RELEASED AMD1_6711.pdf

ACQR6061558

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

N6274224R6711 D/B UFC Vehicle Maintenance & Parking Bays and Training Area Facility, FMSS, Philippines

Amendment 0001 begins on the next page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Jul-2024

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 N6274224R6711

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jun-2024

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

19-Jul-2024

CODE

NAVFAC ROICC THAILAND (US EMBASSY)

7 SATHORN TAI ROAD

BANGKOK 10120

N62742 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6274224R6711

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMD01 ANSWERS TO PPIS

A. Section 2.3 Evaluation Factors and Proposal Submission Requirements, Item a., Volume 2, Non-Cost Factor 1, Offeror Experience, is revised per the following:

From:

a. Similar in Size: Construction Projects between $350,00 and $2,500,000 in final construction cost. One project must be at least $1,000,000. Any project outside this range may not be considered.

To:

a. Similar in Size: Construction Projects between $350,000 and $2,500,000 in final construction cost.

One project must be at least $1,000,000. Any project outside this range may not be considered.

B. Section 2.3 Evaluation Factors and Proposal Submission Requirements, Item a., Volume 2, Non-Cost Factor 4 - Technical Solution (Narrative) is revised per the following:

From:

3. Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), emergency vehicle access, and ATFP standoff distances.

To:

3. Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), and emergency vehicle access.

C. Answers to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) are provided in Attachment-01 - Answers to Pre-Proposal Inquiries of this amendment.

The date set for receipt of proposals is unchanged and remains on July 23, 2024 at 11:00am, Thailand Time.

All other paragraphs, provisions, and conditions remain unchanged.

The offeror must acknowledge receipt of this amendment.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section 002200 – Supplementary Instructions

PART I - GENERAL

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION

This competitive procurement uses source selection procedures to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government will use the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method to evaluate proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

Per NPGI 15.101-2 (DFARS) Lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. (Business Rule), the number of proposals to be evaluated for technical acceptability may be limited to the lowest priced offers at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. If the number of proposals to be evaluated is limited, the technical proposal shall be provided to the evaluator(s) without any identification of price. If the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable then the next lowest price proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also not found to be technically acceptable, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. The source selection method must be included in the request for proposal. If the Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary, the procedures in FAR 15.306 shall be followed.

1.2 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT CONDUCTING DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines it to be necessary.

1.3 BASIS OF AWARD

An overall non-price factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factor proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factor rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” make a proposal ineligible for award.

Definitions:

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on pastperformance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”.

Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

PART II - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITIERIA

a. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal based on the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

b. “Relevant” means similar to the acquisition in terms of size, scope, and complexity and nature of the work being solicited. The Government will only consider projects for construction services of the type described in non-cost factor 1 – Offeror Experience, below.

c. Past performance information on “relevant projects” meeting the definition in paragraph (b) will constitute the primary consideration in the Government’s evaluation under non-cost factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government may, however, review and consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and inquiries with previous clients / owners. The Government will determine the relevance of the past performance information received on other projects, as well as consider the source, context and currency of such information in its evaluation.

d. Offerors who submit past performance and experience information of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the acquisition. The proposal should clearly indicate how the resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance.

e. The Contracting Officer may discount favorable past performance and experience of a subcontractor unless the prime contractor clearly provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractors.

f. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

g. The Government, in compliance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), Offerors are authorized to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

The price proposal will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Contracting Officer may conduct price realism if the Contracting Officer determined that it is necessary.

Unrealistically low (or high) proposed price or unbalanced prices, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic or unreasonable proposal.

2.3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to each of the following evaluation factors and shall be in the form prescribed by this solicitation. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and non-cost factors in two volumes listed below:

Volume 1: Price Factor Volume 2: Non-Cost Factor 1 – Offeror Experience

Non-Cost Factor 2 – Past Performance

Non-Cost Factor 3 – Safety Non-Cost Factor 4 – Techinal Solution

b. The distinction between past performance and Offeror experience is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

c. The following describes each evaluation factor, submittal requirements and basis for assigning ratings:

Volume 1:

(1.1) Price Factor

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

i. The Standard Form 1442 with Blocks 14 through 20c completed, signed, and dated;

ii. Acknowledge any and all amendments issued under this solicitation either by annotating it in Block 19 of the SF 1442 or signing each SF 30;

iii. A completed Price Schedule for all CLINs;

iv. A completed Bill of Quantities (BOQ, Exhibit D) showing price breakdown for CLINs.

Provide in both PDF and Excel formats;

v. Completed Representations and Certifications, to include a copy of the electronic annual representations and certifications thru System for Awards Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov;

vi. Responsibility Determination and Financial Capability, as specified in Paragraph 4;

vii. Evidence of active SAM.gov registration at www.sam.gov.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price of all priced

CLINS. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair, reasonable and realistic price:

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this RFP;

ii. Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE);

iii. Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Volume 2:

(2.1) Non-Cost Factor 1 - Offeror Experience:

(a) Submittal Requirements: Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates Offeror experience on relevant projects that are similar size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as similar design-build construction with the following relevant characteristics:

a. Similar in Size: Construction Projects between $350,000 and $2,500,000 in final construction cost. One project must be at least $1,000,000. Any project outside this range may not be considered.

b. Similar in Scope: At least one design build construction of a steel reinforced concrete structure at a minimum of 300 SM and at least one design build construction of a prefabricated engineering building (PEB) at a minimum of 300 SM.

c. Similar In Complexity: Construction projects involving multiple trades, performed in Southeast Asia, Nepal, Maldives, and Timor Leste.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. If submitting an ongoing construction project, the project should be at least 80% complete at the time of proposal submission. A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single contract.

The Offeror Experience Project Data Sheet in the form of Exhibit B is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on the form may be expanded; however, total length for each Offeror Experience Project Data Sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) claimed for past performance. Data sheets for each project should not exceed two (2) pages.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods).

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the past performance information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g., personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing similar design-build construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor above. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Offeror experience will not be considered. The Government will not evaluate information exceeding the first two (2) pages for each Project Data Sheet.

i. Acceptable. The contractor has demonstrated construction experience in performing similar design-build construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor.

ii. Unacceptable. The contractor did not submit Offeror Experience Project Data Sheets, the submitted data sheets did not demonstrate relevant construction experience performing similar design-build construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor, or the Offeror submitted less than three (3) relevant projects.

(1) Non-Cost Factor 2 - Past Performance:

(a) If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1 Offeror Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit C) for each project included in Factor 1. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Contract Specialist.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Offeror Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Offeror Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS) using all CAGE/UEI numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

The assessment of the Offeror’s team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

i. Acceptable. The Offeror has satisfactory or better ratings in the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or on Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Exhibit C) for at least three (3) projects rated acceptable in Factor 1. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have “unknown” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

ii. Unacceptable. The Offeror was not rated satisfactory or better in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or on Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Exhibit C) for at least three (3) of the projects determined to be relevant and acceptable under Factor 1 – Offeror Experience, or the Government has found less than satisfactory documentation for the contractor’s performance using Government databases. Additionally, Offerors will be rated unacceptable if they do not provide a CPARS if it exists for any project submitted under Factor 1 – Offeror Experience. Submitting a PPQ in place of a CPARS when a CPARS exists will result in unacceptable rating.

(2) Non-Cost Factor 3 - Safety:

(a) Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit a safety narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor (if utilized) performed work. The narrative should describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor (if utilized) performed work. Additionally, the narrative should describe the methods Offeror will use to execute an effective safety program including mishap prevention techniques and processes, encouraging employee reporting of unsafe conditions, and preventing unsafe work activities that could lead to near-miss or injury mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to five (5) pages.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine how the Offeror will implement and oversee its safety program for protection of the prime contractor and subcontractor (if utilized) personnel. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to monitor safety performance of the prime contractor and all subcontractors (if utilized) during contract performance, with a focus on specific management practices that will be utilized for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention. The Government will only evaluate up to the first five (5) pages submitted.

i. Acceptable. The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the requirement to provide for the safety of prime and subcontractor (if utilized) personnel, the narrative describes the methods Offeror will use to execute an effective program that includes mishap prevention techniques and processes, encouraging employee reporting of unsafe conditions, and prevents unsafe work activities that could lead to near-miss or injury mishaps.

ii. Unacceptable. The Offeror’s narrative does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement to provide for the safety of prime and subcontractor (if utilized) personnel, the narrative does not describe the methods Offeror will use to execute an effective program that includes mishap prevention techniques and processes, encouraging employee reporting of unsafe conditions, and does not prevent unsafe work activities that could lead to near-miss or injury mishaps, or the Offeror did not submit a sufficient narrative within the first five (5) pages.

(3) Non-Cost Factor 4 - Technical Solution:

(a) Submittal Requirements:

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

1. Interior circulation and adjacencies

2. Exterior façade describing how the proposed construction integrates with the surrounding area and existing Base facilities design or architectural theme.

3. Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), and emergency vehicle access., and ATFP standoff distances.

Narrative shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages).

ii. Provide the following conceptual design drawing details:

1. Site layout plan showing footprint of proposed building, perimeter fence, entrance gates, internal road, locations of transformer, septic tank, and existing road within 50 m radius from the proposed buildings. The drawing shall also include connecting point of main water supply system, connecting point of main power supply system, and discharge point of wastewater treatment system.

2. Floor plan and roof plan of for proposed building. The drawings shall include dimensions, floor levels, floor finishes, wall finishes, doors, interior windows, ceiling level, stairs, and fire exit stairs, to illustrate understanding of the statement of requirements.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the narrative, and conceptual drawings 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.

i. Acceptable. Narrative, and all required drawings, are submitted; the narrative accurately describes the requirements, the drawings address all key aspects of the project and are adequate to use for creating detailed design drawings, The Offeror illustrates understanding of the statement of the requirements.

ii. Unacceptable. The Offeror did not submit a narrative, all required drawings or the drawings submitted do not address all key aspects of the project or are not adequate to use for creating detailed design drawings. The Offeror did not illustrate understanding of the statement of the requirements.

2.4 FINAL SELECTION

All Offerors will be evaluated for each of the technical (non-cost) Factors and the responsible Offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable offer will be selected for contract award. A responsibility determination shall be made for each presumed awardee. A presumed awardee may be determined to be non-responsible if it has an excessive amount of current awards or ongoing projects, is currently behind or has excessive rework issues on existing contracts, or is otherwise deemed an increased risk to the US Government for unsuccessful performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment 0001 N6274224R6711 Attachment 01 – Answers to Pre-Proposal Inquiries

No. Reference (Sect/Para/Page) QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Part 2, 2 (6), Page 4 of 47 and Part 6

Please provide soils report. The Government does not have a soils report. Per Part 3 Section 5.1.1, 5.2.1, and 5.3.1 Civil Work paragraph f., the contractor is required to retain a Geotechnical Engineer. The contractor’s geotechnical engineer must perform subsurface investigation/testing.

2 Part 2, 2 (6), Page 4 of 47 and Part 6

Please provide geotechnical report.

The Government does not have a geotechnical report. Per Part 3 Section 5.1.1, 5.2.1, and 5.3.1 Civil Work paragraph f., the contractor is required to retain a Geotechnical Engineer. The contractor’s geotechnical engineer must perform subsurface investigation/testing.

3 Part 2, 2 (6), Page 4 of 47 and Part 6

Please provide environmental documentation.

There are no additional environmental documents to provide. Per Part 3 Section 2.1 Applicable Codes and Standards, the design and construction shall be in accordance with referenced codes and standards.

32. d. Environmental Protection requirements.

4 Part 2, 2 (6), Page 4 of 47 and Part 6

Please provide as-built drawings. There are no as-built drawings to provide. Per Part 3 Section 4. Project Requirements, the Designer of Record (DOR) shall be responsible for professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all final designs, drawings, and specifications.

5 Section 001000, h, Page 3 of 36

According to the information posted on SAM dated July 3, 2024, the due date for PPIs is also July 3, 2024. We would like to request an extension for the PPI submission deadline.

No, the due date for PPIs (Pre-Proposal Inquiries) submission remains July 3, 2024. The due date for PPIs submission was communicated during the Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV) on June 26, 2024.

6 Attachment 6, Figure 37 The coordinates and the general building location don’t all plot correctly and don’t appear to match the red zone on the figure.

Please confirm the approximate, desired location in the field.

Contractor can confirm during design, if unable to confirm prior to bid.

The coordinates provided are only approximations.

Per Part 3 Section 4 Project Description, states that the “concept drawings in PART 6 of this RFP package are for information only and are not intended to be final, complete, and coordinated designs.” The exact location is to be proposed after the survey and detailed design by the Designer of Record (DOR) for the facility and gravel area.

7 Part 3, 5.1.1 What is the MPII? Contractor understands the importance of managing the UXO clearance and understands this clearance will be managed and provided by others.

Is this correct?

Per Part 3 Section 5.1.1, the contractor shall coordinate with relevant government agencies for UXO certification. If UXO is found during construction, it will be treated as an unforeseen site condition and managed by others.

8 Part 6 - Page 4 of 69 Table in Figure 3: Grid Coordinates (Special Forces Vehicle Maintenance Facility)

When the coordinates provided in the table were plotted, the required building area for CLIN- 001 VRF, which is 38M x 8M, does not fit within the given lot coordinates.

The distances between points are:

Points 1-2: 8.29m Points 2-3: 38.32m Points 3-4: 6.32 m Points 4-1: 37.19m It can be observed that sides Point 3-4 and Point 4-1 are shorter than the required length and width of the proposed building. We would like to clarify if the coordinates given are correct.

Also, considering the coordinates given, the area is not enough to accommodate the required gravel area for VMF.

the “concept drawings in PART 6 of this RFP package are for information only and are not intended to be final, complete, and coordinated designs.” The exact location is to be proposed after the survey and detailed design by the Designer of Record (DOR) for the facility and gravel area.

9 Part 6 – Page 4 of 69 Table in Figure 3: Grid Coordinates (Special Forces Vehicle Maintenance Facility)

Part 6 – Page 37 of 69 Table in Figure 37: Grid coordinates (special forces vehicle maintenance facility)

The coordinates of point 2 provided for CLIN 0003 when plotted are located in CLIN 0001.

We would like to clarify the correct coordinates of point 2 for

CLIN 0003?

When the coordinates provided in the table were plotted, the required building area for CLIN 0003 VRF, which is 38M x 8M, does not fit within the given lot coordinates. (Assuming that the opposite sides are parallel to each other)

The distances between points are:

Points 1-2: *undefine* Points 2-3: *undefine* Points 3-4: 5.84m Points 4-1: 38.01m It can be observed that side Point 3-4 is shorter than the required width of the proposed building.

the “concept drawings in PART 6 of this RFP package are for information only and are not intended to be final, complete, and coordinated designs.” The exact location is to be proposed after the survey and detailed design by the Designer of Record (DOR) for the facility and gravel area.

10 Part 6 - Page 40 of 69 Conceptual Plan

Part 3 – Page 1 of 50 VMF Room Requirements

In the conceptual drawing provided, there is a T&B provided for the Senior NCO Sleeping Area. However, it is not included in the room requirements enumerated in Part 3 for VMF.

Please clarify if T&B room must be provided inside the Senior NCO Sleeping Area?

Yes, the T&B room shall be provided inside the Senior NCO Sleeping Area. per Part 3 Section 6.

Engineering System Requirements (ESR), 6.1, D2010 Plumbing Fixtures accounts for detailed requirements for the Senior NCO Sleeping Area including T&B applicable for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003; for both Maintenance Parking Bay Facilities.

11 002100 We did not attend the scheduled PPSV. Are we still eligible for the award? (Yes or No)

Yes, per Section 00 21 00 - Instructions to Offerors, 1. Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV), item b.