Solicitation Amendment 80KSC026R00120003 SF 30.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

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Amendment 03 provides responses to all pre-proposal request for information (RFIs) submitted, the window for RFI submission has closed. Amendment 03 also extends the proposal due date to March 9, 2026 no later than

3:00PM EST.

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Date 03/02/2026 03/09/2026

Section J - List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

Attachment 13 - Pre-Proposal Questions and Answers_Phase 1 R1

The following attachments were deleted:

Attachment 13 - Pre-Proposal Questions and Answers_Phase 1

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

Proposals will be evaluated by the evaluation team in accordance with applicable regulations, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS). The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation activities and report its findings to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who is responsible for making the source selection decision. Acceptable proposals will be evaluated against the evaluation factors set forth in paragraph M.4 below. Offerors must meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, as well as the evaluation factors. Incomplete proposals may be deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration.

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will follow a two-phase selection process in accordance with FAR 36.101-2 and the procedures of FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

80KSC026R00120003

Phase 1 will evaluate non-price factors, specifically technical approach and past performance.

Phase 2 will evaluate price based on offerors' proposals for the design-build 'seed' project, which is a task order included in the phase 2 solicitation. The seed project consists of a statement of objectives and supporting documentation that reflects the type of construction anticipated under the contract and will be awarded as the initial task order.

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and NFS

1815.305. Awards will be made to offerors who are determined to be responsible under FAR Part 9, whose proposals conform to the solicitation requirements, and who, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, represent the best value to the Government, as described in paragraph M.5.

M.3 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make awards without discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.202(a)(2)). Therefore, offerors are encouraged to submit their best proposal in the initial submission. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Multiple awards may be made as a result of this solicitation.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process will consist of a two-step process for both the pool of general contractors and the pool of mechanical discipline contractors. Phase 1 will consider the non-price factors of technical approach and past performance. Price will be evaluated during Phase 2 based on the offerors' proposals in response to the design build "seed" project.

Offerors will be checked in the System for Award Management (SAM) for current entity registration, representations and certifications, and the exclusions. Proposals will also be checked for minor informalities or irregularities.

PHASE 1

EVALUATION OF NON-PRICE/TECHNICAL FACTORS

Offerors will be evaluated on the non-price/technical factors of Technical Approach and Past Performance.

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The following sub-factors will be evaluated:

Sub-Factor 1 - Program Management

Element 1 - Management Approach

Description: This element assesses how well the offeror's approach manages the overall contract and the resulting Task Orders at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), FL.

Measure of Merit: The element is satisfied when the offeror's proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the requirements specified below and within the contract Statement of Work (SOW). The standard is met when the proposal:

Management Approach: Describes how the offeror plans to manage the entire contract, and the Task Orders issued for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN), including Design/Build requirements at KSC, FL.

Organizational Diagram: Includes a diagram that clearly shows the lines of authority from the Program Manager to subcontracting management. This should cover areas such as site investigation, site superintendence, and quality control.

Subcontracting Plan: Specifies the offeror's proposed level of subcontracting to complete the work, clearly outlining the tasks that will not be handled by in-house resources.

Partnering Approach: Describes the strategy for collaborating with accredited Architectural and Engineering (A&E) firms and construction contractors simultaneously for Design/Build projects at KSC, FL.

Element 2 - Management Organization

Description: This element assesses the adequacy of the offeror's key staff personnel and their overall composition.

Measure of Merit: The element is satisfied when the offeror's proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the requirements specified below and within the contract Statement of Work (SOW). The standard is met when the proposal:

Key Staff Qualifications: Identifies key program and project management staff along with their qualifications, such as education, training, licenses, and relevant experience for the tasks they will perform if awarded the contract.

Decision-Making Authority: Defines clear lines of decision-making authority between management and staff members, with an emphasis on the authority of the local Program Manager for on-site decisions at KSC, FL.

Element 3 - Quality Control

Description: The Government will assess the adequacy of the offeror's quality control procedures.

Measure of Merit: The element is satisfied when the offeror's proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the requirements specified below and within the contract Statement of Work (SOW). The standard is met when the proposal:

Quality Control Approach: Describes the offeror's quality control strategy for the STOCC II and explains how it will mitigate risks on individual Task Orders at KSC, FL.

Surveillance Responsibility: Specifies who is responsible for overseeing the work of both subcontractors and in-house personnel at KSC, FL.

Deficiency Management: Outlines the process for accepting or rejecting work, documenting and resolving deficiencies for tasks performed by in-house staff or subcontractors, and implementing corrective actions to address poor performance by any in-house staff or subcontractor staff at KSC, FL.

Superintendence Requirements: Explains how the requirements of FAR 52.236-6, titled "Superintendence by the Contractor," will be met. This includes detailing how the superintendent will be qualified to supervise various trades to ensure quality workmanship at KSC, FL.

Sub-Factor 2 - Project Planning and Execution

Element 1 - Workload Management

Description: This element assesses the adequacy of the offeror's ability to manage the contract and the resulting Task Order workload at KSC, FL.

Measure of Merit: The element is satisfied when the offeror's proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the requirements specified below and within the contract Statement of Work (SOW). The standard is met when the proposal:

Documented Experience: Provides evidence of experience in performing at least three construction projects simultaneously.

Response Plan: Describes a plan for responding to Task Order RFPs issued for each CLIN within the timelines specified in the Master Statement of Work (SOW).

Execution Plan: Outlines a strategy for handling many Task Orders within a highly compressed time frame due to funding surges and emerging requirements at KSC, FL.

Support Plan: Describes a strategy for obtaining additional subcontractor support and/or enhancing existing in-house project supervision for Task Orders during peak workload periods in any contract period at

KSC, FL.

Scheduling Methods: Describes the methods and procedures for scheduling work to ensure that performance periods are met at KSC, FL.

Project Tracking and Communication: Identifies the methods and tools used to track project progress and outlines how to interface with the Government Contract Officer and COR/technical personnel regarding project status.

Element 2 Subcontract Management

Description: The Government will assess the adequacy of the offeror's ability to acquire qualified subcontractor support and the policies/procedures for managing subcontractor resources required for all Task Orders issued.

Measure of Merit: The element is satisfied when the offeror's proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the requirements specified below and within the contract Statement of Work (SOW). The standard is met when the proposal:

Subcontract Management Experience: Provides evidence of experience in managing subcontracts and multiple subcontractors for at least three projects (design and/or construction) simultaneously.

Subcontractor Plan: Clearly and logically describes the methods and criteria for acquiring qualified subcontractors at KSC, FL. This includes considering their previous experience, current capabilities, and the quality of their past work.

Subcontractor Management Policies and Procedures: Proposal clearly describes methods of surveillance, quality control, scheduling, performance, and administrative issues such as payroll submission and Davis-Bacon Act Enforcement.

Failure to meet all requirements under the Technical Approach Factor will result in an "UNACCEPTABLE" rating, leading to elimination from further consideration for the contract award.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing construction services that meet customer needs, with a focus on work relevant to the STOCC II requirements. This evaluation will consider how well recent, relevant efforts were performed and will serve as an indicator of the offeror's ability to perform under the prospective contract.

NASA will assess past performance using information submitted in accordance with Section L, Past Performance Information - Volume III, as well as any other information available to the Government from independent sources. The evaluation will focus on how effectively contract objectives--such as technical performance, management, safety/quality control, and cost--were achieved on related projects.

The evaluation team will integrate the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance across all evaluated efforts to develop an overall past performance confidence assessment rating. This rating reflects an integrated assessment of:

The offeror's recent and relevant performance; and

The recent and relevant performance of any joint venture participants whose efforts will significantly influence contract performance.

Past performance of joint venture partners will be included in the aggregate evaluation.

Note: Targeted Selection for Mechanical Requirements

To ensure the award pool includes contractors with demonstrated capability to support anticipated mechanical construction requirements under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), the Government intends to reserve for offerors whose past performance demonstrates:three (3) of the eight (8) total awards

Successful execution of mechanical scopes of work (e.g., HVAC, plumbing, piping)

Experience with projects valued below the SAT

Performance in similar operational environments (e.g., NASA centers, federal facilities)

These three awards will be made to the highest-rated offerors in this category, based on the evaluation criteria outlined in this section. The remaining five awards will be made based on overall best value to the Government, considering the full range of relevant construction experience.

The following areas will be evaluated:

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed or performed during the past five years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed shall have had at least six months of performance prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions shall not be evaluated. If the removal of one or more projects from the past performance evaluation pool results in the number of evaluated projects to fall below the minimum project requirement of three, the offeror will be removed from further consideration for award.

Relevance Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort relates to the STOCC II. The past performance summary and information that may be obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevance of the past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevance when assessing recent contracts:

Degree Description

RELEVANT (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Safety Past Performance: The evaluation of past performance will include assessment of the overall safety record of the offeror during the performance of previous contracts, to include maintaining acceptable TCIR, EMR, and DART rates. A contractor with a lower EMR and DART rates will receive better rating of confidence, while a contractor with a higher EMR and DART rates will receive a lower rating of confidence. A contractor's EMR rating less than 1.0 is needed to be rated a Very High Level of Confidence.

Performance Quality: In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror's Past Performance Proposal and information obtained from other sources, to include but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), commercial sources, and interviews with previous customers.

The review may result in positive or adverse findings. An adverse finding is defined as past performance information that supports an unacceptable rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

Past Performance Ratings: The offeror's relevant experience and past performance will be reviewed, and an assessment made that reflects the Government's judgment of the probability of each offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on that offeror's demonstrated performance. Past performance shall be evaluated for each offeror using the following levels of confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror's relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror's performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

High Level of Confidence

The offeror's relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror's past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror's performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror's relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror's performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror's relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror's performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

(One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror's relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas;

remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror's performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)

Neutral

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.202(c)].

Offerors evaluated and assessed at anything less than a "High Confidence" rating for past performance, will not be considered for Phase 2.

PHASE 2

EVALUATION OF PRICE/TASK ORDER PROPOSAL

Only the top-rated offerors in Phase 1 (maximum of five general contractors and three mechanical contractors) will be selected to submit proposals in Phase 2. Offerors selected in Phase 2 will be evaluated on the price and technical factors of the Design/Build Task Orders. Evaluation criteria of each Task Order will be included per the ordering procedures outlined in the Ordering Procedures.

M.5 METHODOLOGY USED FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION

STEP 1:

Review for Responsiveness: The Government will review all proposals to determine if each offeror has submitted a responsive proposal, and that all required documentation complies with the solicitation instructions. Review of the System for Award Management (SAM) will be conducted to determine if an offeror has an active exclusion, as well as a review of the Offerors Representations and Certifications to determine eligibility for award for both the Small Business (SB) firms (CLINs 0001 - 0003) and 8(a) firms (CLINs 0004 - 0006) assigned the NAICS code 236220. All other participants are deemed ineligible to submit offers. Any non-responsive proposal will be handled in accordance with NFS 1815.305- 70, "Identification of Unacceptable Proposals", Offerors whose proposals are found to be non-responsive in any area or offerors who has an active exclusion listed in SAM will be eliminated from the competition without further consideration, all other offers will be considered responsive and will move forward for further evaluation.

STEP 2:

Evaluate Technical Approach and Past Performance: All responsive proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance.

Technical Approach Evaluation: Failure to meet all of the requirements under the Technical Approach Factor will result in an "UNACCEPTABLE" rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Past Performance Evaluation: Offerors evaluated and assessed at anything less than a "High Confidence" rating for past performance, will not be considered for Phase 2. All Offers with a Technical Approach (Factor

1) rated as "ACCEPTABLE" and a Past Performance Confidence Rating (Factor 2) at "High Confidence" or "Very High Confidence" will move forward for further evaluation.

STEP 3:

Selection Decision for Phase 1: Offerors receiving a "Very High Confidence" rating will be selected before those receiving a "High Confidence" rating.

In the event that more than three (3) small businesses receive the same rating, tie-breakers will be applied in the order of preference listed below. The evaluation results will be forwarded to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who will select up to three (3) small business offerors to advance to Phase 2. If the SSA determines that fewer than three offerors should advance, the SSA may select fewer than three or request further evaluation.

Similarly, if more than five (5) 8(a) offerors receive the same rating, tie-breakers will be applied in the order of preference listed below. The evaluation results will be forwarded to the SSA, who will select up to five (5) 8(a) offerors to move on to Phase 2. The SSA may also choose to select fewer than five or request further evaluation.

1st Tiebreaker Criterion - Safety Performance (EMR):

In the event that two or more proposals are evaluated as equal in all other respects, the Government may use the offerors' most recent Experience Modification Rate (EMR) as a tiebreaker. Preference will be given to the offeror with the lower EMR, as an indicator of a stronger safety record and reduced performance risk.

2nd Tiebreaker Criterion - Aggregate Bonding Capacity:

In the event that two or more proposals are evaluated as equal in all other respects, including the Offeror's most recent EMR, the Government may use the Offerors' aggregate bonding capacity provided within Volume I, paragraph (g) as a tiebreaker. Preference will be given to the offeror with the higher aggregate bonding capacity, as an indicator of greater financial strength and capacity to support concurrent task orders under this contract.

Tie-Breaker and On-Ramp Consideration:

In the event of a tie among proposals that are otherwise equal in all evaluated respects, the Government may apply secondary discriminators such as safety performance (e.g., EMR) or aggregate bonding capacity.

Offerors who are not selected due to tie-breaking decisions, but who are otherwise deemed fully qualified, will be given priority consideration during any future on-ramp opportunities (see section H.3).

STEP 4:

Phase 2: Offerors selected to move onto Phase 2 will be evaluated on the price and technical factors of the design/build seed project. The evaluation criteria of the design/build seed project will be provided in Phase 2 and will be used to determine price reasonableness and technical acceptability.

Price: Proposed prices in Phase 2 shall be evaluated using one or more of the price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine whether the offeror's proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Prices that are unreasonably high or low may indicate an offeror's lack of understanding of the requirement and/or ability to properly estimate and propose on future task order solicitations.

The Government reserves the right to award the design/build seed project without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror's design/build seed project proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

STEP 5:

Process IDIQ Awards: Only those offerors selected into Phase 2 that provide a proposal that meets the technical/design criteria of the "Seed Project" at a fair and reasonable price may be awarded an IDIQ Contract. Up to five (5) 8(a) contract awards and up to three (3) Small Business contracts may be awarded based on the Source Selection Authorities' decision. The "Seed Project" will be awarded to only one offeror that represents the best value.

M.6 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Up to five (5) 8(a) contract awards and up to three (3) small business contract awards may be made. The award of multiple IDIQ Contracts will be based on the "2-Phase selection process" outlined in FAR Part 36.101- 2 and the procedures of FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. The Source Selection Authority, exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decisions to those offerors selected into Phase 2 that provide a proposal that meets the technical/design criteria of the Seed Project at a fair and reasonable price. The Seed Project will be awarded to only one offeror that represents the best value.

[END OF SECTION]

Office of Procurement

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL 32899

United States Kelley, Aaron L. (KSC-OPCS0), Contract Specialist, Email: aaron.l.kelley@nasa.gov

Email: jacqueline.a.brooks@nasa.gov