AMENDMENT 0001.pdf

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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

W912P7

A-E GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERIG IDC/IDQ

See Continuation page of SF-30-Summary of changes for Amendment 0001.

CONTRACTING DIVISION

450 GOLDEN GATE AVE., 4TH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 See Item 6

W912P721R0006

W912P721R0006

03/16/2021

03/10/2021

1 4 l3ct9kss Cross-Out

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

Continuation page of SF 30 – Summary of changes for Amendment 0001

This amendment makes changes to the solicitation; these changes represent one of three types, either adding new information, deleting information, or revising existing information. Changes made by this amendment replace the previously issued sections of the advertisement, as referenced in the below summary of changes:

Section III Part 2 Professional Qualifications

Question 1

The Solicitation states that the evaluation of professional qualifications will consider those individual with a minimum of three years of longevity with the current firm. See below:

Slate Geotech was formed in September 2018, less than 3 years ago, and therefore it appears that none of our engineers or geologists professional qualifications will be considered in the evaluation. Is there a process to request a waiver for companies less than 3 years old so that our professional qualifications can be considered in the evaluation process?

We would appreciate a response as soon as possible so that we can make a decision on whether or not to pursue this opportunity.

Question 2

BLUF: The requirement in the solicitation that personnel must have 3 years minimum with their current firm does not provide value to SPN, but instead reduces the quality of offers, likely will reduce competition, and likely will disproportionately punish smaller businesses. Respectfully, can you please remove this requirement? The answer to this question is time-critical; teams are currently discussing no-go’ing submitting because of this 3-year-minimum requirement (and once they no-go, they won’t jump back in later).

In the solicitation, Section III part 2, Professional qualifications, the solicitation states: “Evaluation of professional qualifications will consider education, training, professional registrations, relevant experience in design of geotechnical and civil engineering projects/studies that were prepared for Civil Works type projects, vertical projects such as buildings, and longevity with the firm (three years minimum).”

W912P721R0006

While longevity with the firm is a standard factor, the addition of the requirement for three years minimum is not. The addition of this requirement does not improve the quality of offers and competition; to the contrary, the addition of this requirement reduces the quality of offers and competition.

The 3-year requirement might on its face may sound somehow beneficial, but in actuality it doesn't achieve something of tangible value to the District. Instead, this requirement actually degrades the quality of offers that the District will receive, by precluding inclusion and consideration of high-quality resources that would be of real value to the District. Firms that have hired highly experienced resources in the last few years do not get to offer those resources to the District. Deleting the arbitrary 3-year requirement allows those resources to be offered to the District, and allows the District to weigh the relative importance of their experience doing the work vs their longevity with the firm.

The 3-year requirement likely will disproportionately punish smaller businesses, like the smaller SBs and many SDVOSBs, because it likely knocks-out disproportionately more of their qualifications than at the larger firms (even than at the larger SBs) due to the difference in absolute number of people on staff, and statistically, smaller firms have a higher percentage of staff with shorter tenures. Longevity can be (and usually is) accounted for in the SSEB evaluation process; but the additional 3-year minimum requirement arbitrarily exacerbates that difference and disproportionately punishes the smaller firms, inclusive of the prime itself and those primes who are committed to using other small businesses, SDVOSBs, etc., to help them do the work.

The answer to this question is time-critical; if not answered very soon (early next week), qualified firms will necessarily no-go this pursuit and be left out of the process, punishing them and reducing the level of competition and quality of offerings for the District. Preparing an SF330 SOQ is sizable investment for firms, especially Small Businesses. They are willing to make that investment for a fair shot at consideration. But they must go all-in or no-go right after the solicitation comes out. While the answers to many questions can be received part way through the process or even late in the process (e.g., formatting questions), some questions are critical to the go/no-go determination. If those critical questions are not answered very quickly, firms (especially Small Businesses) can’t afford the financial risk of spending all the money to prepare an SF330 SOQ only to have their offering rejected or significantly undermined due to a critical clarification late in the process. This question about the 3-year requirement, though it seems fairly innocuous, is actually a critical question for some firms, who (I know for a fact) are today considering no-going preparing an offer solely because of this one requirement.

Respectfully, please do not wait for other questions to be compiled and then responded to all at once, nor wait until the pre-proposal conference (that will be way too late for most firms to make a go/no-go decision). Please issue a response and clarification or revision (deletion) regarding this 3-year requirement as soon as you can next week.

Answer

In the solicitation, Section III part 2, Professional qualifications, the solicitation states: “Evaluation of professional qualifications will consider education, training, professional registrations, relevant experience in design of geotechnical and civil engineering projects/studies that were prepared for Civil Works type projects, vertical projects such as buildings, and longevity with the firm.