NNS17612547R-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE OF PAGES

1 13

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)

0002 04/07/2017 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 3 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 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 - 13

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 0002

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

2. Reference the solicitation Section B.2. Remove the following sentence from the solicitation:

Section B. 2 first paragraph. (HUBZone Participants must submit with their proposal a letter from their servicing SBA office certifying their HUBZone eligibility status for this solicitation.)

3. Reference Section L.17 Paragraph (i), Remove the third sentence in the paragraph which reads: “HUBZone Participants must also submit with their proposal a letter from their servicing SBA office certifying their HUBZone eligibility status.”

4. Reference Section L.17 Paragraph (i), add the following HUBZone requirement to the end of paragraph (i).

HUBZone Participants must certify their HUBZone eligibility status, in accordance with 13 CFR §126.601(d) and (e), HUBZone Small Business Concerns (SBC) shall submit with their initial offer their HUBZone certification letter which the contracting officer will use to verify the HUBZone Status. In accordance with 13 CFR §126.307 the contracting officer will use among other things the SBA’s list published on the Dynamic Small Business Search website at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. Each HUBZone Certification Letter shall be signed by an officer of the company and state the following:

a. It is a qualified HUBZone SBC that appears on SBA's List;

b. There has been no material change in its circumstances since the date of certification shown on the List that could affect its HUBZone eligibility;

c. It is small under the NAICS code assigned to the procurement; and

d. If the qualified HUBZone SBC was certified pursuant to §126.200(b), it must represent that it will “attempt to maintain” (See §126.103) the required percentage of employees who are HUBZone residents during the performance of a HUBZone contract. If the qualified HUBZone SBC was certified pursuant to §126.200(a), then it must represent that at least 35% of its employees engaged in performing the HUBZone contract reside within any Indian reservation governed by one or more of its Indian Tribal Government owners or reside within any HUBZone adjoining any such Indian reservation.

e. If submitting an offer as a joint venture, each qualified HUBZone SBC must make the certifications in paragraph (c) of this section separately under its own name.

5. Reference L.17, the Proposal Submission Checklist. Renumber “item 1” in Volume III to read “item 2”, renumber item 2 to be read Item 1, reorder the two items to fall in the appropriate order and remove the separator for line in the table below the original line item 1 which reads “Other required Documentation”.

6. Reference L.17, the Proposal Submission Checklist, Volume III, Item 9. Change the last sentence in Item number 9 to read as follows: Include required SBA Letter to be considered http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm for 8(a) and your signed certification letters regarding your HUBZone eligibility if applicable.

7. Reference KSC J-3 Technical Specifications, 79K39709, Rev B, Section 01 11 00, page 8, Paragraph 1.5. Remove reference to Drawing No. 79K39708 – Volume 3, Sheets 1 through 52.

8. Drawing M212 is hereby replaced with drawing M212 Rev 1, dated 4/6/17, which revised the drawing to delete HUM0016 from drawing M212. (Revised drawings will be issued via Large File Transfer See Solicitation L.18.)

9. Drawing M604 is hereby replaced with drawing M604 Rev 1, dated 4/6/17, which revised the title of Humidifier schedule. (Revised drawings will be issued via Large File Transfer See Solicitation L.18.)

10. Add the number “3” to the empty blank of Amendment 0001, Block 11(a).

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

Question 1: Is a copy of my Small Business Plan approval sufficient documentation for my 8(a) status.

Answer 1: The 8(a) firms should be able to get a letter from their SBA servicing office if they are eligible and have provided documents to show their applicable NAICS Code as 236210 for the required solicitation.

Question 2: My SBA District Office does not provide a letter certifying my HUBZone Status.

Answer 2: Reference paragraph number 2, 3 and 4 above regarding HUBZone Certification letter.

Question 3: After award of the MACC II, do Prime Contractors have the liberty to choose any licensed design firm based on the proposed task order’s scope of work? Or are design firms to be qualified as part of the submission of this MACC II proposal?

Answer 3: After award, for future Design / Build requirements see Section H.8 for Task order Procedures, Paragraph 5.0. Reference the Solicitation Section L.16, Volume II, Past Performance Paragraph (c) Design Build Past Performance, for submission information regarding your Design Build Past Performance requirements for this MACC-II IDIQ.

Question 4: L16 Item (a)(1) states that the Offeror is to provide projects that it has performed as a prime contractor. Item (b)(1) states that teaming partner’s “projects shall be provided as described above.” Design firms typically perform as Lead Design Firms on design-build projects.

Please confirm that Design teaming partners can provide projects on which they performed as the Lead Design Firm, not necessarily as the prime contractor.

Answer 4: Yes, See Section M.4 for evaluation factors and their relative importance.

Question 5: Please clarify whether L16 Items (c), (d), and (e) are to be addressed within the same Past Performance Information Summary used for items (a) and (b). This will create a very lengthy Past Performance Information Summary for each project. Or is it NASA’s intent for Offerors to address Items (c), (d), and (e) in documents that are separate from the Past Performance Information Summary for each project, and that are also separately tabbed in accordance with L15?

Answer 5: Items in section L.16, Volume II – Past Performance Information, Paragraph c, d, and e, are to be included within the information addressed in paragraph (a) and (b), and the Past Performance Volume II which is limited as stated in the table in Section L.17 on page 22.

Question 6: L16 Items (b)(1)(i-vii) appear to be specific to the team proposed for the MACC II.

Please confirm that this information is specific to the team proposed for the MACC II and should be provided separate from each project’s Past Performance Information Summary.

Answer 6: Section L.16, paragraph (b)(1) (i-vii) applies if you are teaming as defined in FAR

9.6. Your submission shall be all inclusive for your team’s project Past Performance Information Summary to fully capture your team’s past performance. As stated in paragraph (b) Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit. (Total of six (6) for paragraph a and b)

Question 7: L16 Item (b), if the project was jointly performed by Offeror and teaming partner, can the same Past Performance Information Summary be used to demonstrate past performance for both firms?

Answer 7: See the response to question 6.

Question 8: L16 Items (c) (i-v), many of the discussion points (e.g., management/organizational structure, contractual arrangements, design-build implementation, approach to maintain control of project costs) appear to be specific to the design-build approach proposed for the MACC II.

Please clarify the intent and whether the items should be addressed separate from each project’s Past Performance Information Summary.

Answer 8: “Section L. 16 Paragraph (c) (i-v) requires offerors to specifically address their Past Performance in this area, not their approach for the MACC-II.”

Question 9: L16 Item (d), we have highly relevant projects in the areas of work anticipated under the MACC II, however, not all projects are formally certified LEED by the USGBC.

Please confirm that projects that are not formally certified by USGBC will still be considered relevant if they are similar in other aspects, e.g. magnitude of effort, scope and complexities as the technical work described in this solicitation.

Answer 9: Project information submitted will be considered as applicable in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

Question 10: L16 Item (e), we have highly relevant projects in the areas of work anticipated under the MACC II, however, not all projects required BIM. Please confirm that projects that did not require BIM will still be considered relevant if they are similar in other aspects, e.g.

magnitude of effort, scope and complexities as the technical work described in this solicitation.

Answer 10: Project information submitted will be considered as applicable in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

Question 11: L16 Items (d)(ii-v), appears to be asking for the LEED implementation approach proposed for the MACC II. Please confirm that this information is specific to the team proposed for the MACC II and is to be provided separate from each project’s Past Performance Information Summary.

Answer 11: Section L.16 Paragraph (d) (ii-v) requires offerors to specifically address their Past Performance in this area, not their approach for the MACC-II.

Question 12: M4 Item (c) Factor 2 Past Performance, the definition for “Very Highly Relevant” states: “Previous past performance as a prime contractor involving essentially the same magnitude of effort, scope and complexities as the technical work required to demonstrate performance in multiple general construction projects as described in this solicitation.” Design firms typically perform as Lead Design Firms on design-build projects.

Question 12a: Please confirm that Design teaming partners can provide projects on which they performed as the Lead Design Firm, not necessarily as the prime contractor.

Answer 12a: See M.4 Item (c) Factor 2 Past Performance, defining “Very Highly Pertinent” to include previous past performance as a prime contractor.

Question 12b: Please confirm that design-build projects are considered general construction projects.

Answer 12b: FAR 36.102 states “Design-build” means combining design and construction in a single contract with one contractor.” (Also reference M.4)

Question 13: The SF1447 requires 1 original and 7 copies. L17 Proposal Submission Checklist shows 1 original, 6 copies, and 1 electronic CD. Please confirm that Offerors should follow L17 Proposal Submission Checklist and provide 1 original, 6 copies, and 1 electronic CD.

Answer 13: You are correct 1 original, and 7 copies, (one of the copies is an electronic copy).

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 paragraph number 7 in Amendment 0001.

Question 14: Please confirm that FILL-INS FOR FAR 52.223-3, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA (JAN 1997) ALTERNATE I (JULY

1995) in ATTACHMENT A is to be completed post-award.

Answer 14: This as well as the Safety and Health plan are a coordinated POST AWARD effort between the successful offeror and the Contracting Officer that must be approved prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed.

Question 15: The SF1442 states: “E-MAIL OR FAXED OFFERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.” However, Attachment B, FAR 52.215-21 states: “The cost portion of the proposal shall be submitted via e-mail in MS Excel format.” Please clarify whether the cost portion for the John F. Kennedy Space Center seed project is to be emailed, and if so, please provide the email address.

Answer 15: The referenced clause is for Modifications after award and will be addressed by the Contracting Officer after award if needed. Communications involving this clause may not be E-mail and Faxed.

Question 16: Per L15, Item (3) on Page 13, the proposal should include “Offeror’s price for all CLINS (Page 5) before the Other Required Documentation. Per L17, item (b) on page 20, the “Completed Section B (The Entire Bid Schedule)” is to be included after SF1442. Per the Proposal Submission Checklist, the “Offerors price for all CLINS Entire Section B (Page 3-5)” is to be included before the Other Required Documentation. Please clarify the Section B pages that are to included and the location where they should be included in Volume III (before the Other Required Documentation? or after the SF1442?).

Answer 16: 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 on amendment 0001.

Consistent with the text in Section L.17 you can submit the Bid schedules after the SF1442.

Please clearly identify and separate the bid schedules for the IDIQ contract and the 4 task orders in Attachment A – Attachment D.

Question 17: RFP page 75 of 90, Proposal Submission Checklist requires Entire Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “A” CLIN 0002. Please confirm that the Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “A” CLIN 0002 contains only page 2 of 17.

Answer 17: Correct; submit only page 2 of 17

Question 18: RFP page 75 of 90, Proposal Submission Checklist requires Entire Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “B” CLIN 0003. Please confirm that the Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “B” CLIN 0003 contains only page 2 of 93.

Answer 18: Correct; submit only page 2 of 93.

Question 19: RFP page 75 of 90, Proposal Submission Checklist requires Entire Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “C” CLIN 0004. Please confirm that the Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “C” CLIN 0004 contains only page 2 and 3 of 22.

Answer 19: Correct; submit only pages 2 and 3 of 22.

Question 20: RFP page 75 of 90, Proposal Submission Checklist requires Entire Bid Schedule

Initial Task Order Attachment “D” CLIN 0005. Please confirm that the Bid Schedule Initial Task Order Attachment “D” CLIN 0005 contains only page 2 of 14.

Answer 20: Correct; submit only page 2 of 14.

Question 21: Reference CLIN 0004 MSFC, Sheet M212 – Additive Alternates. 1/M212 – there is a humidifier – 4619 – HUM0016. This humidifier in not referenced on sheet M604 Mechanical Schedule Additive Alternates – Humidifier Schedule. Please advise.

Answer 21: HUM0016 is an artifact from a previous Design Revision. It will not be included in the current scope of work and has been deleted from sheet M212. See paragraph number 8 above.

Question 22: Reference CLIN 0004 MSFC, Sheet M604 – Mechanical Schedule Additive Alternates. Humidifier Schedule – Additive Alternates References Alternates #2, #3, & #4. All the listed humidifiers are only in Alternates #2 and #4. Is there a missing humidifier or humidifier’s?

Answer 22: There are no missing humidifiers. The humidifier schedule has been revised to reflect only Alternates #2 and #4. See paragraph number 9 above.

Question 23: Reference CLIN 0005, SSC Project for Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls including Safety Incentive. The existing transformers that are to be removed require that the oil be disposed of. Has the oil been tested for PCB’s?

Answer 23: Yes. The oil does not contain PCB’s.

Question 24: Reference CLIN 0005, SSC Project for Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls including Safety Incentive. Is there a “Sequence of Outages” that NASA has for this project?

Answer 24: Yes. Refer to the Drawings and Specification for details, specifically Drawings E- 002 and M-001 contain detailed notes concerning the sequence of outages. Ultimately, the work shall be planned and accomplished in a manner to minimize the number of outages and the duration of each outage required to complete the work. Each outage will be requested in advance by the contractor, but the actual start date of each outage will be set by NASA to avoid interference with other Center activities.

Question 25: Reference CLIN 0005, SSC Project for Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls including Safety Incentive. Drawing EMI 18B367-01 Sheet E-002, General Note #4 SKM Project Files to be modified by the contractor with the new components? What is SKM?

Answer 25: SKM is the electrical modelling software used by the government to develop an electrical circuit model of the facilities affected by the contract requirements. These models will be provided electronically to the successful contractor. The contractor is responsible for updating the provided SKM models based upon the electrical switchgear and equipment manufacturers selected by the contractor and for other arc flash related responsibilities identified in the specifications, page 2, No. 10, identified on general note No. 4 on sheet E-002 of the design drawings and identified in other references as they may exist in the design drawings and specifications.

Question 26: Reference CLIN 0005, SSC Project for Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls including Safety Incentive. Is there a mandatory staffing requirement of supervisory personnel for this project?

Answer 26: 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. (i.e. 52.236-6 Superintendence By the Contractor) The number of supervisory personnel is the decision of the contractor, however NASA expects adequate supervision be provided to ensure safe and satisfactory performance on all task orders.

Question 27: In reference to NASA’s response (Answer 13), please consider allowing the listing of projects to be excluded from the page count. To provide an entire listing of projects for the past 3 years will greatly reduce the number of pages available to adequately address NASA’s submission requirements for each project, such as the past performance information summary, design-build PP supplement, LEED PP supplement, and BIM PP supplement. In addition, an entire listing of projects would also need to be submitted for each team partner. Combined with the font and margin requirements, it would be 5-6 pages for each company.

Answer 27: Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit. (Total of six (6) for paragraphs (a) and (b). You must also comply with the Page limitations listed in the proposal submission Checklist in Section L.17, Page 22.

Question 28: Reference CLIN 0005, Attachment D, for the SSC Project Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls, the plans on the site are 11x17. Can we get the actual size plans or scaled drawings?

Answer 28: The electronic pdf files of the drawings can be plotted as full size plans/scaled drawings.

Question 29: Reference CLIN 0005, Attachment D, for the SSC Project Electrical Repairs to Canal Lock Controls, do the existing transformers have PCB oil in them?

Answer 29: No

Question 30: Would NASA consider reducing the requirement to allow Small Businesses to submit pricing on just one of the Seed Projects that corresponds to the region of interest?

Answer 30: No

Question 31: The bonding requirements, particularly the aggregate of $1 Billion, will eliminate companies such as ours that would be a valuable asset to NASA on future projects at all sites.

Given this, is it possible that the Aggregate amount be lowered to $100 million or allow submitting contractors to submit their aggregate limit and allow it to be a determining factor and not a prerequisite.

Answer 31: No

Question 32: We are clear that we have to submit a letter confirming our bonding capacity per requirements as a small business. However, Block 13.b. of the SF 1442 indicates an offer guarantee is required. FAR clause 52.228-1 does not clarify requirements for the bid guarantee.

Shall we assume this bid guarantee to be provided with submission is the standard 20% of contract value?

Answer 32: Reference the Solicitation Section L.17, Paragraph h). A bid bond covering all CLINS included in the solicitation, clearly identifying the solicitation number in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the total bid price (All CLINS), or $3 Million, whichever is lower.

Question 33: General Question (No Specific RFP Reference): Can we be awarded a contract as a stand-alone prime under our respective DUNS number and also as a non-majority member of a JV (under 49%) under a separate DUNS number? Legally a stand-alone prime and a JV are considered two separate entities. For purposes of NASA MACC II award, will NASA recognize these entities as separate and potentially award a contract to each entity, assuming each entity meets the requirements of separate SB categories (e.g., WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, 8(a), SB, Unrestricted)?

Answer 33: No. For Example: If company A and Company B submit as two separate independent companies, and Company A and company B form a Joint Venture (Company C) and also submit a proposal as Company C, than under this Scenario Company A and/or Company B may both receive an award, however both Companies A and C or Both Companies B and C may not win an award under this procurement. This will ensure adequate competition for future task orders. Also note that a Joint Venture Team will be considered in the small category without regard to affiliation as long as each concern is Small under the Size Standard for NAICS Code 236210.

Question 34: Reference Page 15 of Section L.16 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.” If the offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture, do both JV partners need to submit a list of projects for the past 3 years?

Answer 34: You proposal should include a complete list of projects for your JV Team.

Reference section L.16, Volume II Paragraph (b) Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit. (Total of six (6) for paragraph a and b)

Question 35: Page 16 of Section L.16 states, “Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit.” Is it acceptable to submit experience for one JV partner under Paragraph A and the other under Paragraph B, so long as the combined number of projects does not exceed 6 total?

Answer 35: Yes. Contractors using teaming agreements or joint ventures must decide whose past performance they want to submit. Total of six (6) for paragraph (a) and (b). You must also comply with the Page limitations listed in the proposal submission Checklist in Section L.17, Page 22.

Question 36: If an 8(a) contractor, as the majority member of a Joint Venture in a Mentor/Protégé, has bona fide office in one of the states listed (i.e. Florida), does the 8(a) Joint Venture qualify as being within the required geography?

Answer 36: Yes, the JV would meet the Geographic requirements, However, the Joint Venture must be a registered/approved certified Small Business Participant under their approved JV DUNNS/CAGE CODE and their Approved Small Business Participant Plan shall reflect the appropriate NAICS CODE the 8(a) firm must have a SBA approved bona fide office in one of the states listed.

Question 37: The RFP instructions for L.16 Volume II (a) 1) on page 68/90 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.” However, Amendment 1, Question 41 states: “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”. Please clarify if the past performance projects are to be completed or started in the past three years, or, completed in the past three years.

Answer 37: Amendment 0001, Answer 41 failed to include clarification for any work that is started prior to the solicitation issuance. Therefore the response for question 41 on Amendment 0001 is hereby changed to read as follows: Past performance is limited to projects that are either completed OR started within the last three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.

Question 38: General Question (No Specific RFP Reference): We are a small business planning to propose on the project with a major subcontractor (Teaming Partner) that is a large business.

The large business will only be a subcontractor which precludes them from being named on any small business award or subsequent potential small business Contract. In addition to being a subcontractor for our small business, the large business is also planning on proposing on the project for one of the four “full and open” slots within the MACC-II. In this situation, will NASA allow an award be made to our small business within one of the small business categories and to the large business within the full and open category, so long as all FAR regulations are followed?

Answer 38: Yes, however a separate proposal package would be required for each Prime Contractor.

Question 39: If a Contractor A submits a proposal to be a Teaming Partner to Hub Zone Prime Contractor B with the understanding that Contractor A will only act as a subcontractor to Hub Zone Prime Contractor B, would Contractor A still be eligible to receive an award as a prime contractor under the Full and Open/Unrestricted category?

Answer 39: Under your scenario I am assuming that the HUBZone contractor B would be submitting the proposal as the prime contractor and not contractor A. Contractor A would simply be a subcontractor to contractor B. Then A would also be submitting a separate proposal as a prime contractor. Under this scenario, both A and B would be eligible to receive an award.

Question 40: Factor 2 of the Solicitation document identified the Past Performance criteria that will be utilized to evaluate our proposal in order to provide a score. Under the applicable “Scope” elements, it notes General Construction Contracts involving aspects of Design Build, LEED, BIM within the Mechanical, Civil, and Electrical Engineering Disciplines. As a small business that specializes in Mechanical contracting, we often perform as a subcontractor on large projects. Is the evaluation based on only projects where the contractor served as the General Contractor or will a project where our team served as a subcontractor on a project where we were responsible for Design Build, LEED, and BIM within the Mechanical and Electrical Engineering disciplines be seen as applicable as if we had served as the General Contractor?

Answer 40: We will evaluate the proposal as submitted. Reference Section M.4 Paragraph c., for definitions of pertinent.

Question 41: RFP Page 77, Section M.1, states “Offerors will be considered in each socio-economic category for which they are eligible.” This section also states that “The following order for selection will be used to determine IDIQ contract awards: WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, 8(a), SB, Full and Open.” According to the Stennis and Marshall sign-in sheets the breakdown of Prime Small Business Contractors to date are: 67 SB of which there are 25 8(a), 18 HUBZone, 17 SDVOSB, and 17 WOSB. 20 of the 67 SB companies qualify for multiple socio economic categories. In order to ensure the largest pool of most qualified potential bidders in each socio-economic category will NASA evaluate the categories in order from largest possible pool to smallest possible pool in lieu of the current order? Based on the current pool of potential bidders based on site walk attendance, that would follow: SB, 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB, then Full and Open.

Answer 41: NASA will evaluate the categories in the order listed in the solicitation.

Question 42: Reference Attachment B, Page 24 lists only 2 volumes of drawings. However KSC J-3 Technical Specifications, 79K39709, Revision B, Section 01 11 00, page 8 is showing there are 3 volumes of drawings. Can you please provide the Volume 3, drawings referenced on this page?

Answer 42: The reference to Volume 3 drawings in the specifications does not apply to the work required under this KSC task order. See paragraph number 7 above.

Question 43: Reference the Solicitation, Offer and Award, Page 15 and 16 H.5 MONETARY AWARD FOR SAFETY CONSCIOUS PERFORMANCE; Should the .02 or two percent of the task order amount, not to exceed $25,000 apply to all four projects? Attachment D for Stennis is the only project showing this CLIN line item Safety Incentive.

Answer 43: No, Paragraph H.5 applies to the Stennis Space Center Task (Attachment D) only.

Question: 44: How would NASA like for a company that satisfies multiple set asides (ie. SB, 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB) submit their proposal? Will NASA require a separate package for each set aside or will NASA provide a Matrix/Checklist to be submitted with one submittal package?

Answer 44: Reference the solicitation Section M.1 second paragraph, second sentence. Offerors will be considered in each socio economic category for which they are eligible (including the full and open category if the offeror can meet the bonding requirements), and only needs to submit one proposal.

Question 45: For those contractors that are awarded a MACC contract, are there any participation requirements or expectations that could result in “off-boarding” of the contractor if not met. In other words, does every MACC contractor have to respond to a certain percentage of task orders in order to remain in the MACC? If so, what is the selection process for onboarding a new contractor after one is off-boarded?

Answer 45: We intend 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 future task order solicitation issued under the MACC-II, Offerors are expected to be responsive to our requirements. Offerors who fail to respond will lose out on a potential business opportunity.

Question 46: What is the bid date and time for Regionalized Multiple Award Construction Contract Two (MACC-II). Can you advise if it is the same for all four seed projects?

Answer 46: The Bid date and time for the Regionalized Multiple Award Construction Contract Two (MACC-II) and all four seed projects in attachment A-D is identified on the first page of the solicitation, SF-1442 Block 13a.

Question 47: The bonding requirements for SB's have clearly been establish at $10M Single and $30M Aggregate. Under L.17 part h) of the solicitation a bid bond is required for a total of all CLINs. Standard practice for surety companies is to only provide a bid bond for approved amount of single p & p bond limit. Which in this case the single p&p bond limit has been established at $10M. Assuming the ranges of the seed projects are accurate the total of all seed projects will be between $12M and $30M. The total of all CLINs will more likely be on the higher end of the range. Based on this it would appear the minimum limits for the $10M single/$30M agg will not be sufficient to obtain a bid bond for this proposal therefore eliminating any SB with bonding limits of $10M/$30M respectively. If the government would allow a bid bond for each individual CLIN then each project would theoretically fall within the $10M single bonding limit and therefore resolving any potential issues with surety companies.

Please clarify.

Answer 47: The question is somewhat confusing, and is trying to combine the request for proposal (RFP) requirements for the minimum bonding capacity (Referenced in L.16, Volume I, Paragraphs a. and b.) and the performance and payment bonds--construction (Refer to the solicitation Section I.12, FAR 52.228-15). The question incorrectly states the Single p&p bond limit has been established at $10M. Please refer to the Solicitation Section L.16, Volume I, Paragraph a. and b. Also reference Solicitation Section L.17 paragraph h) “A bid bond covering all CLINS included in the solicitation, clearly identifying the solicitation number in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the total bid price (All CLINS), or $3 Million, whichever is lower,” is required by this request for proposal. All single projects fall under the single project value of $10M, the total for all projects also falls below the $30M aggregate and the bid bond amount of twenty percent (20%) of the total bid price (all CLINS), or $3 Million, whichever is lower also falls within the bonding requirements of the solicitation.

Question 48: Amendment 0001, Q&A 16 allows for a contractor to bid under a single business type and then form a JV and bid as a separate business type.

Question 48a: Can a contractor bid as a teaming partner (not JV) for one of the set asides and then bid as a prime as an SB or LB?

Answer 48a: Yes, however a contactor can only receive one contract award as a result of this solicitation.

Question 48b: Can they win as a prime under SB or LB and still be a teaming partner of a successful bidder for one of the set aside contracts?

Answer 48b: Yes, a contractor can win only one award as a small business, a large business, or a teaming partner, however you cannot receive an award for both Small Business or Large business and as the controlling partner of a teaming agreement.

Question 49: For lighting Fixture details on AD1-E101, would it be possible to provide a similar scheme of information on the fixtures as what has been provided on AD2-E102. Please advise.

Answer 49: Refer to Sheet AD1-E501 for Lighting Fixture details. The following tables defines the Fixture Type called out on AD1-E101 to the corresponding flag note or location on AD1- E501 where details are located. All new lights are to be new LED lights. Provide an LED light equivalent to the fixture details of Types BMI and RB.

Sheet AD1-E101 Type Corresponding Flag Note or Details located on AD1-E501 AZ Flag Note 7 GRL Flag Notes 3 and 4 MBL Flag Note 6 BMI Refer to Marker Light Details in Zone G6. – Crouse Hinds Cat.

No. 44867 100 W, T-10 bulb RB Refer to Zones G8 and G9, “Crouse Hinds 12 traffic signal type

HSV-113 Cat. No. 50803”

12. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.