MSEC- Building 606 - Amendment 1 - RFIs - 20 Aug 25.pdf

PROJECT TITLE: REPAIR BLDG. 606, GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING,

MATH AND SYSTEM ENGINEERING CENTER (MSEC).

PROJECT LOCATION: WEST POINT, NY

W912DS23R0009

AMENDMENT 0001 for REPAIR BLDG. 606, GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING, MATH AND

SYSTEM ENGINEERING CENTER (MSEC).

TO OFFERORS

A site walk through is scheduled for 04 September at 1000 AM EST. Meet on Thayer Road east of Building 606. Allow enough time to obtain a visitor’s pass, if necessary, at South Post.

Instructions for are posted on https://www.westpoint.edu/gateway-for-visitors#all.

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

DRAWINGS:

1. The following DRAWINGS have been REVISED and REISSUED:

None

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

3. The following DRAWINGS have been ADDED:

4. The following DRAWINGS have been DELETED:

SPECIFICATIONS:

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

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

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

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

PROPOSER’S QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY

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.

BIDDER INQUIRY#1:

Past Performance Timeframe Extension - The evaluation states: “All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience, which means that completion should be no more than seven (7) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.” To provide the government with the most accurate representation of our firm’s expertise and capabilities—while also meeting the intent of the solicitation requirements—we respectfully request that the allowable experience window be expanded from seven (7) years to ten (10) years preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation.

RESPONSE#1:

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE Revise Para. “Also include performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition” TO “Also include performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.”

AND

4.3.2 RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE Revise Para. “All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that completion should be no more than seven (7) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.” TO “All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that completion should be no more than ten (10) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.”

BIDDER INQUIRY#2:

Federal vs. Non-Federal Project Preference - The evaluation criteria allow for both federal and commercial (non-federal) projects under Factor 1 – Past Performance. Please confirm whether federal projects will be weighted more favorably than non-federal projects during the evaluation, even when commercial projects meet the stated relevancy requirements.

RESPONSE#2:

Non-federal projects will be weighted the same as federal projects, although as per the selection criteria “additional consideration” may be given for “[p]rojects showing past experience working with USACE..”

BIDDER INQUIRY#3:

Prioritization of Relevancy Elements - Section 4.3.2 lists several attributes that may contribute to project relevancy under Factor 1 (e.g., historic preservation, structural reinforcement, USACE experience). Please clarify whether if any specific elements are considered of higher priority or will carry greater evaluation weight than the others listed for this project.

RESPONSE#3:

Factor 1 project relevancy attributes are all weighted equally.

BIDDER INQUIRY#4:

Page Limit Increase for Factors 2 and 3 - The solicitation sets page limits for Factors 2 and 3 at fifteen (15) pages each. These sections are critical for demonstrating our firm’s understanding of the project and our unique execution plan. Given that this is a one-step procurement with limited opportunity for collaboration with USACE and West Point leadership, we respectfully request that the page limits for Factors 2 and 3 be increased from a maximum of fifteen (15) pages to a maximum of twenty (20) pages each.

RESPONSE#4:

The solicitation sets page limits for Factors 2 and 3 at fifteen (15) pages each. This limit remains unchanged.

BIDDER INQUIRY#5:

Existing Building Information - To support accurate planning and risk assessment, please confirm whether any existing documentation for Building 606—such as as-builts, previous construction records, surveys, or assessments—is available for offeror review.

RESPONSE#5:

The solicitation documents include sufficient information for bid.

BIDDER INQUIRY#6:

Looking through the documents for this project I did not see a date to submit any RFI’s, please advise so I can add it to my calendar.

RESPONSE#6:

RFIs may be submitted now. The current suspense for all RFIs is 15 September 25 5:00 PM EST.

BIDDER INQUIRY#7:

Please confirm escalation will be allowed for the past performance projects that were completed years ago and please provide the allowed escalation percentages per year if allowed.

RESPONSE#7:

As per the solicitation “Similar magnitude is defined as projects greater than $75,000,000.” Escalation will NOT be used to determine the magnitude of each project.