W912DS24R0004 0001.pdf

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 purpose of this amendment is to: 1) extend the due date to 04 December 2023, 2) update attachment 3, 3) provide Appendices N and O,

4) revised descriptions of CLINs 0003 and 0004 and 5) provide responses to contractor RFIs.

NOTE: Offerors must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by the date specified in the proposal (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods: in the space provided on SF1442, by separate letter, or by signing block 15 below . FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENTS BY THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS (FAR 15.208).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 65

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912DS24R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Oct-2023

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

06-Nov-2023

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 16-300

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

AMENDMENT to DRAWINGS and SPECIFICATIONS for Repair BMEWS Power, Bldg 4016, Pituffik SB, GL.

TO OFFERORS

The following changes shall be made to the drawings and specifications.

DRAWINGS

1. The following DRAWINGS have been REVISED but NOT REISSUED:

- None

2. The following DRAWINGS have been REVISED and REISSUED:

- None

3. The following DRAWINGS have been ADDED:

- None

4. The following DRAWINGS have been DELETED:

- None

SPECIFICATIONS

1. The following SPECIFICATION SECTIONS have been ADDED and are provided in their entirety herein:

- Appendix N – BDA Waiver

- Appendix O – Pacer Goose Instructions

2. The following SPECIFICATIONS SECTIONS have been DELETED in their entirety:

- None

3. The following SPECIFICATIONS SECTIONS have been REVISED and REISSUED:

- Section 00 10 00 – Bid schedule – is hereby replaced in its entirety.

4. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been REVISED but NOT REISSUED:

- Section 00 22 10 – Attachment #3 – replace the 1st paragraph in its entirety with the following: “Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.”

- Section 00 22 10 – revise sub-paragraph 5.1.2 that refers to “Relevant Magnitude” with the following “Relevant Magnitude projects of at least forty (40) million dollars in construction value.”

Section 01 00 00 General Requirements – Replace paragraph 3 in its entirety with “NOT USED”

RFIs Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors and/or the Government and that are not readily answered by the proceeding changes will appear below. These questions may have been paraphrased or altered to represent several questions regarding the same subject and/or simply revised to clarify and simplify the question(s). Questions and answers are issued to the Offerors “for information only” and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.

1. Due to complexity of the project we request proposal due date extension till 20 January 2014 to assure best pricing and approach.

RESPONSE: Please refer to revised due date on SF1442

2. The Government states this RFP is open to US Firms. To clarify the Government means that only companies incorporated and headquartered in the US are allowed to Prime this opportunity.

RESPONSE: Yes, only companies incorporated and headquartered in the US are allowed to be the prime for this opportunity.

3. Section 00 10 00 #9 Note states that offerors are to review the DBA waiver, please provide the DBA waiver form.

RESPONSE: Copy of the DBA waiver is included as part of this amendment.

4. The RFP states that all Offerors must sign the included Non-Disclosure Agreement in order to obtain required drawings. Are there drawings that need to be accessed in addition to those currently provided on SAM.gov?

RESPONSE: Yes - Drawings pertaining to the HEMP Shield/Filters will be sent to qualified recipient upon receipt of signed NDA documents.

5. 5.1 Factor 1 – Past Performance Submission Requirements & Attachment 2, the requirement states that the offeror is to provide past performance information using the past performance questionnaire. Assuming that this is Attachment 2, would the Government please provide a separate fillable copy of this form?

RESPONSE: The PPQ is Attachment 2. Unfortunately, the Government does not possess a fillable copy.

6. 5.1 Factor 1 – Past Performance Submission Requirements, the requirement states that CPARS shall be submitted for projects, when available. Does the Government require CPARS to be submitted in addition to Attachment 2, or in lieu of Attachment 2?

RESPONSE: As noted in the solicitation CPARS, when available, are required in addition to Attachment #2.

7. 5.1 Factor 1 – Past Performance Submission Requirement, the requirement states that the offeror is to provide past performance information using the past performance questionnaire. It is not clear how Attachment 3 is to be included in the submission. Please clarify whether each Attachment 3 submitted requires a PPQ, and if so, which order within the Past Performance factor document the Government would like to see the Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. RESPONSE: Attachment 2 and 3 are required for each project submitted.

8. Attachment 3 – Specialized Experience. Would the Government please provide a separate fillable copy of Attachment 3?

RESPONSE: The Government does not possess a fillable copy.

9. Attachment 3 – Specialized Experience. Attachment 3 requires examples of projects within the last six years.

Section 5.1.2 of the RFP (page 17) allows submissions for projects completed no later than ten (10) years preceding the date of the solicitation. Would the Government please amend Attachment 3 to state ten years instead of 6 years?

RESPONSE: Please refer to revised heading for Attachment #3 as revised in this amendment above.

10. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit a Danish or Greenlandic Subcontracting Plan for all non-HEMP work. Is this plan to be included in the 20-page limit for this Factor?

RESPONSE: Yes.

11. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. Should the subcontracting plan also include non- Danish/Greenlandic subcontractors as well?

RESPONSE: Yes, for all work related to HEMP portion of the requirement.

12. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit a signed teaming agreement with the Danish or Greenlandic subcontractor performing all non-HEMP work. May the teaming agreement be excluded from the 20-page limit for this Factor?

RESPONSE: Yes

13. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit verification of subcontractor registration in the Kingdom of Denmark. Since the Offeror has little or no control over the length of this verification statement, may this document be excluded from the 20-page limit for this Factor?

RESPONSE: Yes

14. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit information to establish that more than 50 percent of a Danish or Greenlandic firm’s equity is, and shall continue to be, owned by a Danish and/or Greenlandic individuals or legal entities. May this information also be excluded from the 20-page limit for this Factor?

RESPONSE: Yes

15. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit information to establish that a non-Danish or non-Greenlandic individual or legal entity does not, and shall not, have a “decisive influence” over a Danish or Greenlandic firm. May this information also be excluded from the 20-page limit for this Factor? RESPONSE: Yes.

16. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. In the Organization Approach instructions, Offerors are required to submit a signed letter from a Danish or Greenlandic bank certifying banking service for each Danish or Greenlandic subcontractor verifying that the company conducts business with that institution. Since the Offeror has little or no control over the length of this verification statement, may this information also be excluded from the 20-page limit for this Factor?

RESPONSE: Yes.

17. 5.3 Factor 3 – Organizational/Technical Approach. The Organization Approach instructions state that the successful offeror will be required to subcontract all CLIN 1 work as well as any other non-HEMP work to Danish or Greenlandic firms. Would the Government please clarify their meaning of “work” – is it labor only or is it inclusive of labor and all materials and ODCs? RESPONSE: It is inclusive of Labor/Materials/ODCs.

18. Clause 52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR states Contractor must perform 20% of the work. How does the Government want to see this 20% minimum work guarantee represented in the proposal?

RESPONSE: This should be represented in Volume 2 Tab C under Self Work. A chart or statement should be included with all the vendors involved in this requirement along with the percentage of work for each vendor.

19. Section 01 Special Requirements The RFP states "Contractor shall not enter into any first tier subcontracts =>$1M without first obtaining Contracting Officer approval. Does this approval require for subcontractors that are submitted as teammates in the proposal or new subcontractors proposed post award?

RESPONSE: Paragraph has been revised as noted above removing this requirement. .

20. Is the Offeror to fill-out and submit Reps and Certs, and fillable contract clauses, with their submission? If so, in what volume shall they be submitted?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Offeror will fill out and submit Reps and Certs and all relevant contract clauses on the SF1442 for submission. This information should be submitted in Volume 1.

21. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” Section 00 21 00 “Non-Disclosure Agreement.” Clause defines “All Offerors will sign the attached NDA and submit with their proposal. Drawings will not be issued prior to receipt of signed NDA’s” Drawing package exclude all drawings related to HEMP, as stated on the drawing index, and NDA is first to be forwarded as part of the proposal. How shall the Offerors price Item2 HEMP enclosure and associated features, without the drawings? Further the included NDA in W912DS24R0004 seems also only for execution purpose, and not to release drawings for pricing.

RESPONSE: ONLY US Prime Contractors will be provided the HEMP Drawings.

22. With reference to tender package 2 J-Plant and HEMP Specifications. Within the specification package, we have not been able to find specifications for the HEMP enclosure/shield to be priced under item 2. Is it correct understood that the launched tender package excludes these specifications, and if confirmative, how shall the Offerors price Item 2 HEMP enclosure and associated features, without the specifications?

RESPONSE: HEMP Specifications are located under Section 13 27 54 of the Specification.

23. Eligible HEMP contractor. Since HEMP enclosure/shield is to be provided by an U.S. firm, it is required teaming with a contractor complying to this requirement. With reference to our inquiries it has not been possible to inspect HEMP tender documents yet, and we then are not able to identify which firm has been involved in preparation of this part of the tender documents. Please clarify if any HEMP contractor/ supplier has been involved in preparation of this tender, and if confirmative please clarify which firm(s)? Before teaming with HEMP firm, we will then be able to ensure, that we are teaming with eligible firm(s) for the bid.

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, the Government is not able to divulge which US Firms will be bidding the project.

24. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” Cover sheet item 13A – Offer to be submitted latest 20 Nov 2023. This tender requires site visit, teaming between U.S. HEMP contractor and several (specialist) Danish/Greenlandic subcontractors, material supplies from the US, a comprehensive technical proposal, and internal approvals within team and firms. Our evaluation of the tender documents launched 20th October 2023 is, that it is impossible to prepare this tender incl. price and technical proposal within 30 days, unless Offeror had several months ahead for teaming and tender preparation works. Examples: Works must be executed as a combination of U.S. firms and Danish/Greenlandic firms. W912DS24R000 “Solicitation, offer and Award” clause 52.237-27 describe. “Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.” Before this site visit can done, all teaming between prime contractor/subcontractors must be in place, security clearance of attending persons received, and tickets for flights booked (only few flights per month with limited seatings). As listed in previously inquiries, at this time HEMP drawings/specification is not available for bidders. We request date of offer changed to earliest 20th February 2024.

RESPONSE: Please refer to revised due date as noted on SF1442.

25. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” Section 00 10 00 Solicitation. Item 0001 to Item 0007 shall be priced (Item 0006 pre-priced). We understand HEMP enclosure/shield to be executed by U.S. firm and remaining works by Danish/Greenlandic firms. Is it correct understood that U.S firm to price and execute only item 0002 and remaining items to be priced / executed by Danish/Greenlandic firms?

RESPONSE: The prime contractor is responsible for submission of complete offer with the collaboration of their subcontractors, as stipulated in this solicitation.

26. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” Section 00 10 00 Solicitation. This tender package does not include a more detailed description what to be priced under the different items, and we cannot identify the item for the new permanent J-Plant generators. Is it correct understood that all new permanent generators including accessories shall be delivered / installed by Danish/Greenlandic firm and priced under item 0004? Assume error in item 0004 indicating M-Plant, and it should be J-Plant!

Response: CLIN 0004 changed from M-Plant to J-Plant as noted in this amendment.

27. Contract categorization. We have not been able to identify exact how this contract is categorized within the tender documents. Is it correct understood that this contract is categorized as a “Design, Bid & Build” contract?

RESPONSE: This solicitation is a Request for Proposal (RFP) with fully designed plans and specifications, Best Value Trade-off.

28. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” – “Total Notes” item 2 “Proposals must be in US dollars. We understand a mismatch compared to Section 01 00 00 clause 1.33 “Exchange Rate”.

Since, with US and Danish/Greenlandic firms, there will be cost in both USD and DKK. Is it correct understood, that offer to be priced in US Dollars, all payments will be in US Dollars and any deviation in the exchange rates between US Dollars and DKK during the contract period, will be the Offeror/Contractors risk?

RESPONSE: The contract will be awarded in USD to US Prime contractor; any agreements and payments with/to DK/GL subcontractors will be part of US Prime contractor strategy.

29. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” Cover sheet item 13D – Binding offer for 180 calendar days. Offer will include large portions of cost in both USD and DKK. If offer and all payments will be in USD, without any adjustment to actual exchange rate between USD and DKK, this period is an extremely high risk for the Offeror, which then will be transferred into the offered amount. We request/suggest the binding period of the offer to be reduced to 30 calendar days and in any case not more than 90 calendar days. A reduced binding period will as well allow for the requested longer tender period.

RESPONSE: The Government will leave this item at 180 Calendar Days.

30. With reference to document: W912DS24R0004 “Solicitation, offer and Award” – 52.211-12 Liquidated Damages.

Clause defines liquidated damages of $14,371.00 per calendar without limitation/cap. Consider weather conditions at Pituffik Space Base, only sealifts during summer etc. this is a very high risk. Since their always will be generators securing power supply, we do not see a requirement for unlimited delay damages. We request the maximum / cap, to be 10% of contract amount for liquidated damages under 52.211-12.

RESPONSE: The Liquidated Damages will remain as stated in the solicitation.

31. In the specification, there are several areas that require work by a licensed Professional Engineer Much of these references are in non-HEMP construction taskings. Since Professional Engineer licensure is via U.S. state licensing agencies, it may not be possible for a Danish or Greenlandic citizen to perform this work. Allow for a Danish/Greenlandic equivalent to P.E., or provide guidance on how Danish/ Greenlandic law applies to the Specification’s non-HEMP activities of this type that imply U.S. person performance.

RESPONSE: The intent is to have the licensed Engineer verify the work is completed in accordance with the specification. A blanket exemption cannot be granted, an example of such scenario is the Fire protection, it must be FPE person signing off on the drawings, however Danish contractor can perform the installation.

32. CLIN 0003 lists supplies and services to be provided for purchase and installation of Electrical Switchgear and relays within M-Plant. If this CLIN is applicable to J-Plant rather than M-Plant, does scope for the switchgear and relays to be provided include both temporary and permanent infrastructure?

RESPONSE: Its understood that the reference is to CLIN 0004 and not 0003. CLIN 0004 description has been revised in this amendment to properly refer to J-Plant. The intent of CLIN 0004 is to include the permanent electrical switchgear and relays within J-Plant. The temporary power generators are to be connected to the existing switchgear within B4012 as noted on the drawings.

33. The Evaluation criteria for Factor 1 Past Performance states that to be considered relevant in magnitude, projects must have at least 80 million dollars in construction value. We are not aware of any construction projects of that value at Pituffik over the previous 10 years, so it may not be possible to meet the magnitude criteria and also gain additional consideration for experience working at Pituffik, therefore limiting competition. Would the Government consider lowering the value of the Relevant Magnitude criteria to 40 million dollars?

RESPONSE: Please refer to revised acceptable project magnitude as noted in this amendment. For a project to be considered relevant in magnitude it does not need to be at Pituffik, as long as the project is similar in scope it will qualify, furthermore, arctic experience does not need to be at Pituffik, it can be from other arctic regions.

34. Evaluation Criteria for Factor 3 states, “The successful offeror will be required to subcontract all CLIN 1 work as well as any other non-HEMP work to Danish of Greenlandic forms as described above.” Are any contractors or subcontractors that interface with or touch part of the HEMP enclosure system in their performance of work, to include the shielded conduit from Bldg 4002, required to be U.S. firms? RESPONSE: The intent is to maximize work performed by Danish/Greenlandic contractors, however, any non-HEMP work touching or interfacing with HEMP must be performed by a US contractor.

35. Last sentence in 5.1.2 states, “Projects must meet Relevant Scope and Relevant Complexity Requirements to be evaluated.” Relevant scope is defined as an industrial facility of at least 50,000 SF and Construction of HEMP envelopes. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, for a Danish subcontractor to have prime contract experience on a project that involves constructing U.S.-approved HEMP enclosures. RESPONSE: The requirement of the solicitation does not imply HEMP component to be part of every submitted project. It is understood that Danish subcontractors may not have US-approved HEMP related projects.

36. Last sentence in 5.1.2 states, “Projects must meet Relevant Scope and Relevant Complexity Requirements to be evaluated.” Relevant complexity is defined as a project involving disciplines including HEMP architecture and others. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, for a Danish subcontractor to have prime contract experience on a project that involves U.S.-approved HEMP architecture. Do all of the listed disciplines need to be present in each past performance reference?

RESPONSE: The requirement of the solicitation does not imply HEMP component to be part of every submitted project. It is understood that Danish subcontractors may not have US-approved HEMP related projects.

Relevant complexity does not need to have all the disciplines in one example project, however the more disciplines it has more relevant it will be.

37. Last sentence in 5.1.2 states, “Projects must meet Relevant Scope and Relevant Complexity Requirements to be evaluated.” Para. 5.1.2.1 states “The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the contractor.” Will the three-to-five past performances be evaluated collectively or individually? In other words, if one or more but less than the total number of past performances submitted meet the relevant magnitude criteria, would that still qualify for a Very Relevant assessment of magnitude? Or if a single project reference did not meet relevant scope and complexity, would that single project be excluded from further evaluation, or do the projects in total need to cover all scope and complexity requirements between them?

RESPONSE: Every submitted project will be evaluated against the criteria individually. Given the complexity and criticality of this project the Government needs to assure that a qualified and experienced firm is awarded this contract. Several small unrelated to each other projects put together do NOT equate to complexity of this procurement. Similarly, one large project not relevant in scope and complexity, would NOT qualify. The factor rating is determined by evaluation of all projects submitted, however, as per solicitation ‘Projects must meet Relevant Scope and Relevant Complexity Requirements to be evaluated. However, a Project will be considered more relevant the more criteria that are met.”

38. For Factor 1, Para 5.1.2 states, “Contractor should submit at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects total.”

For Factor 3, Para. 5.3 states, “For each of the major Danish or Greenlandic subcontractor the Offeror shall submit three (3) projects that they have completed as part of Factor 2, Past Performance. Shall a subset of the contract information provided for Factor 1 be repeated in the Factor 3 subcontractor plan? If so, which pertinent details are required in addition to the dollar value, work performed at Pituffik, and experience working together? Shall the information in Factor 3 be in any specified format, or can it be provided in a format at the discretion of the offeror?

RESPONSE: It is at the discretion of the offeror to determine which projects are included in factor 3, in addition to those in factor 1. Factor 3 allows the prime to supplement their subs experience with other relevant projects otherwise not meeting the requirements of factor 2. Format of the submission is at the discretion of the offeror, it should be organized in such a way that clearly outlines the value ($) of the project as well as subs experience and capabilities. Its always considered a benefit if as many of the above mentioned pertinent information are included.

REVISED BID SCHEDULE

AMOUNT

J Plant Renovation

FFP

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for the Renovation of J-Plant as described in the plans and specifications except for work included in items below. FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE

0001 1 Job

Construction of HEMP enclosure

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for construction of HEMP enclosure and associated HEMP features (special penetrations, filters) include HEMP conduit to Bldg 4012 as described in plans and specifications.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

Power Generators

FFP

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for construction of temporary power generators during construction inclusive of plant operators for the construction duration as described in plans and specifications FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

AMOUNT

Electrical Switchgear

FFP

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for purchase and installation of Electrical Switchgear and relays within J-Plant, to include all connecting cables as described in plans and specifications.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE

0003 1 Job

0004 1 Job

Construction of remaining site work

FFP

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for construction of remaining site work (5 ft outside of J-Plant) as well as water storage tank as described in the plans and specifications.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

AMOUNT

Drawing Submission

FFP

All work for the Final Record Drawing Submission. This line item is pre-priced (USD 250,000.00) and cannot be changed.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

$250,000.00

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE

0005 1 Job

0006 1 Job

OPTION FF&E

All work associated with procurement delivery and installation of Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment (FF&E) as listed on the drawings. Optional CLIN 0007 may be exercised, if at all, at any time within 1095 calendar days after NTP. Execution of any optional items will not extend construction duration.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2EZ

NET AMT

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Nov-2023 02:00 PM to 04-Dec-2023 12:00 PM.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for construction of temporary power generators during construction as described in plans and specifications.

To:

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for construction of temporary power generators during construction inclusive of plant operators for the construction duration as described in plans and specifications.

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for purchase and installation of Electrical Switchgear and relays within M-Plant, to include all connecting cables as described in plans and specifications.

To:

All work (includes all plant, labor, and material) for purchase and installation of Electrical Switchgear and relays within J-Plant, to include all connecting cables as described in plans and specifications.

0007 1 Job

The following have been modified:

TOTALS/NOTES

NOTES:

1. All goods must be wrapped accordingly. It should be protected to withstand handling as well as storage and transportation by sea. Due to packing in containers, in warehouse and on ship every package must be able to withstand a pressure from above of at least its own weight. If you have any questions on shipping from Denmark, please contact US Embassy in Copenhagen, Patrick King by e-mail:

patrick.king.23@spaceforce.mil.

2. Proposals must be in US dollars.

3. Offerors are required to submit a price on all the Base and all the Optional Items or their proposals will be rejected.

4. Offerors are reminded that they must submit a price on the issued plans and specifications as amended. Any deviations, conditions or attachments made by the offeror himself, thereto, may render the proposal non-responsive and be cause for its rejection.

5. Line item 0006 is pre-priced at USD $250,000.00 and this price shown may not be changed. This price is set by the Government as assurance to receive final drawings, it may not reflect the actual effort of developing final set. Offerors are to include the balance of actual effort in CLIN 0001, whether credit or additional cost.

6. The Basis of Evaluation will be the proposal that represents the overall value based on price and non-price factors combined.

7. The Offer Acceptance Period is as stated on the Standard Form 1442.

8. The Government shall provide transportation from Norfolk, VA to Pituffik, AB via sealift at no cost to the contractor. All other transportation shall be at the contractor’s expense.

9. Offerors are advised to review the attached DBA waiver along with the DBA clauses to ensure the requirements of the solicitation are met.

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

(a) Definition.

Electronic proposal, as used in this provision, means a proposal, revision or modification of a proposal, or withdrawal of a proposal that is transmitted to and received by the Government via electronic commerce (see FAR Subpart 4.5 -- Electronic Commerce in Contracting).

(b) Offerors may submit electronic proposals as responses to this solicitation. Electronic proposals are subject to the same rules as paper proposals.

(c) The format for electronic proposals in this solicitation is PDF documents sent via email ONLY to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, as listed below:

Adrian.J.Stafford-Browne@usace.army.mil Francis.Cashman@usace.army.mil

File size is limited to 25MB per email. It is advised to submit e-mail 2 hours in advance to ensure the proposal is submitted timely.

Submit proposals no later than 2:00PM EST on 04 December 2023.

If a proposal received at the Government facility by electronic data interchange is unreadable to the degree that conformance to the essential requirements of the solicitation cannot be ascertained, the Contracting Officer immediately shall notify the Offeror that the proposal will be rejected unless the Offeror provides clear and convincing evidence –

(1) Of the content of the bid as originally submitted; and

(2) That the unreadable condition of the bid was caused by Government software or hardware error, malfunction, or other Government mishandling.

The resubmission shall be considered as if it were received at the date and time of the original unreadable submission for the purpose of determining timeliness, provided the offeror complies with the time and format requirements for resubmission prescribed by the Contracting Officer.

The Government reserves the right to make award solely on the electronic bid. However, if requested to do so by the Contracting Officer, the apparently successful offeror promptly shall submit the complete original signed proposal.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

Potential Offerors are reminded that only the minimum documents are required for bid submission:

1. Signed 1442.

2. Acknowledged amendments.

3. Filled out schedule and totals.

4. Technical proposals

5. Bid Bonds

6. Offerors must check off box (d) in 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (DEC 2019) for being on SAM.gov.

OFFEROR INQUIRIES

Submission of inquiries will open on 20 October 2023. Please submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via email to adrian.j.stafford-browne@usace.army.mil and francis.cashman@usace.army.mil. Submission of inquires will close 27 November 2023 11:59 AM EDT. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received after this date. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this solicitation contains an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound;

immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to award this contract based on the initial bid, as received, without discussions. A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via e-mail, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through an amendment which will be posted on sam.gov as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION III

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD,

EVALUATION CRITERIA, RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITIONS

SECTION 00 22 10 -SELECTION PROCEDURES

AND BASIS OF AWARD

(Best Value Trade Off)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION

FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION

AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL / TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL

DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

6.2 TAB B – BID BOND

6.3 TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.3 DEFINITIONS

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME

CONTRACTOR OR KEY

SUBCONTRACTOR

4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

1. OVERVIEW

This is a "Best Value Trade Off" solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 for the Construction of the J-Plant located at Pituffik AB, Pituffik, Greenland. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible firm, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2. BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. This is a Best Value Trade Off procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer have determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within an acceptable range. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government will be performed in two steps. The price used in the initial trade-off analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and option CLINS 0001-0007. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must have no less than an acceptable rating in the technical factors and no less than a neutral or satisfactory confidence rating in past performance. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror.

2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate strengths in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government.

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS & MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA

3.1. Submit proposals initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that firms will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials:

Note: Proposals shall be submitted electronically. Refer to Section 00 21 13 – Instructions to Offerors, for complete instructions on submitting proposal electronically.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11 inch size. Schedules, Drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17 inch paper, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch margins all around.

Instructions for Submitting Electronic Proposals (see additional instructions in Section 00 21 13 – Instructions to Offerors): All proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist (adrian.j.stafford-browne@usace.army.mil and Contracting Officer (francis.cashman@usace.army.mil). Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to five

(5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

3.3. VOLUME

3.4. MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently- proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract.

This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions under Factor 1:

1. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror”.

2. In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3. In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

4. In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

5. In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience may be submitted by any segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this RFP provided the Offeror has access to these resources.

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

A Factor 1: Past Performance No page limit

B Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule 20

C Factor 3: Organizational / Technical Approach 20

2 A Price (Standard Form 1442 & Contract Line Item Schedule) No page limit

2 B Bid Guarantee No page limit

2 C Self-Performed Work No page limit

6. In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

4. PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, RATINGS,

AND ELEMENTS

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance Vol 1 TAB A Factor 1 Past Performance Factors 1-3 are in descending order of importance.

Vol 1 TAB B Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration & Summary Schedule

Vol 1 TAB C Factor 3 Organizational/Technical Approach

4.2 VOLUME 2 – PRICE

Vol 2 Factor 4 Price, Bid Guarantee & Self-

Performed Work All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

EVALUATION RATINGS:

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the SSAC will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to present their findings to the SSA.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

Table 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

Table 2

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Technical Factor Rating System

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal", or "Unacceptable" to each factor and subfactor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria:

Table 3

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Proposal is unawardable.

Award will not be made to any firm receiving below an acceptable rating for this factor.

5. VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: This Volume also includes a Phasing and Summary Schedule for the contract duration with narrative showing all the elements described below, and Organizational/Technical Approach.

5.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror will provide past performance information on relevant projects (see section below on Relevant Past Performance) submitted using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.