NNS17612547R-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE OF PAGES

NASA Stennis Space Center Office of Procurement Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000 Charles J. Heim (228) 688-3199

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

All Prospective Offerors

NNS17612547R

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03/09/2017

10A MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

0001 03/24/2017 4200612547

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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) N/A

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

SEE PAGE 2 - 11

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NNS17612547R

Amendment 0001

1. The purpose of this amendment is to make the follow changes and to respond to the questions received for this solicitation.

2. Change the last sentence in Section M.4, Sub Factor 2, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Evaluation, paragraph 1 to read as follows: The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of a $100M contract value as addressed in Paragraph L.16.

3. Replace the Attachment B with the revised Copy of Attachment B. The revised Copy of

Attachment B replaces the U.S. Department of Labor, Davis Bacon General Decision FL170001 dated 02/03/2017 FL1 with the up updated General Decision FL170001 dated 03/10/2017 FL1 Type: Building, Heavy and Highway for Brevard County in Florida.

4. Replace the Attachment D with the revised Copy of Attachment D. The revised Copy of Attachment D replaces the U.S. Department of Labor, Davis Bacon General Decision MS170118 dated 01/06/2017 MS118 with the up updated General Decision MS170118 dated 03/10/2017 MS118 Type: Building for Hancock County in Mississippi.

5. Change Section H.8, paragraph 11, ii to read as follows: (ii) A protest of an order valued in excess of $25 million. Protests of orders in excess of $25 million may only be filed with the Government Accountability Office, in accordance with the procedures at 33.104.

6. Change Section L.14 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS Paragraph (a) to read: Page limitations are established for each portion of the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation (See Proposal Submission Checklist in Paragraph L.17, page 22.).

7. Reference the Proposal Submission Checklist in Section L.17 add the following Disclaimer to the top of the form: “Potential/interested offerors are reminded to always refer to the actual Solicitation (Request for Proposals) for a definitive statement of proposal requirements, as that document is the only formal, official repository of those requirements.”

8. Reference The Solicitation Section L.10, paragraph b, Change the Site visit information for the Kennedy Space Center to read as follows:

Designated Meeting Location by Center Submit Access Request No

Later Date

Site Visit Date

Two Sessions All Times are Local Time:

Kennedy Space Center KSC Visitor Complex For directions see the attached link: https://www.kennedyspacecenter.co m/info/travel-information

NOTE: “There will be no parking fees for MACC II Site Visit Attendees. NASA personnel will be on site to direct attendees to parking area.”

Mar 30, 2017 Apr 4, 2017 (9:15 AM & 1:00

PM EST)

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/info/travel-information https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/info/travel-information

9. Reference the Solicitation Section I.16, Task Ordering Procedures w/Alternate I, (NFS

1852.216-80). Enter TBD in the fill-ins for paragraph (c) and (e) as the period may differ for each task order and will be identified upon issuance of all future task Orders.

10. The following Clauses are incorporated by reference into Section I.1 of the Solicitation

CLAUSE

NUMBER

DATE

TITLE

52.236-23 APR 1984 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECT-

ENGINEER CONTRACTOR

52.236-24 APR 1984 WORK OVERSIGHT IN ARCHITECT-

ENGINEER CONTRACTS

52.236-25 JUNE 2015 REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF

DESIGNERS

52.249-7 APR 1984 TERMINATION (FIXED-PRICE ARCHITECT-

ENGINEER)

1852.219-75 APR 2015 INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING REPORTS

11. The following questions were received, and responses are hereby provided as follows:

Questions 1: It appears that if an 8(a) business has a bona fide place of business in TX then we would not be required to have a bona fide place of business in each of the other 5 states to be eligible to bid on this contract as an 8(a) contractor. Is this correct.

Answer 1: Yes Question 2: Regarding the intention of the Office of Procurement at John C. Stennis Space Center to restrict awards to 8(a) participants located in the states of Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico, would the government consider lifting this geographic restriction in order to open up the 8(a) competition to additional qualified candidates in other states?

Answer 2: No, these limitations have been established by the Small Business Administration.

Question 3: If a proposed team member of an 8(a) firm, but not the prime, has an SBA-approved office in one of the six listed states (Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico), would this constitute eligibility for the 8(a) competition?

Answer 3: No, the Prime contractor shall be an 8(a) firm to be considered in the 8(a) Category. Prime 8(a) Contractors DUNS and Cage Code must reflect 8(a) status which shall also be addressed in the SBA letter.

Question 4: With regards to the drawings and specifications on these Regional projects, we understand they were listed as “SECURE”. With these being “SECURE” what is NASA’s requirement for the contractor. We have a secure server that requires ID/Password for our subcontractors to gain access to our project files. Can we allow these select subcontractors that type of access through our invitation to bid on this project? Are they allowed to download them from us and print copies?

Answer 4: You remain responsible for the release of these documents to anyone, including your subcontractors or suppliers that you chose to provide with these controlled documents. You shall maintain control over these documents in your possession, and ensure they are not provided to any embargoed countries. It is also your responsibility to ensure that any recipient of EAR99 data (in this case, your sub-contractors) ensures that the information is not released (electronically or in print) to any restricted parties or individuals from designated countries as identified in 22 CFR part 126.1 of the ITAR.

Question 5: The solicitation above requires 8(a) business to be located in one of states TX, FL, AL, MS, LA and NM—our home office is located in Georgia however we are licensed in all but two mentioned states -- will that be acceptable as bona fide place of business within the geographical boundaries of TX, FL, AL, MS, LA, and NM?

Answer 5: No Prime 8(a) Contractors DUNS and Cage Code must reflect 8(a) status and the SBA letter shall also address your eligibility based on your bona fide business location within the Geographical Boundaries of TX, FL, AL, MS, LA, and NM.

Question 6: My interest is only in whatever work is to be done at the White Sands Test Facility.

Answer 6: Initial projects do not include work at White Sands or Michoud.

Question 7: Are we permitted to contact the A&E firms that created the drawing/spec packages for each of the 4 seed projects?

Answer 7: No, all communication shall be in accordance with Section L.13 of the solicitation.

Please submit all questions in writing to charles.j.heim@nasa.gov.

Question 8: Reference the Proposal Submission Checklist in Section L.17, Is this checklist all-inclusive and can we rely on this checklist alone for completing our proposal?

Answer 8: No, this checklist is provided as a tool to assist you it is not all-inclusive. A disclaimer has been added to the top of the form. See item 7 above.

Question 9: Like most small businesses, our firm is not nationally located. However we are very suited and capable for one of your sites within this contract. We are aware of the requirement to price all four model task orders for this solicitation. If we are awarded a MACC contract, are we required to bid projects from all locations? Do we have the option to bid projects from certain sites? Please confirm.

Answer 9: Our intent is to make up to 24 MACC-II IDIQ Awards, with four reserved in each of the following categories: WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, 8(a), SB and Full and Open unrestricted.

We hope to select firms that not only have the capability but have the desire to perform at each of the sites identified in our solicitation. Future Task Order Requirements will be issued in accordance with the Task Order Procedures (See Section H.8) and the MACC-II Awardees will be afforded Fair Opportunity (See Section H.9). For each task order solicitation issued under the mailto:charles.j.heim@nasa.gov

MACC-II, Offerors are expected to be responsive to our requirements.

Question 10: Please confirm that the contractor on-site participation percentage (25%) is exclusive of materials and specialty subcontractors such as plumbing, heating, and electrical work as indicated in FAR 36.501.

Answer 10: As stated in the solicitation Clause 52.236-1 the onsite participation percentage is 25 percent (unless defined differently in Task Order), and specialties such as plumbing, heating, and electrical work are usually subcontracted, and should not normally be considered in establishing the amount of work required to be performed by the contractor.

Question 11: Please confirm the required contractor on-site participation percentage for the 4 initial “Model” task orders at SSC, KSC, JSC, and MSFC.

Answer 11: In accordance with 52.236-1 Performance of Work by the Contractor, the on-site participation percentage for the 4 initial “Model” task orders at SSC, KSC, JSC, and MSFC.is as follows:

Attachment A JSC = 25% As stated in the solicitation Clause 52.236-1 Attachment B KSC = 15% As stated in the task order Clause 52.236-1 Attachment C MSFC = 20% As stated in the task order Clause 52.236-1 Attachment D SSC = 25% As stated in the solicitation Clause 52.236-1

Question 12: We have noticed that the drawing package for the Kennedy Space Center seed project are labeled as “Phase 5”. However the RFQ, Appendix B lists it as “Phase 6”. Please advise.

Answer 12: See Attachment B Section C.2 Paragraph (a) for clarification which reads: “It is clarified that although the specifications and drawings are labeled “Phase 5”, they are applicable to this “Phase 6” effort. (The “Phase 6” effort is work that was originally going to be completed under “Phase 5” but were not completed under “Phase 5”).”

Question 13: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (a) Past Performance Information Summary, Item 1 on Page 15: The RFP requests a list of construction projects completed or started within the last 3 years. Should this list include all projects or just “relevant” projects? For example, should we include only projects over $500,000 on this list?

Answer 13: Reference Section L.16 Volume II, Paragraph 1) states: “The offeror shall complete and submit their entire listing of construction projects either completed or started within the last 3 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.” At a minimum include project title, price and customer contact information. From this listing, the Offerors shall provide a Past Performance Information Summary identifying a maximum of six (6) recent and relevant contracts that it has performed as a prime contractor for projects similar in size, scope, and complexity as described in the solicitation with the most relevant contracts listed first.

Question 14: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (b) Teaming Partners Project Listing on Page 16: If we are teaming, should we include a list of construction project completed or started within the last 3 years for each team member? The title of this section suggests that;

however, there is no instruction to do so.

Answer 14: Yes include a list of construction projects completed or started within the last 3 years for each team member as indicated in Paragraph (a), 1), however, as stated in (b) your submission should include only (6) recent and relevant contracts/task orders for evaluation.

Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit. (Total of (6) for paragraph a. and b.)

Question 15: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (b) Teaming Partners Project Listing on Page 16 and Proposal Submission Checklist, Volume II – Past Performance, Item 2 on Page 22: The heading for team member information is called “Teaming Partners Project Listing” on Page 16 and “Past Performance Information Summary (If Teaming)” in the Proposal Submission Checklist. Which is correct?

Answer 15: The checklist is provided as a tool and is not intended to be all inclusive. See the disclaimer note added to the checklist noted in both item 7 and question 8 above. Item 2 on the checklist was intended to be a reminder that if you are teaming you have additional requirements.

The information requested includes teaming partner project listing and your teaming partners past performance listing.

Question 16: General Question (No Specific RFP Reference): Can a contractor submit a proposal as the prime and also submit a proposal as a member of a JV for the NASA MACC-II?

Answer 16: Yes, however a contactor can only receive one contract award as a result of this solicitation.

Question 17: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (c) Design-Build Past Performance on Page 17: The intent of Item 1 is unclear. Do Items (i) through (v) pertain to the six PP contracts or the projects contained in the Construction Project Listing?

Answer 17: They apply to both, and should be called out as you see applicable.

Question 18: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (d) United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Past Performance on Pages 17 and 18: The intent of Item 1 is unclear. Do Items (i) through (v) pertain to the six PP contracts or the projects contained in the Construction Project Listing?

Answer 18: They apply to both, and should be called out as you see applicable.

Question 19: Volume II – Past Performance Information, (e) Building Information Modelling (BIM) Past Performance on Page 18: The intent of Item 1 is unclear. Do Items (i) through (iv) pertain to the six PP contracts or the projects contained in the Construction Project Listing?

Answer 19: They apply to both, and should be called out as you see applicable.

Question 20: L.17, Item b on Page 20: The list of Other Required Documentation includes the completed Section B Bid Schedule as the second item on the list; however, the entire Section B is the first item listed for Volume III according to the Proposal Submission Checklist – before the “Other Required Documentation.” Are we supposed to submit the entire Section B twice?

Answer 20: Only three copies of the entire Section B are required. 1 Original and 2 Copies.

Question 21: Section M.4.c factor 2, Past Performance Evaluation, Page 26: Would NASA consider changing the definition of “recent” to include “a contract/task order for work either completed or started within the past five years (from the date this solicitation is issued)?”

Answer 21: We have considered your request, and have elected to remain with the current 3 year requirement.

Question 22: L.14 Proposal Page Limitation, Item (b), Page 12: The RFP specifies the use of “not smaller than 12 point Times New Roman font.” Can we use a smaller font size (e.g., no smaller than 10 point) for tables, graphics, charts, etc.?

Answer 22: No

Question 23: Volume 1 – Technical Acceptability requires a letter from our surety to demonstrate our bonding capacity of at least $100M per project; however in section M.4 – Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Importance item c. Factor 2 – Past Performance, Size is described as projects exceeding $500,000.00. Please confirm this is the correct project size to represent past performance for Large Businesses.

Answer 23: That is correct.

Question 24: The scope of work includes design-build and the requirement in Volume II – Past Performance Information, item c. Design-Build Past Performance requires in-depth design-build information. Does the Offeror need to include any information on a design-build team or experience of proposed design firm(s)?

Answer 24: We are evaluating Design Build Past Performance. Your proposal should show Past Performance, and be reflected in at least one of your 6 projects or clearly identified in your project listing.

Question 25: For the 6 projects submitted in Volume II – Past Performance Information, please confirm which is more relevant—to be comparable in size, scope and complexity to the four model task orders or any project that includes design-build, LEED, and BIM features.

Answer 25: Section M.4, paragraph c, of the solicitation defines Very Highly Pertinent, Highly Pertinent, Pertinent, Somewhat Pertinent, and Not Pertinent. Each refers to the requirements of the solicitation which include all CLINS, (CLIN 0001 – CLIN 0005).

Question 26: Please consider changing the requirement of including projects completed or started within the past 3 years from the date of this solicitation to 10 years from the date of this solicitation. We are a large business and many of our projects may take 3 years to complete; the additional years would enable us to provide a greater depth and breadth of experience to highlight for the Past Performance Information Summary.

Answer 26: We have considered your request, and have elected to remain with the current 3 year requirement.

Question 27: The first page of the SF 1442 stipulates that Representations and Certifications MUST be provided electronically. L. 17 item j and the Proposal Submission Checklist indicate that the Reps & Certs are to be included in Volume III. Which is correct?

Answer 27: Both references are correct. All Reps and Certs must be completed online.

However, only the Reps and Certs identified in full text in K.1 and K.2 must be completed manually and submitted with your proposal.

Question 28: In paragraph (section) B.2 of the Solicitation entitled Bid Schedule, CLIN’s 0002 through 0005 are each shown as a single line price with a total for all CLIN’s at the bottom.

Attachments A through C that correspond to these CLIN’s have multiple price breakdowns that are not included in this main Bid Schedule B.2. For instance, the Attachment “C” Bid Schedule includes numerous sub-CLIN’s and has a base bid plus five (5) Additive Alternates that are not shown on the main bid schedule. Attachment “B” Bid Schedule includes a base bid plus one (1) Additive Alternate that is not shown on the main bid schedule. Are we to include the various individual attachment bid breakdowns as part of the bid document/schedule or just the one-line bid schedule in the Solicitation? Please clarify.

Answer 28: You are required to submit as part of your proposal the entire bid schedule with the detailed price breakdown for each (sub-CLIN) additive alternate item addressed within the various Attachments A – D. The total price for each task order included in this solicitation as attachment A through D shall be entered in the corresponding CLIN 0002 – CLIN 0005.

(Ensure the totals for each attachment match the CLIN 0002 – CLIN 0005)

Question 29: Reference Document: The MACC_II_IDIQ_FINAL_RELEASE Section L.17 – b;

requires Section B to be located after the SF 1442, however the Proposal Submission Checklist requires Section B to be located before the SF 1442 with the Volume III Submission. Please clarify the correct location of Section B.

Answer 29: The checklist is provided as a tool and is not intended to be all inclusive. See the disclaimer note added to the checklist noted in both item 7 and question 8 above. Place the original of Section B within the binder labeled original, and place a copy of the Section B in the both files labeled copy 1 and copy 2, and separate the bid schedules for the IDIQ contract and the 4 task orders in Attachment A – Attachment D.

Question 30: Reference Document: Reference Document: The MACC_II_IDIQ_FINAL_RELEASE Section L.17 – b; requires Section B to be to be submitted “Without Bindings, Holes, or Staples”, however the Proposal Submission Checklist does not require Section B to be submitted “Without Bindings, Holes, or Staples”. Please clarify whether or not the Section B shall be submitted “Without Bindings, Holes, or Staples”.

Answer 30: The checklist is provided as a tool and is not intended to be all inclusive. See the disclaimer note added to the checklist noted in both item 7 and question 8 above.

Question 31: For the documents required to be submitted “Without Bindings, Holes, or Staples”, would it be acceptable to use paper clips and/or pocket folders in lieu of Bindings, Holes or Staples?

Answer 31: Sheet protectors, pocket folders and the use of paper clips are acceptable, in lieu of binding holes and staples.

Question 32: Reference Document: MACC_II_IDIQ_FNAL_RELEASE.pdf. Section M.

Subsection M.4; c. Factor 2. Past Performance Evaluation: This paragraph defines the size of relevant projects as follows: “Size is described as projects exceeding $500,000.00” and states that “Past Performance will only be assessed on recent and relevant projects exceeding $500,000.00 and is defined and considered as follows:” Please confirm that the $500,000 size standard applies to the construction value of a project. The clarification is necessary because contracts for design services might be used to satisfy a team’s past performance with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and/or Building Information Modelling (BIM). If the $500,000 size standard applies to a project’s contract value and not its construction value, this makes many design-only contracts too small to satisfy this criterion even though the size of those projects in terms of construction value could be in the millions of dollars.

Answer 32: The $500,000 applies to the total dollar value of the project. The MACC-II requirement is for General Construction which includes Design Build services not specifically design services only. Projects having a total value of $500,000 or more will be considered.

Question 33: Reference Document: MACC_II_IDIQ_FNAL_RELEASE.pdf. Section M.

Subsection M.5 Methodology Used for Proposal Evaluation, Step 3: In any socio economic category, if four Technically Acceptable and Very High Level of Confidence proposals are not received, would the next lowest priced Technically Acceptable and High Level of Confidence proposals be selected for award?

Answer 33: The same process is followed for each socio economic category. The evaluation results will be forwarded to the SSA to conduct a performance price trade-off within each category, and to make a best value award decision resulting in up to four (4) awards in each of the six (6) categories, for a potential maximum total of twenty-four (24) awards which represent the best value for the government.

Question 34: Reference Document: MACC_II_IDIQ_FNAL_RELEASE.pdf. Section M.

Subsection M.5 Methodology Used for Proposal Evaluation, Step 3: Does an offeror need to be rated Very High Level of Confidence in past performance to be awarded a contract?

Answer 34: No.

Question 35: Reference Document: MACC_II_IDIQ_FNAL_RELEASE.pdf. Section H.

Subsection H.7: Of the $3B contract capacity, what percentages are anticipated to be set-aside for each socio economic category (WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, 8(a), and SB)?

Answer 35: At this time NASA cannot define the percentage of set-asides for the various Socio Economic categories.

Question 36: Upon award of the MACC-II parent contract, will future task orders be competed among all small business set aside categories (8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB. etc.) or will task orders be competed among like-situated business in set aside categories (example: only among Woman Owned Small Businesses (WOSB)?

Answer 36: Future Task Orders will be issued using Fair Opportunity. Reference Solicitation section H.9 Fair Opportunity, Paragraph 1.1, (vi), “When setting aside orders for small business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in FAR part 19 apply.” & (vii) “The Contracting Officer reserves the order for a small business or a specific subcategory in small business. All contract holders meeting the category eligibility will be considered. Contract holders cannot propose when they do not meet the size standard of the reserve.”

Question 37: All Projects – No specific requirements for general contractor project teams are given. Does NASA anticipate providing specific requirements in terms of project manager and superintendent qualifications and experience under this IDIQ? Furthermore, are there requirements for dedicated quality control and safety professionals working on any or all of the four seed projects, or is it permissible for the superintendent fill these rolls?

Answer 37: No, you are required to follow the requirements in both the IDIQ Contract and the Task Order’s (including the Specifications and Drawings) for each center.

Question 38: All Projects – It is noted that there is a 245 day bid acceptance period for all projects. How are bidders to protect themselves in an inflationary market given that subcontractors and material vendors rarely guarantee pricing for a period of time this substantial?

Will NASA consider adding an economic price adjustment clause given the unusually long bid acceptance period?

Answer 38: No, NASA will not add an economic price adjustment clause.

Question 39: Project KSC & JSC – The Davis Bacon wage rate schedules for both projects show different hourly wage rates for pipe fitters and pipe layers. Please indicate if the person laying the PVC sewer and water pipe in the trench for the utility jobs at Kennedy and Johnson is to be considered a pipe layer or a pipe fitter pursuant to the Davis Bacon Wage Scale.

Answer 39: Davis Bacon Wage rates are specific to the area where work is to be performed.

Please refer to Attachment B, Clause H.4, Special Enclave Status for Kennedy Space Center (page 14), concerning the selection of proper labor classifications for work performed at KSC.

Question 40: We are a SDVOSB contractor interested in pursuing the MACC-II. We have very strong bonding capacity, but as stated, we are a small business. If we were to add all four seed projects together, it would total between $12M - $30M of potential business for our company. However, until these projects are awarded, this in effect ties up ALL our bonding capacity. We have pursued other MATOCS with various parts of the federal government and in some cases, it takes a very long time to find out the result of the seed project (up to 18 months). Normally this is not a problem when the seed projects are small, but the NASA MATOC could reserve up to $30M of our bonding capacity. Now for my questions:

Question 40a. Can we only pursue/submit for projects only in Florida? Not the other three projects.

Answer 40a. No, As stated on the Bid Schedule, You must propose on each task order CLIN 0002 – CLIN 0005 above to be considered for award of one of the IDIQ contracts.

Question 40b. Can you lower the Small Business Bonding Capacity of $10 million per project and $30 million aggregate? For small businesses, a realistic Small Business Bonding Capacity would be $5 million per project and $20 million aggregate.

Answer 40b. No

Question 41: Reference solicitation Page 68/90, Section L, page 15, (a)1 - Are experience /past performance projects limited to those completed in the past three years?

Answer 41: Yes

Question 42: Reference solicitation Page 69/90, Section L, page 16, (b)1 - If submitting as a JV, are experience projects submitted from either JV partner equal in weight/importance?

Answer 42: Yes, Reference Section L.16, page 16, paragraph (b).

12. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.