Amend 3 SF30 47PK0124R0019 2024 12 12.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION / MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

2. AMENDMENT / MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION / PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) 3 12/12/2024

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT DIVISION

333 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1001

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., STREET, COUNTRY, STATE, ZIP CODE) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/RFP

X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT / ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14The hour and date specified for receipt of offers X 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 two (2) 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 specifi

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 administering office.

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

RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

"SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY"

4841 CAMINO DE LA PLAZA

SAN DIEGO, CA

See attachment to SF30 for full description of Amendment 3.

Except as provided herein, all terms & conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force & effect.

15A. Name and Title of Signer (type or print) 16A. Name and Title of Contracting Officer (type or print)

HEATHER CANEY

15B. Contractor / Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States of America 16C. Date Signed

(Authorized signature) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

REVISED STANDARD FORM 30 (2-93)

10/31/2024

47PK0124R0019

12/12/2024

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

4841 CAMINO DE LA PLAZA

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Amendment 3 – 12/12/2024

THIS AMENDMENT IS ISSUED TO ADD OR CHANGE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL NO. 47PK0124R0019:

1. In the Agreement, Section IV.B. Clauses Incorporated by Reference, FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management (OCT 18) is herein replaced with FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management

(NOV 2024).

The following is the provision in its entirety:

FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management (NOV 2024)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision—

"Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) indicator means a four-character suffix to the unique entity identifier. The suffix is assigned at the discretion of the commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity to establish additional System for Award Management records for identifying alternative EFT accounts (see subpart 32.11) for the same entity.

Registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) means that–

(1) The Offeror has entered all mandatory information, including the unique entity identifier and the EFT indicator, if applicable, the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, as well as data required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (see subpart 4.14) into SAM

(2) The offeror has completed the Core, Assertions, and Representations and Certifications, and Points of Contact sections of the registration in SAM;

(3) The Government has validated all mandatory data fields, to include validation of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The offeror will be required to provide consent for TIN validation to the Government as a part of the SAM registration process; and

(4) The Government has marked the record "Active".

Unique entity identifier means a number or other identifier used to identify a specific commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity. See www.sam.gov for the designated entity for establishing unique entity identifiers.

(b) (1) An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and at time of award (see FAR clause 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance, for the requirement to maintain SAM registration during performance and through final payment).

(2) The Offeror shall enter, in the block with its name and address on the cover page of its offer, the annotation "Unique Entity Identifier" followed by the unique entity identifier that identifies the Offeror's name and address exactly as stated in the offer. The Offeror also shall enter its EFT indicator, if applicable. The unique entity identifier will be used by the Contracting Officer to verify that the Offeror is registered in the

SAM.

(c) If the Offeror does not have a unique entity identifier, it should contact the entity designated at www.sam.gov for establishment of the unique entity identifier directly to obtain one. The Offeror should be prepared to provide the following information:

(1) Company legal business name.

(2) Tradestyle, doing business, or other name by which your entity is commonly recognized.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

(3) Company physical street address, city, state, and Zip Code.

(4) Company mailing address, city, state and Zip Code (if separate from physical).

(5) Company telephone number.

(6) Date the company was started.

(7) Number of employees at your location.

(8) Chief executive officer/key manager.

(9) Line of business (industry).

(10) Company headquarters name and address (reporting relationship within your entity).

(d) Processing time should be taken into consideration when registering. Offerors who are not registered in SAM should consider applying for registration immediately upon receipt of this solicitation. See https://ww.sam.gov for information on registration.

(End of provision)

2. Incorporated under Amendment 3 are the Government’s responses (in blue) to the 52 RFI’s received. No additional RFI’s will be accepted or responded to prior to the proposal closing date.

Question 1: Joint Ventures Do we need to have in place an approved SBA Mentor Joint Venture Agreement or do need a regular JV that meets the requirements.

Response: If submitting a proposal under a Joint Venture (JV), the JV must, at the time of proposal submission, have an approved SBA JV Agreement in place and an active SAM Record for the JV.

Question 2: re: Solicitation page 14 – paragraph 11.F. Requirements of Joint Venture Item (4) notes – “past performance must be submitted by both members of the Joint Venture” Please clarify this requires 3 projects for each member or 3 projects combined for the Joint Venture.

Response: The requirement for only 3 projects to be submitted for past performance does not change if a JV is bidding the project. The 3 projects can be for projects completed by the JV entity itself, or the 3 projects can be projects completed separately by the JV members.

Question 3: Permits Wanted to confirm that GSA will pay Caltrans and City of San Diego permits and we only procure and manage the permit process.

Response: Any permit fees associated with work performed under the contract will be handled under a change order after award.

Question 4. Factor 1: Experience on II.D.(1)a Factor 1: Experience on “Similarly Complex” Projects – Factor 1 of the RFP indicates that experience on “similar complex” projects is defined as “…. A single repair and alternations project with a minimum dollar value of $5 million Can consideration be given to lower this magnitude to $3M?

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Response: The similar work definition dollar value is reduced from $5 million to $4 million under Amendment 3.

Question 5. Factor 1: Experience on Specialized Experience on “Similarly Complex” Projects – Can key subcontractor experience be provided in conjunction with Offeror’s past experience to meet relevant experience required under Factor 1? Key subcontractor involvement and experience is requested under Factor 4 and would lend to illustrating project team approach.

Response: Offeror’s may not submit Key Subcontractor Experience for Factor 1.

Additionally, note the requirement specified in The Solicitation that requires the same 3 projects be submitted for Factors 1, 2, and 4.

Question 6. Will the government consider allowing key sub commitment letters, resulting in allowing the prime to use key sub experience in Factor 1?

Response: Offeror’s may not submit Key Subcontractor Experience for Factor 1.

Additionally, note the requirement specified in The Solicitation that requires the same 3 projects be submitted for Factors 1, 2, and 4.

Question 7. If the contractor does not have projects that meet $5 million value, can we still submit projects that meet the remaining requirements?

Response: Projects submitted that do not meet the similar work definition specified in The Solicitation will not be considered.

The similar work definition dollar value is reduced from $5 million to $4 million under Amendment 3.

Question 8. If the proposer is a JV or a part of the Teaming Agreement, can the past experience of each of the joint ventures or each of the members of the teaming agreement be used to meet the Past Performance and Prior Experience requirements?

Response: The FAR defines Contractor team arrangements, as follows-

(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

For JV’s submitting offers, the 3 projects submitted for Experience and Past Performance can be for projects completed by the JV entity itself, or the 3 projects can be projects completed separately by the JV members.

For Prime contractors submitting offers that include a Teaming Agreement, the 3 projects submitted for Experience and Past Performance must be projects completed by the Prime Contractor only.

Question 9. There are a multitude of trades needed for this project. Can the bid due date be extended to give more time to vet scope and proposals?

Response: The proposal closing date was extended again under Amendment 3 to 1/15/25, 4 PM

PT.

Question 10. The minimum value for Factor 1 “similar work is $5M. Can this be lowered to $4M?

This is an 8a competitive set-aside and the 8a sole-source cap is $4M. For many 8as, a $5M minimum will exclude many 8a sole-source projects that fit the definition of similar work.

Response: The similar work definition dollar value is reduced from $5 million to $4 million under Amendment 3.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Question 11. Please confirm if PPQs and Experience on “Similar Work” projects performed by Teaming Agreement partners can be considered relevant and will be considered toward Factor 1 and Factor 2.

Response: For Prime contractors submitting offers that include a Teaming Agreement, the 3 projects submitted for Experience and Past Performance must be projects completed by the Prime Contractor only.

Question 12. RFP states that GSA and CBP will occupy the area during construction. What is the process for scheduling and obtaining approval for site access with the GSA and CBP Port Operations?

Response: Contractor will have care, custody, and control of the site once the NTP is issued.

Question 13. What work restrictions are there from CBP Port Operations?

Response: Outages or any other disruptions caused by construction that affect the Port will need to be coordinated with CBP at least two weeks prior to occurring.

Question 14. The civil work across lanes for utility connections to the main building will be very disruptive to traffic at E San Ysidro Blvd. Via Ote. And Rail Ct. Are there specific blackout periods or peak traffic times when construction activities or deliveries should be avoided?

Response: Yes, peak traffic times occur in the morning and afternoon as people cross the border in both directions. It will be best to schedule any disruptions to vehicle or pedestrian traffic in this area at night.

Question 15. Can you provide a site plan indicating available areas for any GSA-owned property that could be used for contractor storage and staging nearby?

Response: A small laydown area will be made available to the Contractor within the existing GSA lot just to the south and west of the Camino de la Plaza off ramp intersection.

Question 16. Are there specific decibel level restrictions or time windows for potentially disruptive activities (e.g., demolition, heavy equipment operation)?

Response: Contractor is responsible to meet all related codes for the area. Per San Diego Municipal Code, the time restriction for excessive construction noise is between 7:00pm and 7:00am weekdays, weekends and listed holidays, otherwise a construction noise permit is required.

Question 17. Can you confirm any additional restrictions related to smoking and mobile equipment emissions under CFR 41 CFR Part 102-74?

Response: Comply with City of San Diego restrictions, if more stringent than CFR 41.

Question 18. Are there designated lanes or areas for contractor vehicles to avoid conflicts with Government vehicles during shared access periods?

Response: See response to Question 12.

Question 19. Have the drainage culverts that run under the property been accounted for in the design documents? Is it confirmed that these will not need to be modified to accommodate the new construction?

Response: Yes, they have been accounted for in the design. Unless shown otherwise in the Contract Documents, there are no modifications required at this time.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Question 20. Sewer Connection: Does the sewer system for the new FMCSA facility connect to the City sewerinfrastructure or the Port's MBR Wastewater system?

Response: Sewer connects to the adjacent land Port of Entry, see C-111.

Question 21. PV Array Interconnection Agreement: Is there an existing interconnect agreement for the entireLPOE? If so, can this agreement be utilized and amended as needed?

Response: No, there is no existing blanket interconnect agreement for PV’s between GSA and the utility provider. During the buildout of the campus, each phase was responsible for securing its own Permit to Operate (PTO) with the utility provider.

Question 22. Building Automation System (BAS): Is the facility’s BAS intended to be connected to [completemissing reference]?

Response: Controls go to the BMS DDC panel per M2.1 and should be capable of connection to the Land Port of Entry System.

Question 23. Street Closures and On-Ramp Access: What is the typical notice period required to shut down anon-ramp for construction activities?

Response: The advance notice period is not known because it usually varies by the Contractor’s proposed scope of work and his means and methods of accomplishing the work. This will require coordination with Caltrans and perhaps the City of San Diego early in the project.

Question 24. Law Enforcement Jurisdiction: Is the site patrolled by law enforcement? If so, which agencyholds jurisdiction—City, State, or Federal authorities?

Response: Since the site will be owned by GSA, it falls under federal jurisdiction.

Question 25. Canopy Ratings: What is the wind rating for the canopies? Additionally, the project site is inSeismic Zone 4, correct?

Response: Wind rating is 103mph per sheet S1.0. Per USGS the seismic zone for the project site is 4.

Question 26. Staging Area Usage: Can the southern area of the property be used for staging purposes? Currently,there are several CONEX boxes located in the southeastern section, outside the planned demolitionarea (see attached photo).

Response: No, this area is utilized by GSA Facilities. See also response to Question 15.

Question 27. This project is below the minimum square footage usually required to provide a building with fire sprinklers. Typically, fire sprinklers are only required on buildings that are over 5,000-SF. The admin building is 1,217-SF. Will the authority allow the exclusion of fire sprinklers on this building?

Response: No, fire sprinklers are required at all GSA buildings per PBS-P100.

Question 28. Solicitation part II.C.(1) states: “Indicate the Base Contract Price, or if no such distinction is made, the Contract Price, in Block 17 of the SF 1442…” However, Block 17 of the SF 1442 provided with this RFP is already filled in with “OFFEROR MUST SIGN AND DATE AS DIRECTED IN ITEM 20, AND COMPLETE PAGE 3 OF THIS FORM” in very large font. Please confirm that completing page 3 of the SF 1442 is sufficient, and that Offerors need not squeeze the base contract price into Block 17 of the SF 1442 since it is already full of pre-filled in text.

Response: Do not enter any information in Block 17 of the SF 1442. Follow the Block 17 Instructions in bold capitalized text, as follows: Sign and Date in Block 20 and complete the information required on page 3.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Amendment 3 – 12/12/2024

Question 29. Solicitation part II.C.(3) states: “Submit a detailed proposal breakdown of your Base Work lump sum price. Follow the divisional breakdown as referenced in the Specifications, and clearly identify detailed labor and material costs as well as all proposal markups (Overhead, Profit, Bond, Insurance).” Given that this is asking for a lot of detailed information, we respectfully request that the Government consider allowing the detailed breakdown to be submitted within 24 hours after proposal submission. This would still ensure that proposals are submitted with all required and relevant information (including bid price on the SF 1442), while affording Offerors ample opportunity to properly format the requested breakdown information without the additional time pressure of the bid being due at the same time.

Response: The detailed proposal breakdown is to be submitted as part of your proposal by the closing date and time specified.

Question 30. Solicitation part II.C.(3) states: “Submit a detailed proposal breakdown of your Base Work lump sum price. Follow the divisional breakdown as referenced in the Specifications, and clearly identify detailed labor and material costs as well as all proposal markups (Overhead, Profit, Bond, Insurance).” Aside from the listed requirements in this section, is there a preferred format that the Government can provide for this information? Or, is each Offeror to develop their own format?

Response: There is no preferred format for the requested breakdown and a proposal breakdown form will not be provided. The requested breakdown is straightforward and requires labor and material pricing per division be provided as well as separate lines for Overhead, Profit, Bond, and Insurance.

Question 31. Solicitation part II.D defines similar work, in part, as: “A single repair and alterations project…” which appears to limit similar work to only repair and alteration projects. However, the similar work definition also states, in part: “Involving new construction, renovations, improvements and/or expansions…” which now includes new construction in contradiction to the previous statement which excludes new construction. We respectfully request that the Government clarify these requirements.

Response: The and/or statement in the similar work definition allows for projects to be submitted covering ANY of the following, not ALL of the following: new construction, renovations, improvements, expansions.

Question 32. Solicitation part II.D. defines similar work, in part, as projects with “a minimum dollar value of $5,000,000.00.” Projects close to this value, but completed a few years ago, will exceed $5,000,000 when adjusted for inflation. Given the impact of inflation on project costs over recent years, would the government evaluators consider such projects as "similar" for the purpose of this requirement if their adjusted value aligns with today’s $5,000,000 benchmark? This approach would ensure that project experience accurately reflects the intended scale of work as required in the RFP. Further, the Government can require that Offerors explain how they calculated the inflation-adjusted project value (e.g., by using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics online CPI calculator).

Response: No inflation adjustments to the similar work definition amount will be considered. The dollar value of projects submitted must meet the minimum dollar value specified.

The similar work definition dollar value is reduced from $5 million to $4 million under Amendment 3.

Question 33. Solicitation part II.D.4. states that “Offerors shall provide a GSA Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) OR copy of the final CPARS evaluation.” Would the NAVFAC/ USACE PPQ-0 be acceptable in lieu of the GSA PPQ? Both forms are substantially similar. A copy of the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ-0 is attached along with these RFIs for reference.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Amendment 3 – 12/12/2024

Response: Because the NAVFAC/ USACE PPQ-0 contains the same information as the GSA PPQ, the NAVFAC/ USACE PPQ-0 will be accepted in lieu of the GSA PPQ. The NAVFAC/ USACE PPQ-0 form is attached to this Amendment for reference so Offerors can see the only acceptable alternative to the GSA PPQ.

Note, the Past Performance submittal requirements specify that a PPQ or copy of a final CPARS evaluation may be submitted for the 3 required projects.

Question 34. Solicitation part II.D.4 states: “Offeror’s may also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.” Must these additional performance recognition documents only be for the same 3 projects we’re submitting for Factors 1/3/4? Or, could these be for other projects?

Response: Performance recognition documents submitted under Factor 2 may be for ANY projects.

Question 35. Solicitation part II.D.4 states: “Offeror’s may also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.” A similar project is defined as within the last 8 years. We respectfully request that the Government revise this part to 8 years to match the similar work definition.

Response: The performance recognition time period of projects is increased from 5 years to 8 years under Amendment 3.

Question 36. Solicitation part II.F requires several additional documents to be submitted by joint venture Offerors. Please confirm that these documents should be submitted as part of the Price Proposal, and can be inserted as a collected at the end of the Price Proposal.

Response: Yes, the JV specific documentation can be included in the Part II: Price Proposal pdf.

Question 37. Solicitation part II.F.(3) requires: “The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.” If the duly executed joint venture agreement contains a clause identifying a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture, is an additional certificate still required?

Response: No, an additional certificate is not required if the duly executed joint venture agreement provided with your proposal contains a clause identifying a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

Question 38. Solicitation part II.F.(4) requires: “Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.” Please confirm this is meant to indicate that joint venture Offerors are to submit one set of the representations and certifications as well as the GSA Form 527 (which includes past performance information) for each member of the joint venture as part of the Price Proposal.

Response: Correct, JV’s are to submit the representations and certifications as well as the GSA Form 527 for each member of the joint venture as part of the Price Proposal.

Question 39. Solicitation part II.F.(4) requires: “Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.” With regard to past performance information, please confirm that in accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(f) the Government is not requiring that the 8(a) participant to the joint venture individually meet the same evaluation criteria as that required of other offerors generally. (13 CFR 124.513(f) “A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally.”)

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Response: The following is 13 CFR 124.513(f) in its entirety: (f) Capabilities, past performance, and experience. When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for an 8(a) contract as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

For JV’s submitting offers, the 3 projects submitted for Past Performance can be for projects completed by the JV entity itself, or the 3 projects can be projects completed separately by the JV members.

Question 40. Confirm/verify that the ladder rack/runway in the LAN/IT room to be 12” Wx4” D or will the CPI 10250 series will be acceptable on plan E4.3 Construction Notes?

Response: Cable runway accepted.

Question 41. CPI 10605-019 mentioned in Construction Notes on plan E4.3 is for 2post racks, Plan E2.5 #3 states 4 post lockable racks. Confirm/Verify if 2post racks, 4post racks, or lockable cabinets are to be installed in the LAN/IT room?

Response: Two post racks should be installed per notes on sheet E4.3.

Question 42. Clarify/Confirm manufacturer of 24x24x24 Nema 3 enclosure? RMW5100AF part # provided is a cooling system to mount in enclosure plan E2.3 construction notes.

Response: Hoffman, Chatsworth, or equal are acceptable alternates for wall-mounted network cabinets.

Question 43. Spec includes note to not interrupt existing fire alarm service. As well as the drawings noting for new fire alarm components to be compatible with existing fire alarm system.

Is there an existing fire alarm system we need to tie into and can the manufacturer of that system be confirmed?

Response: No, Fire Alarm system is new. There is currently no Fire Alarm system on site.

Question 44. Spec calls for Notifier or Gamewell, plans show notifier and silent knight but note to be a design basis and a system equivalent is acceptable. Is an equal alternate system such as Edwards acceptable or is there a hard requirement for one of these systems?

Response: System is called out to be “Or Approved Equal”.

Question 45. The drawings show riser diagram detail on electrical drawing page E4.3 detail #3 showing a 6 strand MM fiber incoming from the FMSCA Admin Building to the IDF rack. However, no other site plan or details are shown. Is this to be ran to an IDF rack location at the inspection area, or a separate location? Is there additional OSP fiber/copper required?

Response: Confirmed. Route multimode fiber to box indicated by note 3 on sheet E2.3. No other outdoor IDF will be required for the project.

Question 46. Specifications do not call out for a preferred manufacturer for the access control system. Will the system be based on an open manufacturer and a stand alone building, or is there a preferred manufacturer and would we need to connect to an existing system?

Response: Provide Lenel RS2 or approved equal that meets the requirements outlined within the FMCSA security guidelines.

Question 47. Is there a preferred manufacturer for the intrusion system?

Response: DMP or approved equal.

“SYLPOE FMCSA BUS INSPECTION FACILITY ” PBS - REG 9

SAN DIEGO, CA RFP NO. 47PK0124R0019

Question 48. E2.1 Note 2 says to provide systems furniture power and data junction boxes and whips per furniture manufacturer. How many data drops per piece of furniture will be needed?

Response: Provide (3) per workstation.

Question 49. E2.5 – is the GC supplying the TV Cable?

Response: Yes, please provide.

Question 50. E4.3 – What is the distance from IDF cabinet to FMCSA IT Rack? Is this new or existing?

Response: Refer to site plan on sheet E1.2 for locations of FMCSA IT rack and IDF cabinet in canopy.

Question 51. E4.3 – What type of connector for the fiber? SC or LC?

Response: Assume LC connector. Contractor to verify after bid is awarded.

Question 52. E4.3 – Will the pedestal manufacturer supply their own communications cabling and connections?

Response: Refer to site plan on sheet E1.2 for conduit and cabling requirements to EV pedestals. Communications cabling to be provided by the Contractor.

3. Attached and incorporated under Amendment 3 is the updated Solicitation incorporating the following changes as reflected in the RFI responses (changes highlighted in blue):

• Section I.H. Receipt of Offers, updated the date to January 15, 2025, 4:00 PM PT.

• Section II.D. Technical Proposal, page 9, updated the Similar Work definition to reduce the value from $5M to $4M.

• Section II.D. Technical Proposal, Item 2. Evaluation Factor 2 – Past Performance (35%) , page

11, updated the performance recognition time period of projects under Factor 2 to increase the time from 5 years to 8 years.

See the pdf file entitled: “2 Solicitation Amend 3”

4. Attached and incorporated under Amendment 3 is the updated Attachment E: Wage Determination.

See the pdf file entitled: “10 Attach E WD Amend 3”

5. The proposal closing date and time is herein extended to January 15, 2025, 4:00 PM PT.

Provided under Amendment 3 is a revised SF1442 reflecting the revised proposal closing date.

See the pdf file entitled: “4 SF1442 Amend 3”.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AND ALL AMENDMENTS AS INDICATED IN BLOCK 11 SHOWN ABOVE.

SUBMIT YOUR AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WITH YOUR PROPOSAL. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

NAVFAC/ USACE PPQ Referenced in RFI 33

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________

Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional