Amendment 0002 with attachments.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

PAGE OF PAGES

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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 is extended, is not extended.

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.

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

1 2

0002 03/02/2023

AAQ-731 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

BLDG 014-AHQ, ROOM 233A

AAQ0731-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

AAQ-811 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 380

AAQ811-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

x

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

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ 1 x x

6973GH-23-R-00020

1 copies to the issuing office.

03/02/2023

(x)

The purpose of this amendment is to change the time threshold for current past performance and experience projects from "within the previous three (3) years" to "within the previous five (5) years as well as provide the Minutes to the Pre-Proposal Conference and Questions and Answers 1 through 4.

Continued ...

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Cynthia L. Cooper

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 2

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

6973GH-23-R-00020/0002

FIRST: SIR Provision L.1, Instructions for

Preparation and Submission of Proposals is revised to read as follows.

SECOND: Provision L.3 is hereby added as follows.

THIRD: Provision M.3 is revised to read as follows:

FOURTH: Minutes to the Pre-Proposal Conference held on March 10, 2023 are hereby attached.

FIFTH: Questions and Answers 1 through 4 are hereby attached.

SIXTH: The closing date of the SIR remains March

24, 2023.

6973GH-23-R-00020, AMENDMENT 0002 FULL TEXT PROVISIONS

L.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS (REVISION 1)

(a) Each Offeror will submit information identified in the sections as set forth in paragraph (c) below. The data submitted should be complete, concise, and relevant to the requirements of the SIR/RFO and are required to be submitted in the prescribed formats subsequently identified herein.

(b) Documentation shall be submitted electronically in accordance with Section L, Provision 3.2.2.3-20, Electronic Offers.

(c) The titles and contents of the sections should be as set forth below.

Volume Title I Contract Documentation II Technical Proposal* III Seed Project Cost/Price Proposal

*No reference shall be made to costs/prices in Volume II.

(d) Volume I – Contract Documentation: This section will be in FAA format. This will provide information to the FAA for preparing the contract document and supporting file. Offerors must complete and submit:

i. Section A, Solicitation. Offer and Award (SF33), Blocks 12 through 18

ii. Section K, Representations and Certifications

iii. Any applicable signed and executed Teaming Agreement

(Note: Completion of documents identified at (i) through (iii) above indicates that the Offeror has read and agrees to the terms and conditions contained in the SIR. The FAA may consider offers that take exception to the terms and conditions of the SIR to be unacceptable and thereby ineligible for award. Offerors submitting such offers may not be given the opportunity to revise their offer.)

(e)Volume II – Technical Proposal: Technical proposals shall be submitted as separate and complete sections for each of the Technical Evaluation factors outlined in Section M.

(1) Section cover shall designate section title along with applicable page(s) the Offeror deems competition sensitive. Page Limit shall be no more than 50 pages. The TET will not read past 50 pages, not including Resumes.

(2) The technical proposal must be sufficiently detailed to enable technically-oriented personnel to make a thorough evaluation and to arrive at a sound determination as to whether the Offeror meets the requirements of the Government. The technical proposal must be specific, detailed and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements of the SIR.

Clear evidence of services previously provided and currently in place relating to the factors should be included in each evaluation area.

(3) Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with all statements in the SIR, are considered insufficient. Phrases such as "standard procedures will be employed," or "well-known techniques will be used," etc. will be considered insufficient.

(4) Content is more important than quantity. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present complete and effective proposals are neither necessary nor desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror's lack of cost consciousness. To expedite review of the proposals, the responses for each evaluation factor shall be provided in a separate section and the section shall be tabbed for ease of reference.

(5) If any portion of the work is to be performed by a subcontractor, the proposal must provide rationale for subcontracting, how the specific subcontractor was determined, and the percentage of work to be performed by the subcontractor. The proposal must include supporting documentation describing each subcontractor's technical qualifications.

(f) TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE EVALUATION OF ALL PROPOSALS, SEPARATE AND

COMPLETE RESPONSES MUST BE MADE TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS.

(g) In preparing the proposal, emphasis should be placed on supplying complete information in the areas, which are set forth below and in Section M, Provision M.2, Technical Evaluation.

Factor 1 Relevant Past Performance and Experience Subfactor 1A Quality of product or service Subfactor 1B Timeliness of performance Subfactor 1C Business relations Factor 2 Key Personnel Subfactor 2A Experience in job superintendence/managing contracts for general contracting services for construction projects of similar scope and size Subfactor 2B Duration/length of experience Subfactor 2C Educational background and training Factor 3 Geographic Location

(h) Factor 1 Relevant Past Performance and Experience. Offeror is required to complete a Past Performance Experience Form (Section J, Attachment 22) as well as provide Past Performance Surveys (Section J Attachment 23), along with Client Authorization Letters (Section J, Attachment 21) to customers/contractors who are familiar with the work ethic, standards, performance, and deliverables demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature, for at least five (5), but not more than eight (8) contracts. For each contract the offeror must provide accurate, current, and complete information that meet the following requirements:

(A) Contracts are similar to the size and complexity of the FAA requirement.

(B) At least three (3) contracts valued at over $500,000.00.

(C) Projects submitted have been completed or underway within the last five (5) years.

Offerors should provide information on problems encountered with contract(s) and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. General performance information will be obtained from references listed and possible other sources for each contract identified.

The Offeror will complete page 2 of the Past Performance Surveys (Part One Instructions) and then provide the surveys to their customers, who will in turn complete and return the surveys directly to the Contracting Officer by the due date specified on the surveys. Past Performance Surveys must be submitted to the Contracting Officer. Surveys received after the established due date may not be evaluated.

(i) If proposing as a teaming arrangement, the offeror must include recent and relevant past performance information of this teaming arrangement in accordance the past performance instructions as provided in Section L of the SIR. If proposing as a newly established or first time team, the team shall provide a minimum of one (1) past performance submission for each member of the team; however no less than 3 and no more than 5 past performance references are to be submitted for the teaming arrangement as a whole. The past performance submission(s) of the team must reflect the offeror’s capability to perform to the level of complexity and scope of the SOW. Submissions are considered acceptable only if the work performed is accomplished by the team or a member of the proposed teaming arrangement (i.e. not a proposed subcontractor to the teaming arrangement).

(1) Subfactor 1A- Quality of product or service-The Offeror will demonstrate relevant past performance and experience delivering quality products or services, to include (but not be limited to); conformance to contract requirements, providing a quality product/service, initiative in meeting requirements or taking corrective action(s), technical expertise, treatment/handling of government property, extent of on-site management/superintendence on controlling overall quality, Terminations for Default, and non-exercise of contract option due to contractor's poor performance.

(2) Subfactor 1B-Timeliness of performance-The Offeror will demonstrate/ possess relevant past performance and experience evidencing timeliness of performance. Response should include adherence to contract delivery schedules, timely material submittals, timely correction or remedying of deficiencies/defects, timeliness of response to technical direction, timeliness in submission of cost/price proposals and supporting data when contract modifications were required, and timeliness in entering into and completing negotiations of terms and conditions and cost/price.

(3) Subfactor 1C-Business relations-The Offeror will demonstrate/possess relevant past performance and experience evidencing effective business relations should include ability to effectively manage contracts, personnel, and subcontractors; reasonable and cooperative behavior in performance of contracts; flexibility in resolving contract problems; effectively interfacing with customer staff; willingness to work towards a fair and reasonable price when contract modifications are required; and overall effective business relations that inspire repeat business.

(4) Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Surveys, along with Client Authorization Letters to customers who are familiar with the work ethic, standards, performance, and deliverables demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature.

(Note: The documentation provided by the Offeror relative to past performance and experience should evidence the distinction between past performance— “how well” the Offeror has performed, and experience— the Offeror has “done it” before.)

CAUTION: Offerors are cautioned that the FAA may use the data provided by other sources in evaluating past performance. Offerors will be given an opportunity to rebut information considered negative and relevant to the evaluation. While the FAA may consider data from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance data rests with the offeror.

Factor 2 Key Personnel-The Offeror shall submit résumés of key personnel (Job Superintendent and designated "Alternate" Job Superintendent). Include name, present position or title, experience as a job superintendent managing contracts for general contracting services for construction projects of similar scope and size (include duration or length of all experience), educational background, and training in sufficient detail to facilitate evaluation of qualifications and technical or management competence. Individual résumés are limited to no more than five (5) pages. Submittal will include a letter of confirmation on company letterhead that states that the Key Personnel proposed will be the Key Personnel provided under the contract. See Section H, Clause 3.8.2-17 Key Personnel and Facilities.

(1) Subfactor 2A Qualifications/experience relating to job superintendence/ managing contracts for general contracting services for construction projects of similar size and scope-Offeror must demonstrate that key personnel; i.e., Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent, possess qualifications and experience necessary to manage general construction contracts of similar scope and size.

(2) Subfactor 2B Duration/length of experience-Offeror must demonstrate that key personnel possess at least two (2) years of experience in managing general construction contracts of similar scope and size.

(3) Subfactor 2C Educational background and training- Offeror must demonstrate that key personnel possess formal education and training to successfully manage general construction contracts of this scope and size, possessing at least a high school diploma (or GED) and some construction trade related training.

Factor 3 Geographic Location- The Offeror must clearly describe the offeror’s ability to respond to construction issues or attend meetings within 30 minutes of notification. The FAA will utilize Google Maps to calculate the driving time from the existing or proposed office location to the MMAC address of 6500 S.

MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.

L.3 TEAMING ARRANGEMENT (NEW PROVISION)

(a) Where a teaming arrangement is proposed, the offeror will provide a plan which identifies the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of each teaming participant. The teaming plan will be limited to 10 pages.

When a teaming arrangement is proposed, it shall be included as part of Volume I, Contract Documentation.

(b) As a minimum, the plan should address the following:

(1) The plan shall identify the offeror's rationale for selection of the proposed teaming participants as well as the extent of participation. (2) Offeror's working relationship and proposal of each participant's role relative to performance of the contract effort will be identified.

(3) Since employee wages and benefits may differ among the teaming partners, offerors proposing as a team must select a single compensation plan that all employees, regardless of which teaming partner they work for, receive the exact same employee wages and benefits.

(4) The plan shall identify distribution of work assignments, acceptance and approval of deliverables among teaming partners prior to submission to the FAA. A manager or lead position employee of one teaming partner may be required to assign and approve work of employees of another teaming partner; therefore, describe how this issue will be addressed.

(4) The offeror's plan should address measures for quality assurance, which includes roles and responsibilities for quality of services.

M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION (CRITERIA 1) (REVISION 1)

All proposals remaining after the initial proposal screening process of M.3 will be evaluated, rated, and analyzed as described in this part. Offerors are advised that their proposal must address all areas. Overall Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance: Within Criteria 1, Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3; the Sub-Factors within each factor are listed in descending order of importance.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1 Relevant Past Performance and Experience Subfactors:

a) Quality of product or service

b) Timeliness of performance

c) Business relations

Factor 2 Key Personnel Subfactors:

a) Experience in job superintendence/managing contracts for mechanical contracting services for construction projects of similar scope and size

b) Duration/length of experience

c) Educational background and training

Factor 3 Geographic Location

(b) Technical Evaluation

Factor 1. – Relevant Past Performance and Experience

When evaluating an offeror's past performance and experience, the following instruction is offered: A distinction must be made between past performance and experience. Past performance represents "how well" an offeror accomplished the effort. Experience simply means an offeror has "done it." Of additional importance is that past performance and experience must be current and relevant as well as comparable in scope and magnitude to that described in the SIR.

The Offeror is required to complete a Past Performance Experience Form (Section J, Attachment 22) as well as provide Past Performance Surveys (Section J Attachment 23), along with Client Authorization Letters (Section J, Attachment 21) to customers/contractors who are familiar with the work ethic, standards, performance, and deliverables demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature, for at least five (5), but not more than eight (8) contracts. For each contract the offeror must provide accurate, current, and complete information that meet the following requirements:

(1) Contracts are similar to the size and complexity of the FAA requirement

(2) At least three (3) contracts valued at over $500,000.00

(3) Projects submitted have been completed within the last five (5) years or are active. Active projects are defined as projects where construction is in progress and construction is more than 50% completed.

Current past performance and experience shall be understood to mean within the previous five (5) years. While the Past Performance Survey (Section J Attachment 23) completed by government and industry recipients of the offeror's services, is a significant means of gathering information on both past performance and experience, it must not necessarily be accepted at face value. Individual biases or differences in interpretation and application of the rating scale; i.e., 0 to 4, may occur. Accordingly, a simple roll up of the scores received through completed surveys will not likely provide a complete picture of an offeror's past performance and experience. Additional information and follow-up may be required.

Key to an effective evaluation will involve an initial determination of relevancy. A relevancy determination of an offeror's current/past performance and experience will include, as applicable, the extent of its subcontractor(s)/ teaming partner(s). The following criteria may assist in the determination of relevancy.

Very Relevant. Involved the magnitude of effort and complexities that are essentially what the SIR requires and are currently active or were completed within the last five (5) years.

Relevant. Involved less magnitude of effort and complexities, including most of what this SIR requires and are currently active or were completed within last five (5) years.

Semi-Relevant. Involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what this SIR requires and are currently active or were completed within the last five (5) years.

Not Relevant. Did not involve any aspects of above.

Where an offeror's current and past performance and experience would lend itself, contracts should be considered in aggregate in determining relevancy. For example, an offeror's work experience on three (3) current/past contracts may represent only a semi-relevant technical effort and/or a relevant teaming effort, when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when said contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort.

Notes: (1) When an offeror has no relevant past performance and experience, a neutral score will be assigned;

(2) A negative rating originating from completed Past Performance Surveys which results in a score below "2" for any factor or subfactor must be referred to the respective offeror for rebuttal opportunity.

The completed Past Performance Surveys received on or before the date and time proposal submissions are due to the FAA will be used by the FAA in the evaluation of this factor.

Note: In accordance with the SIR, offerors are cautioned that the FAA wil use the data provided by any and all available sources associated to determine offeror responsibility. While the FAA may consider data from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete performance data rests with the offeror. Offerors will be given an opportunity to rebut information considered negative and relevant to the evaluation.

The Government will review all formal evaluations received using the Past Performance Survey found in the

SIR.

Subfactor 1A: Quality of Product or Service

Evaluation Criteria: It is critical that the offeror demonstrate/possess relevant past performance and experience delivering quality products or services.

Consideration of the extent of the offeror's demonstration/possession of relevant past performance and experience delivering quality products or services should include all of the following criteria:

a) conformance to contract requirements

b) providing a quality product/service

c) initiative in meeting requirements or taking corrective action(s)

d) technical expertise; e) treatment/handling of government property

f) extent of on-site management/ superintendence on controlling overall quality

g) cure notices and deficiency notices

h) Terminations for Default

i) non-exercise of contract option due to contractor's poor performance etc.

Subfactor 1B: Timeliness of Performance

Evaluation Criteria: It is critical that the offeror demonstrate/possess relevant past performance and experience evidencing timeliness of performance.

Consideration: Consideration of the extent of the offeror's demonstration/possession of relevant past performance and experience evidencing timeliness of performance should include: a) adherence to contract delivery schedules; b) timely material submittals; c) timely correction or remedying of deficiencies/defects; d) timeliness of response to technical direction; e) timeliness in submission of cost/price proposals and supporting data when contract modifications were required; f) timeliness in entering into and completing negotiations of terms and conditions and cost/price.

Subfactor 1C: Business Relations

Evaluation Criteria: It is critical that the offeror demonstrate/possess relevant past performance and experience evidencing effective business relations.

Consideration of the extent of the offeror's demonstration/possession of relevant past performance and experience evidencing effective business relations should include: a) ability to effectively manage contracts, personnel, and subcontractors; b) reasonable and cooperative behavior in performance of contracts; c) flexibility in resolving contract problems; d) effectively interfacing with customer staff; e) willingness to work towards a fair and reasonable price when contract modifications were required; f) overall effective business relations that inspire repeat business.

If any Past Performance Survey (PPS) is submitted containing instances of unacceptable vendor performance, a low initial Evaluator rating will be assigned for the Offeror in question. However, as stated in Note 2, above, the Offeror will be allowed to provide a rebuttal to clarify their standing and improve the final rating assigned to them by the Evaluator(s). The Offeror should provide an extremely detailed response to ensure the best final evaluation rating/score in this factor.

The FAA will not be held responsible for those Offeror’s customers who refuse to respond or provide past performance information.

All PPS’s must contain the following information:

• Name of Responder.

• Responder’s Title.

• Responder’s Email address.

• Responder’s phone number.

• Name of Organization.

• Name of Contractor.

• Contract Number.

• Project Title.

• Original contract completion date based on Notice to Proceed.

• Actual Contract Completion Date.

• Rationale for variance between original completion date and actual completion date.

• Original contract amount and final contract amount.

• Rationale for variance between original contract amount and final contract amount

• Brief project summary.

• Information on if a deficiency notice was issued.

• Information on if a cure notice was issued.

• Information on if a show cause was issued

• Evidence to show that the PPS was provided to the primary reference and alternate reference by no later than 10 days prior to the SIR closing date along with instructions to provide the completed PPS to the Contracting Officer by no later than the SIR closing date.

Factor Rating

Excellent (4.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a highly competent and logical fashion. Referenced projects clearly demonstrate that requirements can be met in a manner that far exceeds minimum requirements.

Referenced projects clearly demonstrate that performance can be provided in an excellent manner.

Weaknesses and/or Deficiencies are not evident to any degree. Offeror's past performance and experience demonstrates delivery of the highest quality of products or services. All referenced projects were determined to be at least Relevant and at least one project was determined to be very relevant. Offeror received no more than two (2) scores of 2 or 3, with no other scores below a 4 on the Past Performance Surveys and past performances must have no show cause notices, no deficiency notices, or no cure notices.

Good (3.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a competent and logical fashion. Referenced projects clearly demonstrate that requirements can be met in a manner that exceeds the minimum requirement.

Referenced projects clearly demonstrate that performance can be performed above a Satisfactory level.

Weaknesses, if evident, are insignificant. Offeror's past performance and experience demonstrates delivery of a quality products or services. All referenced projects were determined to be at least Relevant. Offeror received no more than five (5) scores of 2, with no other scores below a 3 on the Past Performance Surveys.

Past performances must have no show cause notices, but may have had deficiency notices or cure notices that were successfully resolved with a workable solution and the contract was successfully completed.

Satisfactory (2.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a competent and logical fashion. Referenced projects clearly demonstrate that minimum requirements can be met. Any weaknesses will not seriously degrade performance and can be corrected with reasonable effort. Offeror's past performance and experience demonstrates delivery of satisfactory products or services. All referenced projects were determined to be at least Semi Relevant with at least one referenced project determined as Relevant. Offeror received no score below a 2 on the Past Performance Surveys. Past performances must have no show cause notices, but may have had deficiency notices or cure notices that were successfully resolved with a workable solution and the contract was successfully completed.

Marginal (1.0) Most aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed. Referenced projects does not demonstrate that minimum requirements can be fully met. There is some concern that a satisfactory performance level can be achieved or sustained. Weaknesses or deficiencies are significant and will require significant considerable effort to correct.

At least two referenced projects were determined to be Semi Relevant. Offeror's past performance and experience does not demonstrate the ability to provide quality products or services that consistently conform to contract requirements. Offeror received no score below a 1 on the Past Performance Surveys. Past performances have a record of show cause notices, deficiency notices, and/or cure notices that were eventually resolved.

Poor (0.0) The Offeror’s proposal fails to address key aspects of the evaluation factor. Offeror’s proposal indicates that minimum requirements cannot be met. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are significant and will require major correction(s). Offeror's past performance and experience failed to demonstrate key aspects of the evaluation factor. Offer failed to provide a minimum of two referenced projects that were determined to be at lease Semi Relevant. Past performances have a record of show cause notices, deficiency notices, or cure notices that were not successfully resolved.

Contractors will not be eligible for award if ANY of the items contained in the PPS, CPARS or other sources are rated as Poor and rebuttal and re-evaluation did not raise the score to at least Marginal (1.0).

Factor 2 — Key Personnel

Subfactor 2A: Qualifications/Experience Relating to Job Superintendence/Managing Contracts for General Contracting Services for Construction Projects of Similar Size and Scope

Evaluation Criteria: It is critical that the offeror's key personnel (Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent) possess the qualifications and experience necessary to manage general construction contracts of this scope and size.

Factor Rating

Excellent (4.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a highly competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that requirements can be met in a manner that far exceeds minimum requirements. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that performance can be provided in an excellent manner. Weaknesses and/or Deficiencies are not evident to any degree. Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent demonstrated both qualifications and experience in managing general construction contracts in excess of:

• $1 Million

Good (3.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a highly competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that requirements can be met in a manner that exceeds the minimum requirement. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that performance can be performed above a satisfactory level. Weaknesses, if evident, are insignificant. Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent demonstrated both the qualifications and experience in managing general construction contracts in excess of:

• $750,000

Satisfactory (2.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that minimum requirements can be met. Any weaknesses will not seriously degrade performance and can be corrected with reasonable effort. Job Superintendent or Alternate Job Superintendent demonstrated both the qualifications and experience in managing general construction contracts in the excess of:

• $500,000

Marginal (1.0) Most aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed. Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate that minimum requirements can be fully met. There is some concern that a satisfactory performance level can be achieved or sustained. Weaknesses or deficiencies are significant and will require significant considerable effort to correct.

Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent demonstrated qualifications and experience in managing general construction contracts in amounts less than:

• $500,000

Poor (0.0) The Offeror’s proposal fails to address key aspects of the evaluation factor. Offeror’s proposal indicates that minimum requirements cannot be met. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are significant and will require major correction(s). Neither the Job Superintendent nor Alternate Job Superintendent demonstrated any qualifications or experience in managing contracts for general construction services.

Subfactor 2B: Duration/Length of Experience

Evaluation Criteria: It is critical that the offeror's key personnel (Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent) possess experience (defined as duration or length of experience) in successfully managing general construction contracts of this scope and size.

Excellent (4.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a highly competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that requirements can be met in a manner that far exceeds minimum requirements. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that performance can be provided in an excellent manner. Weaknesses and/or Deficiencies are not evident to any degree. Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent both demonstrated extensive experience, of 5 years or more, in successfully managing general construction contracts.

Good (3.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a highly competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that requirements can be met in a manner that exceeds the minimum requirement. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that performance can be performed above a satisfactory level. Weaknesses, if evident, are insignificant. Job Superintendent and Alternate Job Superintendent both demonstrated considerable experience, of between 2 to 5 years, in successfully managing general construction contracts.

Satisfactory (2.0) All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a competent and logical fashion. Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that minimum requirements can be met. Any weaknesses will not seriously degrade performance and can be corrected with reasonable effort.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IDIQ MULTIPLE AWARD

6973GH-23-R-00020

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

The Pre-Proposal Conference for General Construction IDIQ Multiple Award Acquisition, SIR 6973GH-23-R-00020 was held at 10:30 am on March 10, 2023 via teleconference. The following people were in attendance:

Name Company

Mike Bradsher Flowers Construction Jenny Davis Harrison, Walker & Harper, LLC Brandon Hill Delaware Nation Industries Bill Kemp Southwind Construction Services Wendy Martin Southwind Construction Services Mike Bert Iscani Industries, LLC Jennifer Folkers Strategic Creations, Inc.

James Mitchell MIGO Construction Group, Inc.

Leah Duiveman Arnold Electric Inc Nicholas O’Hara Maguire O’Hara Construction, Inc.

John Sparkman Warfeather Rodger Hefner FAA, AMP-400 Shomari Wilson FAA, AAQ-730

Cynthia Cooper FAA, AAQ-730

Cynthia Cooper, Contracting Officer for this acquisition introduced herself and conducted roll call based on the requests received to attend the conference.

Cynthia Cooper, advised all participants that the acquisition method being used for this procurement is Best Value Full Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures and to refer to Sections L and M for more specific details.

Rodger Hefner, AMP-400 was introduced as the Primary Contracting Officer’s Representative for this acquisition. Shomari Wilson was introduced as the Contract Specialist for this acquisition.

Attendees were advised that in order to be fair to all competitors, including those not preset today, all questions should be submitted in writing to the contracting officer as quickly as possible. Attendees were also advised that recordings of today’s conference are not permitted.

Cynthia Cooper stated that as a reminder, even if there are discussions as a result of today’s meeting, the SIR package, including all attachments, remains unchanged unless it is formally changed by a SIR amendment.

The Agenda for the Pre-Proposal Conference was as follows:

AGENDA:

10:30 – 11:00 INTRODUCTIONS

11:00 – 12:00 HIGH POINTS OF SIR, UPCOMING AMENDMENT

AND QUESTIONS

12:00 – 12:15 QUESTION SUBMITTAL AND WRAP-UP

Participants were advised of the following SIR High Points, SIR Update and Questions/Answers submitted to date:

SIR High Points:

Per Provision M.1, Offerors will be evaluated and contract award made on the basis of Best Value to the FAA”. Each offer will be evaluated on the basis of its Technical Proposal (Criteria 1), Risk Assessment (Criteria 2) and Price Analysis (Criteria 3), with Criteria 1 being more important than Criteria 2 and Criteria 2 being more important than Criteria 3. Within Criteria 1, Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and the sub-factors within each factor are listed in descending order of importance.

Per Provision M.1, It is anticipated that multiple contracts will be awarded as a result of this solicitation. This acquisition is a combined set-aside to include Eligible 8(a) Certified Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Concerns as well as Small Business Concerns. As previously stated, there will be multiple awards made is reference to this SIR. All of the offerors selected for award must meet the requirements to qualify as a small business; however, of the total number of awards that will be made, a minimum of three (3) of the awards will be made to 8(a) Certified SDB Concerns.

SIR Update:

SIR Amendment 0001 was issued on March 9, 2023 to establish the site visit for the seed project. The site visit will be held on March 14, 2023 starting at 1:00 p.m. All parties will meet in Conference Room 230 of the Security Command Center and then caravan to the job site. SIR Amendment 0002 to change the past performance time period of the past performance from “within 3 years” to “within 5 years” will be issued within the next few days along with any questions received by close of business on March 10, 2023 as well as provide the List of Attendees and Minutes of the Pre-Proposal Conference. The SIR will also be amended to address past performance submission requirements in the event of a Teaming Arrangement.

Questions and Answers:

Question 1: Page 65 of the solicitation document states that “No reference shall be made to costs/prices in Section I & II.” However, the instructions for Volume I

– Contract Documentation states that we must complete and submit Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs: Government format. Those statements seem to be contradictory. Please confirm if we should complete and submit Section B with Volume I.

Answer 1: The information in this portion of the SIR is misleading and is being corrected in Amendment 0002. Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost (Section J Attachment 18) is to be included in Volume III. Additionally, references to “Section” will be corrected to “Volume”.

Question 2: Is a bid bond required to be submitted?

Answer 2: No

Question 3: Should Sub-Factors 1A, 1B, and 1C be addressed in the Past Performance Experience Forms, or should they be addressed as separate narratives?

Answer 3: This information should be addressed in the Past Performance Experience Forms.

Question 4: Should Sub-Factors 2A, 2B and 2C be addressed in the Key Personnel resumes, or as separate narratives?

Answer 4: More than likely, most of the information that should be provided can be included in the resumes; however, it is each offeror’s responsibility to ensure that their proposal clearly addresses the requirements of Sub-Factors 2A, 2B and 2C, so separate narratives may be needed.

Cynthia Cooper then opened the floor to entertain possible questions that had not yet been submitted and asked that these questions be submitted in writing as soon as possible. The Contracting Officer thanked the attendees for their interest in this acquisition and concluded the Pre-Proposal Conference at 11:15 am.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MULTIPLE AWARD IDIQ

SIR 6973GH-23-R-00020

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1-4

Question 1: Page 65 of the solicitation document states that “No reference shall be made to costs/prices in Section I & II.” However, the instructions for Volume I – Contract Documentation states that we must complete and submit Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs:

Government format. Those statements seem to be contradictory. Please confirm if we should complete and submit Section B with Volume I.

Answer 1: The information in this portion of the SIR is misleading and is being corrected in Amendment 0002. Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost (Section J Attachment 18) is to be included in Volume III. Additionally, references to “Section” will be corrected to “Volume”.

Question 2: Is a bid bond required to be submitted?

Answer 2: No

Question 3: Should Sub-Factors 1A, 1B, and 1C be addressed in the Past Performance Experience Forms, or should they be addressed as separate narratives?

Answer 3: This information should be addressed in the Past Performance Experience Forms.

Question 4: Should Sub-Factors 2A, 2B and 2C be addressed in the Key Personnel resumes, or as separate narratives?

Answer 4: More than likely, most of the information that should be provided can be included in the resumes; however, it is each offeror’s responsibility to ensure that their proposal clearly addresses the requirements of Sub-Factors 2A, 2B AND 2C, so separate narratives may be needed.