide us the detailed drawings with dimensions of each of the requested items, so we may properly price? If not, we strongly suggest you set a flat common amount for all bidders to use in their proposal pricing, to eliminate any contingencies of the risk in the contractor pricing.

Government Response 35: There are no detailed drawings available. Contractor must bid items as listed and depicted in Part 6.

RFI 36: This project has an aggressive construction schedule and with liquidated damages at $45,050 per calendar day the schedule is critical. Demolition of the existing Pier 8 is a large part of this project and on the critical path.

Will we be able to start demolition prior to completion of the design of the new pier?

Government Response 36: The demolition design can be submitted as an Early Start of Construction package, also see Government Response to RFI 37.

RFI 37: Can we assume that once the project has been awarded and proper submittals are in place for the start of demolition we can begin demolition work? There was mention of a USACE permit delay at the pre-bid site visit;

will this delay the start of demolition?

Government Response 37: The Government anticipates finalizing resource agency consultations and the issuance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit in August 2019. In-water work shall not commence until all consultations and authorizations have been obtained.

RFI 38: Please identify which items are required from a proprietary manufacturer or specific model on this project.

If there are any, please provide the Justification and Approval documentation for the proprietary materials/equipment to all bidders, or identify three viable manufactures for each of the identified proprietary items for the contractors to contact to receive competitive quotations.

Government Response 38: There are no proprietary materials or equipment.

RFI 39: Does Naval Base San Diego have a base-wide utility privatization firm for the contractors to interface with? If so, please provide the company name, POC information, and type of utility they manage (i.e., electrical, water, sewer, etc.). Also, please provide any detailed information on what scope of work might need to be shared or coordinated on the utility installation. Unless advised otherwise, we expect that the contractor can install all of the utilities required for this project without outside support. We understand that the contractor will not be responsible to pay fees to a local utility service for any of the installation or tie-in for this project.

Government Response 39: Naval Base San Diego does not have a base-wide utility privatization firm for the contractors to interface with. Contractor is responsible for all fees associated with local utility service for any of the installation or tie-in for this project.

RFI 40: We request that the proposal due date be extended four weeks. This is due to the complex and complicated nature of the design-build process on a project of this magnitude, plus the lost time contractors experienced with the late posting of the bid documents on FBO. The communication of the project to local and small business subcontractor participation on the wide variety of items is behind the normal timeline to solicit and receive adequate response. The proposal evaluation period of up to 90 days should not be impacted by this minimal delay of the proposals for review. Without the requested four-week time extension, the prime contractors will not receive full quotation coverage on the features of work for the project, which will result in greater risk in pricing their estimate.

We respectfully suggest a proposal extension until March 26 to allow adequate time to estimate and prepare preliminary designs for this complex project.

Government Response 40: The proposal due date remains at 2:00 PM local time 19 March 2019, see Amendment 0002.

RFI 41: As has previously been expressed, AND considering the liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $45,050 for each calendar day of delay, the contract performance period of 750 calendar days is simply NOT achievable. The Pier 8 solicitation is for a Design-Build contract that requires a significant amount of time for the design / design review / design approval AND involves an extensive amount of demolition prior to the commencement of pier construction. In light of all of the time associated with the Design-Build processes, a realistic contract performance period would be 1,200 calendar days.

Government Response 41: See Government Response to RFI 21.

RFI 42: For the technical solution narrative, we are required to include a solution for “Dredging Turbidity Control operations…” However, the Project Description in Part 3 – Chapter 1 – Page 4, section 1.0 of the RFP does not describe dredging, and sections 2.7 and 3.2.6 explicitly states “dredging which is not a part of the Pier 8 replacement project” and “dredging, which is not a part of the current project”. With this in mind, we are unsure how to respond to a technical solution for work that isn’t a part of the project. Please confirm that dredging is not a part of the Pier 8 project, and if so, reconsider the requirement for the offerors to respond to Dredging Turbidity Control operations in our Technical Solution narrative.

Government Response 42: See Government Response to RFI 28.

RFI 43: For the technical solution narrative, we are required to include a solution for “Maritime Security barrier system that complies with Anti-Terrorism Force Protection requirements”. Part 3 – Chapter 1 – Page 10, section

2.3.6 of the RFP describes the new AT/FP measures to be installed on and around the pier (i.e. security gate and fencing, guard booths, etc.), and that the Project Work Plan must consider coordination and access through the existing in-water ATFP Floating Barrier. However, the RFP only mentions “Maritime Security barrier system” here in Section 00210 on Page 17 so we are unsure what technical solution the Government is concerned about and that we are to respond to. If possible, please provide more clarity on what you are looking for in our response.

Government Response 43: See Government Response to RFI 29.

RFI 44: As currently written, the referenced paragraph indicates that the contractor’s engineer is to provide engineering for an “anticipated list” of collateral equipment “which may change”. That design/engineering cost is to be included in our Base Offer Item 0001 price. The cost to furnish and deliver the collateral equipment is to be included in Option Item 0002. Because little-to-no information (nor time) is available during this solicitation to define the full scope for collateral equipment, with some pieces being very specialized and/or unique, we are unable to reasonably determine the design effort (and therefore the design costs), or the complete furnish and deliver cost of this equipment.

To fairly evaluate the offerors proposals, please reconsider how the collateral equipment is priced and evaluated in this solicitation. We recommend a process similar to the recent NAVFAC Southwest N62473-18-R-2243 solicitation which provided CLIN 0002 for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E). In the pricing schedule for that project, the Government provided a fixed FF&E budget which was estimated at $92,223. As a result, each offeror submitted the same price for the equipment of $92,223. For offeror pricing variability, and subsequent offer evaluation by the Government, the form included the Handling and Administration Rate (HAR) rate proposed by the offeror and it was only the HAR rate (not the FF&E amount) that was evaluated in the total price.

For this solicitation, the Government could revise the Offer Schedule provide a fixed FF&E budget using an amount within the $5-6m range that is described in Part 3 – Chapter 6 – Page 18 of Section 6.0, part E1090. Each offeror would then provide only their HAR rate on that fixed estimated collateral equipment budget amount. Additionally, we strongly recommend that the contractors design cost for collateral equipment be excluded from the Base Offer Item 0001 amount and instead be included in the FF&E collateral equipment cost as tracked and paid by that item during the contract period.

Government Response 44: Contractor shall bid this list as-is. All items regarding collateral equipment must be accounted for. Refer to Government Response to RFI 35.

RFI 45: The RFP asks for EMR, DART, and TRC data from the three previous calendar years’ 2015, 2016, 2017.

Should this be changed to 2016, 2017, 2018 for the RFP requirement and on “Exhibit G-Safety Data Sheet”?

Government Response 45: No, Exhibit G Safety Data Sheet remains unchanged.

RFI 46: Factor 1: Technical Approach and Factor 2: Experience; Both of these Factors indicate in the Solicitation Submittal Requirements (as applicable) to submit a “joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA) or letter of commitment…” Does NAVFAC require such documentation to be included under both Factors 1: Technical Approach and Factor 2: Experience tabs of Offeror’s proposal?

Government Response 46: See Factor 1 and Factor 2 for submittal requirements.

RFI 47: Please confirm if the Surety Form (Attachment B) should be submitted: (1) With the Offeror’s Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original, 3 copies), or With the Offeror’s Price Proposal (1 original, sealed envelope).

Government Response 47: Surety Form (Attachment B) shall be submitted with the Offerors’s Original Price Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original).

RFI 48: Please confirm if the Financial Questionnaire (Attachment C) should be submitted:

1) With the Offeror’s Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original, 3 copies in a separate sealed envelope), or

2) With the Offeror’s Price Proposal (1 original, in a separate sealed envelope within the Price Proposal envelope) or 3) Separate from both packages. If so, is one original from the financial institution sufficient?

Government Response 48: Financial Questionnaire (Attachment C) shall be submitted in a sealed envelope from financial institution with the Offeror’s Original Price Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original, in a separate sealed envelope).

RFI 49: Please confirm if Section 00600-Representations and Certifications should be submitted:

1)With the Offeror’s Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original, 3 copies), or 2) With the Offeror’s Price Proposal (1 original only-sealed envelope).

Government Response 49: Section 00600-Representations and Certifications shall be submitted with the Offerors’s Original Price Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original).

RFI 50: Please confirm if the current VETS-4212 registration should be submitted: 1)With the Offeror’s Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original, 3 copies), or 2)With the Offeror’s Price Proposal (1 original only-sealed envelope).

Government Response 50: VETS-4212 registration shall be submitted with the Offeror’s Original Price Proposal (3-ring binder: 1 original).

RFI 51: Please clarify the requirement to submit “one (1) electronic copy on CD of the complete proposal…” We respectfully request that the Price Proposal package not be required to be furnished on CD, as it would significantly diminish the amount of time subcontractors would have to submit their quotes to Offerors prior to the bid due date.

Government Response 51: The Price Proposal is not to be a part of the (1) electronic copy on CD.

RFI 52: We respectfully request that Offerors be given 48 hours from the proposal due date and time to prepare and submit its Factor 6-Small Business Utilization Plan. This additional time has been included in the initial RFPs for recent similar NAVFAC solicitations (e.g. NAVFA NW No. N445518R9000).

It is typical that many quotes/proposals from subcontractors (including SB concerns) are not received until the due date of the proposal. Allowing this relatively minor additional time for only the Small Business portion of the proposal provides significant advantages for the Government. An additional 48 hours allows Offerors to focus their initial efforts to coordinate scopes of work that maximize SB participation while providing the most competitive and responsible pricing by the stated proposal due date. Delaying only the due date for the SB documentation does not affect any other portion of the pricing or technical proposal. It does provide Offerors with an opportunity for follow-up discussions with Small Businesses to verify certifications/classifications and to confirm level of commitment for the project. It also allows Offerors time to complete the required documents, which are lengthy on a solicitation of this size and complexity, to ensure that anticipated levels of SB participation are calculated and represented as accurately as possible.

Government Response 52: Factor - 6 Small Business Utilization Plan is required with the Offerors proposal at 2:00 PM local time 19 March 2019.

RFI 53: Is Section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form (page 3 of the RFP) required with the Price Proposal package? It is not listed among the “…format for the proposal” items on Page 5.

Government Response 53: No, it is not required.

RFI 54: Ref: “All Offerors (SBs and Other than SBs) shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited.” Is the Offeror required to submit Small Business Achievement Record:

Attachment H and ISRs or Similar Reports and ISRs for projects submitted by the Offeror’s Team (i.e. The Offeror’s outside Lead Design Firm”) in Factor 2: Experience?

Government Response 54: If a project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor was not performed by the offeror as a prime or subcontractor (i.e. the offeror is utilizing experience of subcontractor to fulfill Corporate Experience), Attachment H is not required.

RFI 55: Ref 52.209-7(b): “The offeror ( ) has ( ) does not have current active Federal Contractor contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000. Ref 52.219-28(g): “The Contractor represents that it ( ) is, ( ) is not a small business concern under NAICS Code 237990-assigned to contract number N62473-16-C-1208. (*Note, the contract number listed above is not correct. It should be contract N6247319R1208.) These clauses appears to require a response, however it is addressed in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Are Offerors required to answer and submit this clause with its proposal? If so, would it be included with Section 00600, Representations and Certifications?

Government Response 55: FAR 52.209-7 has been moved from Section 00700 Contract Clauses to Section 00600 Representations & Certifications.

RFI 56: Note: (1) The small business participation and commitment strategies evaluated under this factor do not replace small business subcontracting plans. Offerors representing as other than small businesses must submit acceptable small business subcontracting plans using the SBSP (Attachment I) in order to be eligible for award (FAR 19.702(a)(1)). See the SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN section of INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS for subcontracting plan submission requirements.

Question: Is Attachment I-Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted post-award by the successful Offeror?

Government Response 56: No, see Government Response to RFI 27.

RFI 57: The referenced section calls for an “Oil Containment Boom” that is compatible to the systems in use at Naval Base San Diego. Please provide information on the oil boom requirements and relevant specifications.

Government Response 57: The boom used under all the piers at Naval Base San Diego is a 24 inch permanent boom that is usually purchased from Parker Systems or DESMI. These companies have the best reputation. It is attached to the pillows with 5/16 stainless steel chain with 7 to 8 BL -10 Floats with a 5/16 stainless steel screw pin shackle on end of chain. To a 5/16 stainless steel 4-inch eyebolt in the boom.

RFI 58: Please provide us with the Government’s schedule showing how the Government anticipates completion of Pier 8 within the 750 calendar day contract performance period. It would be helpful to see the Government’s schedule showing anticipated time allocations for each major aspect of the work – Design / Demolition / Substructure Construction / Superstructure Construction / Mechanical / Electrical, etc.

Government Response 58: This is a design build project where means and methods are up to the contractor. It is up to the contractor to decide how many resources are needed to meet the schedule.

RFI 59: Similar to our prior question regarding dredging, with the understanding from other parts of the RFP that state “dredging which is not a part of the Pier 8 replacement project”, it seems that paragraph 1.7.1.6 Dredging Contract Requirements is an unnecessary safety specification for this project. Please confirm that dredging is not a part of the Pier 8 project.

Government Response 59: See Government Response to RFI 28.

RFI 60: Part 3, Chapter 6, The Government has identified “Special Design Challenges” for the project in the above referenced paragraph. One of items identified as a challenge is “special geotechnical conditions.” Can the Government provide more specific information as to what special geotechnical challenges are anticipated to exist and what Offerors are expected to account for with their proposal?

Government Response 60: Contractor needs to take into consideration that new piles may be driven in areas where existing piles either have been extracted and/or broken off. There is a risk of encountering the existing piles during pile driving and if piles are extracted, the contractors design team should to account for the voids left behind.

RFI 61: Part 3, Chapter 1– Special Design Challenges, The Government has identified “Special Design Challenges” for the project in the above referenced paragraph. One of items identified as a challenge is “in-water work restrictions during in-water constructions.” Does the Government anticipate specific in-water restrictions/requirements (from resource agency permits or otherwise) that Offerors are expected to include with their proposals? If so, what are the in-water work restrictions?

Government Response 61: Contractor shall refer to the Environmental Assessment (EA) in Part 6. The EA includes all of the resource agency consultations except the USACE permit/RWQCB 401 cert. Contractor shall also refer to the Pier 12 replacement USACE permit in Part 6 for bidding purposes, excluding the dredging conditions. In-water work includes any work in, over, or under the plane of the mean high tide line.

RFI 62: Part 6, Chapter 1– Special Design Challenges, The Government has identified “Special Design Challenges” for the project in the above referenced paragraph. One of items identified as a challenge is “special geotechnical conditions.” Can the Government provide more specific information as to what special geotechnical challenges are anticipated to exist and what Offerors are expected to account for with their proposal?

Government Response 62: Refer to Government Response to RFI 60.

RFI 63: Drawing G-004 Will a barge berthing and unloading/loading area be provided near the Pier 8 work location? The laydown area shown on the drawing is not large enough to accommodate barge loading and unloading.

Government Response 63: The proposed laydown area and access to the quay wall is large and appears to contain enough space for barge loading and unloading. The laydown and barge location will be revisited as needed in the future.

RFI 64: Can the Government provide (or make available) the geotechincal report and pile driving log from the existing Pier 12 structure (circa 2011)?

Government Response 64: The geotechnical report included in the RFP is a site specific report that should be used for Pier 8. Pile driving logs are not available.

RFI 65: Drawing MD-00, General Notes, note 3, The referenced note describes demolition of above ground steam lines, below ground steam lines, manholes, trenches and tunnels that are to be demolished. Please provide quantities, locations and details of demolition items such that we can price the work. As noted the contractor can’t determine the amount of work required without more information.

Government Response 65: The government does not have the requested information. Part 6 contains as built information that shall be used for estimating the requested information.

RFI 66: Exhibit D Construction Experience Project Data Sheet-Offeror and Exhibit E-Design Experience Project Data Sheet-Design firm both contain the following language:

Note: The firm who performed the work of this project must be named on Exhibit “A” and fully described as a team member who will have meaningful involvement in performance of the relevant work of this contract. If the Offeror fails to demonstrate the firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated.

Please clarify the instructions on these two forms. There is no Exhibit “A” that we could reference or identify within the RFP package.

Government Response 66: Exhibit D has been revised to change Exhibit “A” to Exhibit “K”. Exhibit K has been included into the solicitation. Both documents are available on NECO.

RFI 67: Regarding Attachment J and the supplemental narrative, the instructions within Attachment J at the end of the form require a supplemental small business participation narrative limited to five pages and the RFP requires a supplemental small business participation narrative limited to three pages. Please clarify if two supplemental narratives are required.

Government Response 67: Only one supplemental narrative is required (limited to three (3) single-sided pages).

RFI 68: This requires contractor to remove existing electrical switch gear and have reconditioned and return to Naval Station San Diego for use in future. In the recondition process if equipment cannot be reconditioned do they replace components with new? Also is the exterior enclosures to be 3/16 Stainless steel or painted Nema 3-R?

Government Response 68: The RFP does not require existing electrical equipment to be reconditioned.

RFI 69: This requires contractor to remove existing electrical switch gear and have reconditioned and return to Naval Station San Diego for use in future. The factories are requesting information as to what is to be reconditioned in these line ups. Are drawing available that show what is in each line-up (transformers, Circuit breakers, switches are transformers dry type or oil filled?) Are the components to be replaced or rebuilt? Factory is not able to furnish pricing without testing first the components. We have been given a rough ROM cost of $2.6 Million at the lease to do bare work with NEMA 3R painted enclosures. We were informed it will cost much more for the stainless steel enclosures. Please forward for action. There is not enough information in bid documents to get a firm quote. Please furnish more information.

Government Response 69: The RFP does not require existing electrical equipment to be reconditioned.

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.

SECTION 00600 - REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (OCT 2018)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative Proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings, and Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings). This includes administrative proceedings at the Federal and State level but only in connection with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not include agency actions such as contract audits, site visits, corrective plans, or inspection of deliverables.

Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000 means--

(1) The total value of all current, active contracts and grants, including all priced options; and

(2) The total value of all current, active orders including all priced options under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, 8(a), or requirements contracts (including task and delivery and multiple-award Schedules).

Principal means an officer, director, owner, partner, or a person having primary management or supervisory responsibilities within a business entity (e.g., general manager; plant manager; head of a division or business segment; and similar positions).

(b) The offeror ( ) has ( ) does not have current active Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000.

(c) If the offeror checked “has” in paragraph (b) of this provision, the offeror represents, by submission of this offer, that the information it has entered in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of submission of this offer with regard to the following information:

(1) Whether the offeror, and/or any of its principals, has or has not, within the last five years, in connection with the award to or performance by the offeror of a Federal contract or grant, been the subject of a proceeding, at the Federal or State level that resulted in any of the following dispositions:

(i) In a criminal proceeding, a conviction.

(ii) In a civil proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that results in the payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more.

(iii) In an administrative proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that results in--

(A) The payment of a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more; or

(B) The payment of a reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000.

(iv) In a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, a disposition of the matter by consent or compromise with an acknowledgment of fault by the Contractor if the proceeding could have led to any of the outcomes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this provision.

(2) If the offeror has been involved in the last five years in any of the occurrences listed in (c)(1) of this provision, whether the offeror has provided the requested information with regard to each occurrence.

(d) The offeror shall post the information in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iv) of this provision in FAPIIS as required through maintaining an active registration in the System for Award Management, which can be accessed via https://www.sam.gov (see 52.204-7).

(End of provision)

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

The following have been deleted:

52.209-7

(End of Summary of Changes)