AG-82FT-S-16-0015AME000002.pdf

(x)

AG-82FT-S-16-0015

x x

1 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 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.

x

82FT

FORT COLLINS CO 80526

240 W PROSPECT STREET

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

USDA FOREST SERVICE

06/14/2016000002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

06/14/2016

CHECK ONE 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 AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

Amendment 000002 MISSOULA FIRE SCIENCES LAB MECHANICAL UPGRADE

The purpose of Amendment 000002 is as follows:

1. Provide responses to questions that were submitted after June 17, 2016.

2. Provide sign in sheet for the Site Visit walk through.

3. Update Section M to match Section L.

4. Update Attachment 9 - Drawings-E0.1-E9.8 Luminaire Schedule -Delete reference to note 6

5. Additional Site Visits on 6/30/16 at 3:30pm MT and 7/6/16 at 8:30am MT - Contact Corrie

Kegel at 406-829-7339 office or 406-239-9218 cell

Continued ...

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

ANTHONY O. SALAS

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

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)

AG-82FT-S-16-0015/000002

Period of Performance: 12/05/2016 to 06/30/2017

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

AG-82FT-S-16-0015

Missoula Fire Sciences Lab Mechanical Upgrade Project

Amendment No. 000002, dated 06/23/2016 Page 1 of 2

Solicitation Number AG-82FT-S-16-0015

Amendment 000002 – Questions and Answers

Q1.) Regarding the planned mechanical upgrades at the Missoula Fire Science Lab, can you provide details on the Commissioning of this project? To whom would the prospective Commissioning providers respond/quote, does that contract fall under the GC or would it be owner-direct, etc. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

A1.) Commissioning is not included in this contract.

Q2.) Please see our attached request(s) for prior approval and associated submittals for the Fire Sciences Laboratory. Please indicate your decision by including these manufacturers in the next addendum or if you prefer you may reply to this email.

A2.) Substitution/Prior Approval requests will not be approved or considered prior to contract award. Many items in the specifications and drawings show Brand Name products as a Basis of Design. All of these products shall allow for an approved equal. Substitutions for these products may be submitted for review and approval after the contract is awarded. Products that meet all the salient characteristics of the specified product will be approved provided they also meet the Buy American requirements. If the Contractor chooses to bid based on a product that has not been approved, there is a possibility that when that product is submitted for approval that it may be rejected if it does not meet the salient characteristic of the Basis of Design product. Refer to Specification Sections 013300 and 016000 for Submittal Procedures and Product Requirements for additional information.

Q3.) Section 017300 requires the certification from a land surveyor that the location and elevation of project improvements comply with requirements (para. 1.2.A). Are there any improvements in this project that would require this?

A3.) No.

Q4.) Solicitation Attachments 10, 11 & 12 include the Haz mat reports for the various areas of the building. Is there a specification that deals with the requirements for the removal of the haz mat? Are air monitoring and final air clearances to be included? Demo General Notes on the Demolition Plans state that the GC is to perform the Asbestos abatement. Are the removals of Lead based paint, mercury, etc.

also to be abated by the GC?

A4.) The report provided in the specifications shows locations where hazardous materials have been found to be present in the Building. There is no specific scope for the removal. The Contractor shall be responsible for removing asbestos, lead and other hazardous material that will be disturbed or affected through the demolition process or that will be disturbed or affected during the construction process. Removal and disposal shall comply with all federal and State DEQ requirements.

The asbestos abatement contractor has to file for a project permit and submit a copy during the submittal process and prior to any work. The inspection report, the application for project permit and permit itself must be onsite during the project.

Q5.) Is the power on the campus distribution system? How do we coordinate?

A5.) Yes, this building is on the looped campus distribution system. The power switch over should not effect the other buildings on campus. Coordinate all outages with CO prior per the contract documents.

Q6.) Who is providing the front end computer for the controls?

A6.) Refer to Specification 230900 Section 2.6.

Q7.) Is there access into the 3rd floor mechanical room other than the spiral stair?

AG-82FT-S-16-0015

Amendment No. 000002, dated 06/23/2016 Page 2 of 2

A7.) The only access to the 3rd floor mechanical room is from the spiral stair and from the roof.

Q8.) Is the existing curb on the 1st floor A-wing roof for something in this contract?

A8.) See sheet M2.1 keynote 6 and Sheet M2.2 keynote 29.

Q9.) Will the space be cleaned prior to contractor mobilizing onsite?

A9.) Yes.

Missoula Fire Sciences Lab Mechanical Upgrade Solicitation No. AG-82FT-S-16-0015AME000002

SECTION M--EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M- 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award the contract to the offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government.

(a) Technical Proposal. The technical proposals will be evaluated and ranked on the basis of the criteria below. The three technical factors are approximately equal. Initial proposals which do not include responses to any one of the technical criteria will not be considered further.

(1) Technical Approach and Understanding of the Project: Refer to L-4

(2) Past Performance and Company Experience: Refer to L-4

(3) Project Management: Refer to L-4

(b) Price Proposal. This criterion will include consideration of cost information provided to support item prices entered in Section B, Schedule of Items. It is the Government's intent to assess the price/cost breakdown to determine (1) reasonableness, and (2) offeror's understanding of the work.

M- 2 AWARD STATEMENT

The assessment for award will be based on three nonprice technical factors and price and when combined the three nonprice factors, are more important than price. Offer of award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror. The Government will award the contract to the offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government. Where technical proposals are determined to be substantially equal, cost may control award.

Technical proposals will be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation panel according to the criteria in Section M- 1 (a). The panel will not have access to the price proposal during the technical evaluation process. See Section L- 4 for information required for the price and technical proposals.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a). Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from a price and technical standpoint, which the offeror can submit to the Government;

however, the Government may, after evaluation of proposals, conduct further oral or written discussions as appropriate, with all offerors whose proposals are within a competitive range.

M.3 AWARD DETERMINATION

The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose response best conforms to the solicitation and which will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

This acquisition will utilize the Performance Price Trade-off technique to make a best value award decision. Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Project Management, when combined, are more important than Price. Technical Capability/ Past Performance/Project Management and Price, may be traded off, one against the other, to determine the best value for the Government.

M.4 OFFER COMPLIANCE

Offerors shall submit their proposal(s) in the format and quantities specified in Section L.

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation will be conducted in strict confidence in that the technical packages will be evaluated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identity of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation/award process or to the other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described below and the basis of award is the tradeoff process.

As the Government intends to make award without discussions, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the offeror can make from both price and technical standpoints.

The evaluation process consists of six parts: (1) proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, (2) technical evaluation, (3) past performance, (4) project management, (5) price evaluation and (6) cost/technical tradeoff analysis. The Evaluation Board will evaluate and rate the proposals against RFP requirements. Factors will receive adjectival ratings of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable.

1. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both technical and price proposals are received.

2. Technical Evaluation of Capability to Perform Required Mechanical Upgrades in a Research Facility:

a. Organization: The TEB will evaluate the extent and quality of recent experience identified in the proposal. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size, scope and dollar value will be considered to have met the minimum requirements.

Proposals that do not include substantial evidence that the offeror has the experience, qualifications and production capabilities to successfully execute this project will be considered to not meet the minimum requirements.

b. Plan of Operations: Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources, and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit and completion of the work will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources, or that do not demonstrate appropriate capacity will be considered to not meet the solicitation requirements.

c. Quality Control: Proposals will be evaluated on the adequacy and appropriateness of quality control and self-inspection plans and procedures.

3. Past Performance: In addition to the references provided by the contractor, the government may use other tools such as CPS, CPAR, CCASS, PPIMS, or Dun & Bradstreet to evaluate past performance. The following points will be included in the evaluation of past performance:

a. Business Relations: Demonstrates effective management, ability to manage projects involving subcontracts, working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexibility, effective Contractor recommended solutions, and businesslike concern for the government's interests.

b. Compliance with Contract Terms and Conditions: The standard is met by Contractors who have consistently met contract terms and specifications and demonstrated conformance to standards of good workmanship.

c. Timeliness of Performance: The standard is met by Contractors who have consistently demonstrated compliance with contract schedules and have completed work on-time.

d. Customer Satisfaction: The standard is met by contractors who have consistently satisfied their customer’s expectations as evidenced by the willingness to rehire.

e. Quality of Work: Demonstrated ability to perform services in accordance with contract specifications and conformance to good standards of workmanship.

f. Cost Control: Demonstrates the ability to complete contracts within budget (at or below); reasonableness of price change proposals submitted; and providing current, accurate, and complete billings.

The evaluation board will evaluate the degree of successful completion of the experience identified in the proposal. Documentation of satisfactory past performance of projects considered similar in size, scope and dollar value will be considered to have met the minimum requirements. Proposals that do not demonstrate satisfactory past performance will be considered to not meet the minimum requirements of the RFP. Past performance that demonstrates superior performance completing similar projects may receive additional consideration. The government may use other tools such as CPS, CPAR, CCASS, and PPIMS to evaluate past performance.

NOTE: 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 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). IN THIS INSTANCE PAST PERFORMANCE WILL

RECEIVE A NEUTRAL RATING.

4. Project Management: Identifying the key personnel such as project manager, superintendent or foremen and subcontractors that may be used on the project and the method of oversight of the project.

Provide the names of key personnel who will be project manager, superintendant, foremen, subcontractors, and suppliers; the role each will serve on the project, and their qualifications and experience.

Fully explain over sight of the project that will be provided. Include a schedule or percentage of time there will be onsite Contractor representation.

The above information shall be provided for all proposed electrical and mechanical subcontractors in the same format and level of detail as prescribed for the “Offeror.”

5. Price Evaluation: The evaluation board will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluations. The evaluation board will evaluate the price for balance, reasonableness and realism through comparison to the Independent Government Estimate and the use of cost/price analysis.

6. Cost/Technical Tradeoff: After all the above evaluations are complete, the evaluation board will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of the technical proposals, relative to the requirements of the RFP, and overlay the element of price. The intent is to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined, are more important than price.

Award Determination

Award will be made to that Offeror (1) whose proposal meets the technical requirements of the solicitation and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government. The critical factor in making any cost/technical trade-offs is the significance of the difference between cost, schedule and performance and the risks associated with each. The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical trade-offs that are in the best interest and advantageous to the Government. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the low price offeror or offeror with the “Best Value”.