INDEFINITE DELIVERY / INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT FOR CIVIL AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PROJECTS PRIMARILY IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF VA, NC, SC, and GA

The purpose of this Modification is to answer RFIs. 11. We respectfully request the Navy consider extending the proposal due date by one week. Thank you for your consideration. Response: An extension is granted till 3/21/2018.

The purpose of the Modification is to respond to RFIs and to state that RFIs will not be accepted after 3/14/18. 12. Please confirm that the completion date for Section F qualifying Design Build projects that are construction complete before the issuance of the synopsis is determined by the construction completion date of the project as expected since the design team is under contract providing post award construction services through construction completion. In other words, please confirm that DB projects with a construction completion date after February 2, 2011 can be used to demonstrate qualifying design experience. Response: DB Projects completed within the seven (7) years immediately preceding the date (2/2/2018) of issuance of this notice are eligible for consideration.

The purpose of the Modification is to respond to RFIs. RFIs will not be accepted after 3/14/18. 13.Please confirm that the Joint Venture Agreement required to be submitted with the proposal does not count against the page count of the proposal. Response: A Joint Venture Agreement provided with proposal does not count against the page count of the proposal. Please see attached. Added language that states that Joint Venture Agreement does not count against the page count of the proposal.

The purpose of this modification is to answer RFIs. Question #7: We respectfully request the synopsis be amended to allow Joint Venture offerors to include an executed JVA in their responses, but not include the DUNS, TIN and CAGE for the JV, but include it for each of the partners of the JV instead. Currently the solicitation makes no distinction between an offeror and a JV offeror. When establishing a new JV more time is required to register and receive DUNS and CAGE numbers then is available in the response period of the synopsis. From recent Midlant AE IDIQs for the North IPT and HR IPT, the synopsis was amended to read, If submitting as a Joint Venture, and you do not yet have DUNS, CAGE, and TIN for the Joint Venture, then DUNS, CAGE and TIN should be submitted for each firm. DUNS, CAGE and TIN for the Joint Venture, if selected, would be required prior to the award of any contract. Please consider the application of this language to subject synopsis/solicitation. Response: The synopsis will be amended to allow Joint Venture offerors to include an executed JV agreement in their responses, but no include DUNS, TIN and CAGE for the JV. JV agreements must include DUNS, TIN and CAGE for the respective members of the JV agreement. Question #8: Our ability to submit a timely response is directly related to making a prompt amendment to the synopsis. In addition, please consider extending the due date a week so that Joint Venture documents can be thoroughly developed and executed. With the unanticipated move from a SB to an Unrestricted procurement additional planning and teaming was required to respond effectively to NAVFACs requirements which also changed from the previous procurement. Response: Due date for proposals will be extended to 14 March 2018.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO RESPOND TO RFIs and to update the Synopsis with the revised Joint Venture Information (Please see information in red.). Question #9: I have reviewed the below question and answer regarding JV agreement. Can you please clarify a bit more? Must a JV agreement be signed and executed when submitting, and at time of submitting, the proposal and as part of the proposal submission? We note that recently the KO at NAVFACNW for a similar recent RFP took the position that the JV agreement must be submitted but was not required to be signed and executed at time of proposal submission. It simply needed to be in the final draft form and would be signed if/when contract award was made. Response: A JV agreement must be signed and executed when submitted as part of the proposal submission.

The purpose of this modification is to change the due from 6 March 2018 to 14 March 2018 in the Synopsis.

The Purpose of this Modification is to answer an RFI. 10. We noticed that the Subject line of your Modification Notices in NECO exclude SC from the description, however, the synopsis includes SC in the AOR description. Please clarify whether or not the SC AOR is intended to be in the synopsis. Response: The AOR is PRIMARILY IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF VA, NC, SC, and GA.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO RESPOND TO RFIs. Question #1: Criterion Two, Professional Qualifications, requires a Program Manager and a Task Order Manager. Please define the difference between these two positions and the requirement of their duties with respect to the IDIQ contract. Response: Program Manager â€" Program Manager is responsible for managing a group of projects within a program. In the case of this IDIQ, they are responsible for the contract. The Task Order Manager can be the Project Manager or the Program Manager. Question #2: Per my review of the RFP Synopsis I ran across the excerpt below (in bold) in regards to the selected/awarded firm being precluded from performing construction services. Is the term “Construction Services†(highlighted) as is related to the Federal NAICS Code 236220 which is the code for General Contractor? Response: On page 4, paragraph 2, “Construction Services†means geo-tech, topography, concept design, engineering studies and services, cost estimating, and other activities related to construction. The purpose of this paragraph (in a DB situation and other situations) is to prevent a firm that writes an RFP from being the DOR that is hired by the construction contractor and other conflict of interest. Question #3: As we are only providing Geotechnical and Environmental services during the Design Phase and not performing any scope or services as related to “General Contractor or 236220 Code†will the Geotechnical or Environmental Engineering firm still be precluded from performing Construction Monitoring and Laboratory Testing services (Quality Control) on any projects that these services were provided for this solicitation? Response: Yes. Question #4: If the answer is yes to the aforementioned question, would the Geotechnical firm have the opportunity to, prior to construction, submit a letter to the Government to request a release from being precluded to bid Quality Control and Testing services? Response: No. Question #5: Will this be a Sole Source or Multiple Award Contract? Response: No. This will be a single award IDIQ contract. Question #6: On the NECO website, I did not see an RFI Questionnaire document. If there is a formal RFI form that I would need to complete, I’ll be happy to request in that manner. However, I’ve never filled out one of these forms nor do I know where to locate one. If you have one you can send or tell me where to go to locate, it would certainly be appreciated Response: There is not an RFI Questionnaire document. Emails containing RFIs will be accepted.

N40085-18-R-0606 INDEFINITE DELIVERY / INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT FOR CIVIL AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PROJECTS PRIMARILY IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND GEORGIA Please See Attachments for full description and additional documents.