SOLICITATION_AMENDMENT_2_-_W911SG-18-R-0073.pdf

0011148639

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The reason for this amendment is:

1. To extend the solicitation from 10 September 2018 to 12 September 2018.

2. Adding additinal RFI questions and answ ers.

3. Upload updated draw ings.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Sep-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911SG18R0073

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Aug-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Sep-2018

CODE

MICC-FT BLISS W911SG

111 PERSHING RD

FT BLISS TX 79916

W911SG 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911SG18R0073

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Sep-2018 01:00 PM to 12-Sep-2018 01:00 PM.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. POINT OF CONTACT (POC):

Christopher Herrera, Purchasing Agent Tel: 915-569-7659 Email: christopher.herrera1.civ@mail.mil

2. COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS: This procurement is a 100% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside acquisition.

3. SITE VISIT: The Government has scheduled a one day site visit at Owen RD WSMR, NM at 08:00 am MST on 23 August 2018.

a. We will meet at WSMR, New Mexico (DPW) Bldg. 102 Parking lot

b. Firms who wish to attend the site visit shall provide the name(s), company name, position title, telephone number, email address and mailing address of all attendees via e-mail to christopher.herrera1.civ@mail.mil no later than 4:00 pm MST on 20 August 2018.

c. The site visit is limited to a maximum of two (2) attendees per company. Contractor representatives should be prepared to furnish identification if requested.

d. Individual or group questions will not be answered during the site visit. Potential offerors may submit written questions in accordance with number 4 (below) of this instructions to offerors section.

e. Potential offerors are not allowed to take pictures at the site visit. If pictures are required, the offeror may ask the designated Government representative to take any pictures requested. Pictures will subsequently be cleared by the WSMR Security Office and then incorporated into the solicitation as an amendment.

Note: Remarks and explanations made by the Government representatives during the course of the site visit, whether orally or in writing, shall not change or qualify any of the terms or conditions of this solicitation. The solicitation can only be changed by a formal written amendment issued by the Contracting Officer (KO).

4. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI): All offeror inquiries or questions shall be submitted in writing electronically to Christopher Herrera at christopher.herrera1.civ@mail.mil no later than 30 August 2018 at 4:00 pm MST. An amendment will then be issued with all questions and answers. **After the due date no additional RFI’s will be answered**

5. PROPOSAL DUE DATE: Proposals are due no later than 01:00 pm MST on 12 September 2018. Proposals shall be emailed to christopher.herrera1.civ@mail.mil. Proposals SHALL include the following in order to be considered (failure to include all line items shall be cause for rejection of the offer):

a. Cover sheet on company letterhead with your DUNS number, CAGE code, Tax ID, and primary point of contact information;

b. Signed and completed Standard Form 1442 along with any amendments;

c. Letter from bonding company indicating offeror’s ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their offer;

d. Technical approach, managerial approach, and quality control plan per Evaluation factors; and

e. Past Performance per Evaluation Factors.

Please note that all correspondence via e-mail shall contain a subject line that reads, “WSMR Improvement to Owen RD W911SG-18-R-0073, Company Name”. If sending attachments via e-mail, ensure only .pdf, .doc or .xls documents are sent. In the body of the email please ensure to list the number of attachments submitted. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to verify all emails along with all attachments are received by the Contract Specialist listed above.

6. BONDING REQUIREMENTS:

a. Performance and Payment Bonds:

(1) The penal amount of the bonds shall be 100 percent of the awarded price.

(2) The Government may require additional bond protection when a contract price is increased. The increase in protection shall generally equal 100 percent of the increase in contract price. The Government may secure additional protection by directing the contractor to increase the penal amount of the existing bond or obtain an additional bond.

b. Offer Guarantee:

(1) An Offer Guarantee is not required. Instead of submitting an Offer Guarantee, offerors are to submit a letter from their bonding company indicating the offerors ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their proposal price.

7. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM): Offeror must be registered in the database IAW FAR 52.204-7 in order to be awarded a contract and have the applicable NAICS code listed in FAR 52.219-1(c), Small Business Program Representations (Alternate I), Representations.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation using the evaluation method “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable.” This method is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated reasonable price. Offers will be evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors. Evaluation factors and significant sub factors that establish the requirements of acceptability are set forth below. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated reasonable price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors (FAR 15.101-2). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from price, technical and past performance. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. If a minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process.

This solicitation is for a firm, fixed price construction contract. Award shall be made to the technically acceptable offer that provides the lowest reasonable price. The Government intends to award a contract to one offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 9.1).

Offerors are required to submit technical proposals addressing the Evaluation Factors and Sub- Factors identified. The procurement is being conducted utilizing the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Proposal will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked, using the non-price evaluation factors. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated reasonable price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. There shall be no trade-offs. Offers evaluated as not Technically Acceptable will not be eligible for award, regardless of price.

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by the solicitation. The Government will rely on such information for the award of the contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in the proposal, including the information provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the facts and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected.

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of two (2) separate parts; Part I –Technical Proposal - Part II - Price Proposal.

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, at time of award, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

This solicitation requires the evaluation of technical factors and past performance.

Factor 1: Technical Approach – Technical Approach will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. To be acceptable the offeror’s submission must adequately address the technical requirements of the SOW and Construction Drawings. Adequately addressing the technical requirements of the SOW and Construction Drawings means that the offeror’s submission if executed as written, will result in the final product detailed in the SOW and Construction Drawing.

Factor 2: Management Approach – Management will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. To be acceptable, the offeror’s submission must detail their plan to comply with the following requirements detailed in the SOW: timelines, installation access and security requirements, safety requirements, environmental quality program requirements, and employee training requirements.

Factor 3: Quality Control – Quality Control will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. To be acceptable, the offeror’s submission must include a quality control plan that meets or exceeds the standard as described in the SOW. There will be no tradeoff for any submission which exceeds the standards established in the SOW.

Factor 4: Past Performance – Past Performance will be evaluated as “Acceptable or “Unacceptable”. To be acceptable, offerors must provide information demonstrating they have successfully performed as prime contractor within the last three (3) years* on at least one (1) construction project of equal or greater size and complexity and magnitude within the same or similar scope of work as identified in this solicitation. Past performance information shall be obtained by the Contract Specialist from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, PPIRS or other databases.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Rating Description

*The three (3) years shall be calculated from the solicitation issue date.

**Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the requirements outlined in the solicitation.

Part II – Price

Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness as required by FAR 15.402. A price that is unreasonably low or high may endanger the proposal's opportunity for award of a contract.

Each proposal shall be evaluated to ensure that all information provided in the RFP has been addressed, is accurate and complete.

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

252.236-7001 CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS (AUG 2000)

(a) The Government will provide to the Contractor, without charge, one set of contract drawings and specifications, except publications incorporated into the technical provisions by reference, in electronic or paper media as chosen by the Contracting Officer.

(b) The Contractor shall--

(1) Check all drawings furnished immediately upon receipt;

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

(2) Compare all drawings and verify the figures before laying out the work;

(3) Promptly notify the Contracting Officer of any discrepancies;

(4) Be responsible for any errors that might have been avoided by complying with this paragraph (b); and

(5) Reproduce and print contract drawings and specifications as needed.

(c) In general--

(1) Large-scale drawings shall govern small-scale drawings; and

(2) The Contractor shall follow figures marked on drawings in preference to scale measurements.

(d) Omissions from the drawings or specifications or the misdescription of details of work that are manifestly necessary to carry out the intent of the drawings and specifications, or that are customarily performed, shall not relieve the Contractor from performing such omitted or misdescribed details of the work. The Contractor shall perform such details as if fully and correctly set forth and described in the drawings and specifications.

(e) The work shall conform to the specifications and the contract drawings identified on the following index of drawings:

Title File Drawing No.

DPW --ADDENDUM-SOUTH ARROYO CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS-AUGUST 2018 ADDENDUM (1)

DPW --FINAL PLANS-SOUTH ARROYO CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS-07 SEPTEMBER 2018

(End of clause)

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

RFI QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

W911SG-18-R-ARROYO

RFI QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Are surface mount guardrails being specified? No, install guardrails as per NMDOT Standard Drawing 606-GR31-16/20, “Drainage Structure Protection System” with W-beam guardrail attached to parapet wall of headwall when above culvert.

2. Is there a more detailed drawing on the waterbars? Water bar detail on sheet 4 and called for in specification Section 33 40 00, 2.2.2.

3. Is there a more in depth on the Guardrail install? Install guardrails as per NMDOT Standard Drawing 606-GR31-16/20, “Drainage Structure Protection System” with W-beam guardrail attached to parapet wall of headwall when above culvert.

4. Due to there being multiple projects bidding at the same time from multiple KO’s and some of them are due on the same day and will possibly be starting at the same time. If a contractor is awarded multiple projects will that contractor be able to stagger the contracts for their available construction crews?? When you are submitting bids/ proposals on multiple projects you are assuming the risk at that point.

5. On the plan sheets the box culvert dimensions do not seem accurate with what is shown on the plan view, cross section and the call out for the New Mexico Standard Drawings 511‐2 series. On sheet 4 of the plans, the plan view calls out for a distance of 30’ for the overall width of the proposed culverts. This is not accurate as the clear span on each proposed culvert is 6’, without including wall thickness, this puts the overall width at 36’. With the 7” wall thickness, it should be 40’ – 1”. Is this what is intended? Yes, this was a typo, drawing sheet 4 is revised.

6. Clear and grub dimensions area. The plans do not give a scale for the given dimensions. Can we get an accurate assessment of the area that is intended for clearing and grubbing? Dimensions are provided to calculate area for clearing and grubbing. See revised drawing sheet 3, Demolition Plan labeling the Limits of Construction to clarify the project area.

7. In general, almost all of the dimensions shown are contradictory to what is or should be the actual measurement Use dimensions provided; see revised drawings.

8. The design of the culvert is generally based on the NMDOT standard specification. The standard spec only covers culverts up to 4 barrels. The proposed culvert is 6 barrels, is there any engineering documentation or certification that this 6 barrel culvert would not require different layout, thickness, concrete strength for the culverts and the attached wing walls and aprons? New Mexico DOT Standard Drawing 511- 59-1/2 covers the configuration of concrete box culverts (CBC) with more than 4 barrels, see specification Section 33 40 00, 2.1.3.

9. The culvert appears to be covered under the provided storm water specification. In that specification there is a reference to Section 03 30 00 Cast in Place Concrete but no such specification for this project is provided. Is it intended that these culverts are to be cast in place, if so will the intended CIP specification be provided? Yes.

10. Is precast an option? Not for bidding purposes.

11. What is the intended depth of the lowered water line? (42” to top of pipe?) See revised sheet 4, Site Plan, lowering waterline, for final cover of the proposed waterline to be 42” to the top of pipe.

12. Will the specifications for the connection materials needed for the waterline be provided? The materials for the waterline connections are as per industry standard, see attached Las Cruces Water Line Lowering.

13. Blow off valve. There does not appear to be any specifications, details or responsibility for connection of the proposed blow off valve? See revised drawings for correction: the existing blow off assembly is not a blow off valve. A Mueller gate valve is connected to the main 12” waterline with a ductile iron spool then rises up to above ground elevation with a 45-degree fitting and DI spool; once above ground there is a 90-degree bend fitting with a flap (Mueller) to direct discharge into the arroyo.

14. What is the communication line made up of (fiber optic, CAT type, Coax, etc..)? What is the minimum depth? Who is responsible for the communication line and conduit connections? Is there any conduit currently? If so, what type? The existing duct contains the following: 1 each 100 pair copper; 1 each 50 pair copper; 1 each 48 strand fiber optic cable. The contractor shall remove and replace both copper lines as necessary to accommodate the proposed vertical relocation, min. 2 ft depth.

No splicing will be acceptable. Provide concrete encasement as per the 13A Standard.

15. Will the governments Hydraulic Analysis for this drainage be provided? No

16. Existing topography and Design Elevations No question

17. Since no site survey or topography information is given and is required to be performed by the contractor, is there any relief language in the contract indemnifying the contractor of liability for project performance? For instance, without existing elevations, what certification is given that the proposed culverts will receive proper cover depth of the fill material, base and pavement? The contractor is responsible for construction of the project as per contract documents (scope of work, drawings, and specifications). At any time, the contractor has the right to notify the KO of any discrepancies with the project requirements upon new survey information. With the example given, the proper cover depth of the fill material, base and pavement required is certified because there are there are already 3 existing culverts with no problem.

18. With the considerable widening of the culverts at the roadway and the drainage ditch narrowing back to existing width approximately 300’ downstream, will the contractor be responsible for erosion control and bank scouring at this tapered point during construction and during the 1 year performance period? No;

the widening of the arroyo will actually dissipate the velocity and energy of the flows through the existing arroyo; thus, reducing its vulnerability to erosion and scouring.

19. Will there be relief/negotiation for any changes that are necessary from what is currently shown on plans and what will be mapped and checked after surveying is complete? No; there will be no changes to this project.

20. There is a call out for proposed guardrail on the plan sheets. How will the guardrail posts be installed over the proposed culverts? Install guardrails as per NMDOT Standard Drawing 606-GR31-16/20, “Drainage Structure Protection System” with W-beam guardrail attached to parapet wall of headwall when above culvert.

21. Does this proposed bypass road need to be paved? Yes, see Amendment 1, Bypass Road.

22. Is there a minimum storm water runoff volume requirement for culverts on this bypass? The contractor shall replace existing culverts with 6 new culverts.

23. Can the bypass simply divert down to the existing flowline of the ditch without utilizing culverts? No, the contractor shall construct the bypass road as per Amendment 1.

24. Does the Government have any estimated quantities for this project? The contractor can calculate quantities from dimensions given.

25. It does not appear that there is enough existing gabions to be removed and replaced to cover what is shown on the proposed plans. Do the existing gabions match what is being specified in the Technical Specifications for the proposed gabions? Correct, the existing gabions are shown on sheet 3, Demolition Plan with dimensions; subtract them from the proposed gabions shown on sheet 4, Site Plan to calculate the required amount of new gabions. Provide new gabions to meet specification Section 31 36 00, Wire Mesh Gabions.

26. Has the State of New Mexico and the New Mexico Society of Professional Land Surveyors been contacted in regards to removing and replacing the existing survey monument? This question is “N/A” since they do not have any jurisdiction in WSMR. We have our own National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Support Branch; they have been notified of the project disturbing the survey monument and they are willing to coordinate with the contractor to reset the monument as per key note 6.

27. Based on the plans, it does not appear as though the proposed apron of the box culverts will extend far enough to encompass the existing location of the survey monument. Will there be any necessary considerations made to extend the apron to the location of the survey monument or considerations made to the construction of the apron to ensure that the monument does not move, settle or shift after construction? A 7.62’ x 5’ extension to the concrete apron is shown on the Site Plan for the survey monument, keyed note 6. See revised drawing for clarification of the monument’s concrete base.

28. It is not impossible to attach W‐beam guardrail to the concrete parapet wall; this application exists on the north arroyo crossing with Owen Road. There is a similar application on the concrete wall barrier details but I do not want to confuse contractors with an additional drawing.

THE CONTRACTOR TO ATTACH W‐BEAM GUARDRAIL TO PARAPET WALL USING SPACER BLOCKS

AND ONE 7/8" HTS BOLT REQUIRED FOR THE ATTACHMENT TO THE CONCRETE BARRIER.

LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. HOLES FOR BOLTS SHALL BE 1 INCH DIAMETER AND

SHALL BE EITHER FORMED OR CORE DRILLED

29. THE LENGTH OF THE BOX CULVERTS IS 52 LF; THE ELEVATION SHALL MATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THE CULVERTS BEING REPLACED. THE NEW CULVERTS WERE CORRECTED TO MATCH EXISTING CULVERT SIZE: 5' RISE x 6' SPAN OPENING. THE 14" HIGH CURB ABOVE HEADWALL THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CALLED OUT FOR IS CHANGED TO A 36" PARAPET WALL ABOVE HEADWALL IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE

GUARDRAILS.

30. DUE TO CLASSIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING COMMUNICATION LINE, KEYED NOTE 3 IS

DELETED FROM THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. THE LOWERING/RELOCATION OF THE

COMMUNICATION LINE WILL BE HANDLED BY WSMR ASAP

(End of Summary of Changes)