Amendment_0012_Final.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

This amendment is necessary to provide responses to final RFIs. There is no change to the proposal due date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Oct-2017

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 W912WJ-17-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Jun-2017

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 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 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

25-Oct-2017

CODE

U S ARMY ENGR DISTRICT, NEW ENGLAND

696 VIRGINIA RD

CONCORD MA 01742-2751

W912WJ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912WJ-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RFI 7

1. Question: Due to material changes/clarifications in scope associated with Quarry Establishment, Dam Facing construction, Tailings Regrade, and Vertical Drain Installation, which have direct impacts on costs and schedule, we request an immediate extension of the submittal deadline to allow adequate time to coordinate these changes with our subcontractors.

Re-working of the new I-4 and I-5 forms is also a significant effort. We also respectfully request that the USACE provide the date on which we should expect to see final responses to questions, and ask that the submittal deadline be tied to some reasonable period of time following that date (i.e., again, to provide adequate time to coordinate any changes with subcontractors; 1.5 weeks minimum if material changes). Lastly, we ask that any further adjustments to the anticipated Notice to Proceed date be provided at that same time so that appropriate adjustments can be made to project schedules, as the seasonal timing of the work has a direct influence on costs and sequencing.

Response: Proposal submittal date has been extended to 31 October. As stated in Amendment 10, assume NTP start date of 18 December 2017

2. Question: Since Amendment 10 contained material changes to the proposal requirements, such as changing the educational requirements for the Mining Engineer, and questions are still be accepted through October 20, 2017, will the Corps consider a final extension of the proposal due date to on our around November 15, 2017?

Response: See Response to Question #1, above.

3. Question: Can the due date time be extended to 2pm to allow adequate time for fed ex deliveries that day?

Response: Yes, due date time has been extended to 2 pm on 31 October in this Amendment.

4. Question: The RFP contains FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and states that "the amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less." However, Q&A #68 from Amendment 007 states the following: "If an irrevocable letter of credit is used in lieu of a bid bond, it is required to cover 20% of the bondable tasks in accordance with the table in Amendment 0003, or $3,000,000, whichever is less." This seems to suggest that the bid guarantee amount should be based on 20% of the bondable tasks as opposed to 20% of the bid price. Please confirm whether offerors should use the total bid price or the total price of bondable (construction) tasks to calculate the 20% required for the bid guarantee. If the latter, may the offeror still submit a bid guarantee for 20% of the bid price if the bid guarantee has already been secured?

Response: A bid guarantee is only necessary for 20% of the bondable tasks or $3,000,000, whichever is less. The Government will accept a bid guarantee for 20% of the bid price, but it is not required. Price or cost impacts of the unnecessary amount of bid guarantee will still be included in the price and cost analysis of proposals.

5. Question: Are offerors to use a single escalation rate for both labor and equipment, or may offerors propose two separate escalation rates?

Response: Offerors shall propose one escalation rate for both labor and equipment.

6. Question: Where is the prime and subcontractors to account for the cost of performance and payment bond. Should the contractors assume to include in ODCs tab?

Response: Yes, performance and payments bonds may be included in the ODCs tab.

7. Question: Revised Attachments I-4 & I-5 now include Year 1 & Year 2 breakdowns;

however, Attachments I-1 & I-2 have not been revised to allow different Binding Rates for each year. Should the Binding Rates be the same for both Years and just the escalator applied?

Response: Factor 6, Section 8: Escalation in the Solicitation requires offerors to provide a binding escalation rate for each year after the first year of the contract. Offerors should apply their proposed Year 2 escalation rate to their binding labor and equipment rates for the Year 2 Rates for labor and equipment in Attachments I-4 and I-5.

8. Question: Please clarify if subcontractors will be held to the prime’s escalation rate or if they should propose their own.

Response: Subcontractors may propose their own escalation rate.

9. Question: Attachment H – Information for Completion of I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4 & I-5, Revised 10/17/2017, B. Appendix I-2, (1) Markups Tab: We have reviewed the Amendment No. 0010 including responses to Questions 41 and 42. The instructions have been revised to reflect that the burdened rate shall “not” include profit. However, the instructions still require the offeror to include all Prime/JV markups on the markups tab in I-2. Response to Question 41 states, “Subcontractors shall include any pertinent mark-ups in Attachments I-2”. Is there still an error in the revised instructions? If the subcontractor who is completing I-2 is a professional services company (engineering consulting firm), should the markups tab be used for the Prime as described in the revised instructions; or should the markups tab be used for the subcontractor’s markup on equipment, subcontracts, and ODCs; or should it remain blank since the prime’s markup is accounted for in I-4 as suggested in Question 41? Or, is the “markup” intended to be “overhead” for a professional services company? As a small business, we would propose to provide fully-burdened rates without breaking out overhead and include a “markup” for equipment, subcontracts, and ODCs. Would this comply?

Response: The markups tab in Attachment I-2 is intended to allow subcontractors to propose their own markups, such as Job Office Overhead and Home Office Overhead that are applicable to that subcontractor. The Prime may also propose their own markup, such as G&A, to that subcontractor’s markups. The sum of the Prime’s and that subcontractor’s markups should then be applied to that subcontractor’s labor and equipment rates to calculate the fully burdened labor and equipment rates for that subcontractor. Those fully burdened labor and equipment rates are then to be used in the calculations for the seed task order in Attachment I-5 for that subcontractor.

10. Question: Since this is an earthmoving equipment intensive project, should fuel for equipment be included in the Equipment Rates listed in Schedule I-3 (and therefore Schedule I-

1) or should they be included as an line item under ODC?”

Response: Fuel costs should be included as ODCs.

11. Question: Amendment 10 states the Seed Task Order duration is 24 months. If we believe the Seed Task Order can be completed prior to the 24 months, are we still required to supply supervision & management at the site for the remaining duration after completion, or are we just required to perform O&M in that remaining time period?

Response: The awardee will not be required to supply supervision and management at the site after the Seed Task Order work is completed.

12. Question: The response to Amendment 10, question 69, states: “The solicitation has been revised below to specify that the qualifications for the Mining Engineer must include a Master’s Degree in Engineering...” Are the criteria stated in the response to Amendment 0007, question 12, “ The Mining Engineer must have a degree in Mining Engineering. A Professional Engineer license and 5 additional years of experience of work on mining sites is a suitable substitute for a Master’s Degree in Mining Engineering, provided the Mining Engineer has an undergraduate degree in Mining Engineering,” still considered valid for the Mining Engineer? If not, can there be an extension in the proposal due date to allow time to compile the necessary documentation for a Mining Engineer that meets the most recent set of requirements?

Response: All previous responses regarding the requirements for the mining engineer were superseded by the revision to Section L, Factor 2, Key Personnel of the solicitation provided in Amendment 10. The requirement in Amendment 10 is corrected as follows: Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Engineering and specific experience (minimum of 10 years) in remediation of mining materials including tailings, waste rock, and sediment. See Solicitation Amendments, below. See response to Question #2 and #3 in regards to the proposal due date.

13. Question: Should we be addressing our proposal cover letter to Jessica Kidd instead of Jessica Loc or is she coming back onto the project after the 30th?

Response: Address your proposal cover letter to Jessica Loc. Offerors are not required to submit a cover letter.

14. Question: What is duration that the prime contractor should assume the submitted proposal is valid for.

Response: See Block 12 of the Solicitation SF 33.

15. Question: During the site visit we observed areas of debris / garbage within the site work areas. Will the USACE have this removed prior to work on site or is the contractor responsible for removing and disposing of this?

Response: The awardee will be responsible for removing debris/garbage that is in the way of completing the Seed Task Order.

16. Question: As a follow-up question to USACE's response to Question 21 in Amendment 0008, in evaluating the experience and past performance of an entity submitting an offer as a JV under the SBA's mentor-protégé program, will USACE consider SBA's previous advisory opinions discouraging procuring agencies from downgrading a proposal based on the lack of experience/past performance of a protégé (e.g. Enola-Caddell JV, B-292387.2, B-292387.4, Sept.

12, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 168 and JACO & MCC Joint Venture, LLP, B-293354.2, May 18, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 122)?

Response: There will be no change to the past performance evaluation. Mentor-protégé JVs will be evaluated according to the revised Section M Evaluation Approach for Factor 1, below.

SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS

Section L, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, Submission Requirements, second bullet point under the third paragraph, of the solicitation is revised as follows:

Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Engineering and specific experience (minimum of 10 years) in remediation of mining materials including tailings, waste rock, and sediment.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, A. Basis for Award, Factor 1- Team Experience- Evaluation Approach is hereby revised to include:

If the Offeror is a JV, the experience of each of the JV partners will be considered for evaluation.

If the Offeror proposes separate roles for each JV partner, the experience of each JV partner shall be considered for the respective role proposed. All Offers from JVs must be consistent with the terms of their JV agreements.

(End of Summary of Changes)