sf30-19r2-am1.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 2

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

AM-0001 17 Sep 2019

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

CECT – Contracting Division USACE, Honolulu District Bldg 252 (CECT-POH) Ft Shafter, HI 96858-5440

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) (x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9128A-19-R-0002 X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08/23/2019

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 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [ X ] 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 __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 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 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.

(x) 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.)

$300M Small Business Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) For Design-Bid-Build Construction Services for the State of Hawaii

See Page 2 of 2 Pages

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Am-0001 Standard Form 30

RFP No. W9128A-19-R-0002 Page 2 of 2 Pages

Item No. 14 (Continued)

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS. Attached hereto are new, revised and delected sections to the specifications. Revised pages replace like-numbered pages. The revision mark (Am-0001) is shown on each revised page.

A. REVISED SECTIONS. The following are sections were revised and changes are in bold and red colored font.

Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.3.1

B. ADDITIONS TO SECTION: The following sections were added to a section:

Section 00 60 00, Requests for Information, #1 to 18

2. The proposal due date remains unchanged. See SF 1442, Block 13.

W9128A-19-R-0002

Section 00 22 16 – Page 16

(Am-0001)

- Comparison of proposed prices with the Government Estimate

Evaluation criteria for this price factor will include data from the Sample Project Proposal Schedule. If deemed necessary, the Government will request price breakdown information to assist in price evaluation.

The Sample Project Proposal Schedule shall be provided as if it were a real project. A price analysis and/or price realism will be conducted and Offerors should be prepared to provide price breakdown information upon Contracting Officer’s request.

The Offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of its proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Any tradeoffs among price and technical will be based on the total price proposed for the sample project.

6.3 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME 2)

6.3.1 Price Proposal.

Submit the Price Proposal in read-only PDF format. The only documents that can be scanned are the

SF1442, acknowledgement of amendments, and a letter from the surety for bonding capability. Sections of the proposal shall be bookmarked (linked to the index) in logical order.

Offerors shall submit the price proposal in a second envelope that is clearly marked, “PRICE

PROPOSAL, VOLUME 2, RFP NO. W9128A-19-R-0002.”

Offerors shall submit the price proposal documentation on:

Five (5) hard copies (1 original and 4 copies) One (1) hard copy; and

One (1) CD ROM as one separate PDF file titled:

W9128A-19-R-0002_COMPANY NAME_PRICE PROPOSAL

6.3.1.1 Size Restrictions and Page Limits. The following are established for each factor:

Factor 5 Price: Proposal Schedule and Sample Project (no page limit)

Proposal material shall be submitted in PDF format. Do not use a font size smaller than 10 pitch, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8-

1/2 inches x 11 inches.

6.3.1.2 Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs.

The Price Proposal shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of

Contents, as indicated in the following chart below.

$300M Small Business (SB) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Bid-Build Construction Services for the State of Hawaii

W9128A-19-R-0002

RFI # Question Government Response 1 Volume 1, Technical Proposal, Factor 3. Can we list the various positions that one

(1) individual is qualified to fill (i.e. John Doe qualifies as PM, PS, CQM, and QC Rep.)?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.3.1

For Volume 1, Factors 1 and 2, are we allowed to submit projects completed by a teaming partner (not a J/V) or prime subcontractor(s)?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.1.1, d.

3 Please confirm whether or not the government has any intention of awarding the sample project: REPAIR BY REPLACEMENT VARIOUS BUILDINGS

NEIGHBORHOOD, POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA (PTA), ISLAND OF HAWAII,

HAWAII

It is a sample project, and not a seed project. Award will not be made on a sample project.

Paragraph 5.2.2.c. says that “If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the proposal.”

USACE would gain the advantage of broader diversity of local small businesses able to submit proposals for this MATOC if the referenced sentence was changed to allow offerors to use projects from sister companies (i.e., subsidiary firms that share a parent and that are managed by the same president and executive leadership team) to demonstrate their relevant experience and past performance. Many DoD RFPs for construction/renovation IDIQ contracts of similar size and complexity to this MATOC allow offerors to use projects from predecessor and sister companies to demonstrate relevant experience and past performance so long as the offeror can clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. Would the USACE consider revising or clarifying the RFP to permit offerors to use projects from sister companies to demonstrate their relevant experience and past performance.

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.2.2.c

Section 00 60 00, Attachment A - Page 1

W9128A-19-R-0002

RFI # Question Government Response

Paragraph 5.1.1.c says that “In addition to Attachment A, the Offeror shall provide a narrative description of each contract included in its proposal within the page limitation per paragraph 3.4.4. Each narrative shall contain a clear explanation of how the contract is similar in size, scope, and complexity to that outlined in the solicitation.

At a minimum, each Offeror shall clearly demonstrate how the Offeror’s experience demonstrates the following: 1. Construction contracts involving new vertical construction of a new facility. 2. New and/or repair/renovation construction contracts demonstrating experience with sustainment, renovation, or modernization projects. 3.

New and/or repair/renovation construction contracts located within the State of Hawaii.”

We can, with our projects that are >$4,000,000 in size, demonstrate experience with items 1 and 2, but not item 3. Our organization has an office in Hawaii and has been performing as a prime contractor on DoD contracts for repair/renovation contracts in Hawaii for several years. We also can demonstrate experience in locations similar to Hawaii that are remote and/or logistically complex. Our Hawaii-based team can, using projects from sister companies (i.e., subsidiary firms that share a parent and that are managed by the same president and executive leadership team), demonstrate experience with item 3, but not with projects that are >$4,000,000. Would the USACE consider making the minimum size of relevant projects smaller (e.g., $2,000,000) or removing the requirement to demonstrate experience with relevant contracts located within the State of Hawaii?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.1.1.

If the above changes could be accommodated, could the proposal due date be extended?

The proposal due date remains unchanged.

Please clarify how many hardcopies and CDs are to be submitted for the Price Volume. Section 00 22 16 page 5 states 5 hardcopies and 1 CD, whereas page 16 states 1 hardcopy and 1 CD.

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 3.4.2, and Am-0001, Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.3.1

8 Factor 3 and Factor 4 both require we address teaming and contractual agreements for MATOC and sample project respectively. Should agreements such as teaming agreements or Letters of Commitment be included with the proposal? If so, please indicate where they should be included.

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.3

Is there a scheduled day and time for the site visit? If not, when is it anticipated?

No site visit will be held.

Section 00 60 00, Attachment A - Page 2

W9128A-19-R-0002

RFI # Question Government Response

Section 6.2.1 Basis for Evaluation states the following with regards to the sample project price.

The Sample Project Proposal Schedule may be subject to Proposal Analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine fairness and reasonableness of prices contained in the Sample Project Proposal Schedule. A price realism analysis will be applied in order to measure the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and/or to assess the risk inherent in an Offeror’s proposal. This includes the comparison of cost/price information from other proposals, information relative to market research, historical procurement data, and/or the Independent Government Estimate and, if necessary, further evaluation to determine fairness and reasonableness.

Section 6.2.2 Evaluation Criteria states the following with regards to the sample project price.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), a price analysis will be performed to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Price Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure the prices are fair and reasonable:

- Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation It has been our experience that sample project pricing for projects that will not be awarded, generate very low prices, since there is no risk that the project will be awarded.

Will the government compare sample project prices (that are determined to be reasonable) between offerors and then rank the prices highest price to lowest price?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.0.

If the government rates all other technical factors equally, would the government rate an offeror’s proposal with a lower sample project price more highly and one with a higher sample project price and thus be more likely to award the MATOC to the offeror with the lower sample project price?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.0, and 6.2.1

Will government only evaluate the sample project price for completeness, reasonableness and other criteria presented in Section 6 the RFP and not rank the sample project prices from highest to lowest to determine award of the MATOC?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 6.0

Section 00 60 00, Attachment A - Page 3

W9128A-19-R-0002

RFI # Question Government Response 13 Since this is a small business set aside contract we respectfully request that the dollar value of relevant construction project be reduced to $3 Million. Small contractors typically don't undertake numerous multi-million dollar projects over a 5 year span. Reducing to $3 Million would allow more small businesses the opportunity to submit a proposal and provide the USACE the ability to select from a larger pool of skilled contractors.

The dollar value of a relevant construction project remains the same.

14 Can we use a key subcontractor’s project to qualify as a relevant construction project please? We would appreciate if the USACE would accept at least 2 out of the 5 projects be from a key subcontractor. We will include a Letter of Commitment or a Teaming Agreement from the key subcontractor

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.1.2

Section 0 22 16, paragraph 6.3.1 states to provide one hard copy and one CD ROM for the Price Proposal. Section 00 22 16, paragraph 3.4.2 states to provide one CD ROM and 5 hard copies (1 original and 4 copies). Please clarify quantity of required hard copy price proposal.

See Am-0001, Answer to RFI #7

Faxed proposals are acceptable as per page 1 of 00 21 16. But then on page 3 of 00 22 16 it says that proposal sent via fax will not be accepted. Will emailed proposals be acceptable?

See Section 00 22 16, paragraph 1.4

17 Will there be a site visit? Date? Time? See Am-0001, Answer to RFI #9

Will the Sample project be awarded?

See Am-0001, Answer to RFI #3

Section 00 60 00, Attachment A - Page 4