AMENDMENT_No._1_OF_SOLICITATION_RFP_No__DTFH61-13-R-00021.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

Amendment No. 1 July 23, 2013 N/A

6. ISSUED BY CODE HAAM-40 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office of Acquisition Management 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

To All Offerors

DTFH61-13-R-00021

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

July 2, 2013

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 is extended, X is not extended.

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 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) N/A

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor__X_ is not,_ __ is required to sign this document and return____ copies to the issuing office.

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

This amendment is issued to 1) add legal citation, 2) clarify staffing criteria, 3) create Other Direct Costs proposal option, 4) discuss Best Value Trade-Off criteria, 5) change evaluation factor M.2, 6) add to past performance evaluation criteria, 7) clarify evaluation for award criteria and 8) provide responses to prospective offerors’ questions.

Accordingly, the RFP is amended as follows:

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

Robin K. Hobbs, Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY_________________________________________ BY___________________________ ________ (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS

EDITION NOT USABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

DTFH61-13-R-00021

Amendment No. 1

1) Under Section C. DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATONS/WORK STATEMENT:

Delete it in its entirety: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP21) authorizes the Federal Highway Administration to carry out a (c) TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, which includes (3) ACCELERATED

IMPLEMENTATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES..

Replace it in its entirety: Section 52003 of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP21) authorizes the Federal Highway Administration to carry out a (c) TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, which includes (3)

ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES.

2) Under Section L. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO THE

OFFERORS OF QUOTERS, PART I TECHNICAL PROPOSALS,

QUALIFICATIONS PROFESSIONAL STAFFING AND DESCRIPTIONS, page 53:

Delete it in its entirety: Due to the highly specialized nature of technical work to be performed under the contract, the following staffing categories will likely be required:

Replace it in its entirety: Due to the highly specialized nature of technical work to be performed under the contract, the following staffing categories shall be required:

3) Under Section L. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO THE OFFERORS OF QUOTERS, PART I-COST/PRICE INFORMATION, page 58:

Delete it in its entirety: 3. Other Direct Costs (ODCs): This category includes materials, equipment, travel, etc. The Offeror shall consolidate ODCs into one line item.

However, a separate schedule shall be provided to breakdown ODCs. The schedule shall provide a detailed itemization of each ODC proposed, and shall also provide rationale for the need of each item.

Replace it in its entirety:

3. Other Direct Costs (ODCs): This category includes materials, equipment, travel, etc.

The Offeror shall consolidate ODCs into one line item. However, a separate schedule shall be provided to breakdown ODCs. The schedule shall provide a detailed itemization of each ODC proposed, and shall also provide rationale for the need of each item.

Offerors shall use $10,000 for the Base Period estimated amount in other direct costs or they can propose otherwise for proposal purposes.

4) Under Section M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, paragraph M.1, page 60:

Delete it in its entirety:

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the “best value” after evaluation. Under this solicitation, the “best value” will be made on the basis of the proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors. In other words, the “best value” will be made using a method in which when combined, Technical and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost and allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically acceptable rated Offeror.

Replace it in its entirety:

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the “best value” after evaluation. Under this solicitation, the “best value” will be made on the basis of the proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors. In other words, the Government’s source selection decision will be based on a Best Value, Trade-off process using the following three factors, further defined below: (A) Technical; (B) Price; and (C) Past Performance. As differences in technical ratings and evaluations between offerors proposals become narrower, price will increasingly become more important as a factor. Considering the evaluation factors, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than cost and allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically acceptable rated Offeror.

5) Under Section M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, paragraph M.2(1)(a)Technical Approach, page 61:

Delete it in its entirety: Demonstrated experience such as published technical articles, government-funded research projects, reports and/or direct field experience.

Replace it in its entirety: Demonstrated experience through published technical articles, government-funded research projects, reports and/or direct field experience.

6) Under Section M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, paragraph M.2(3) PAST PERFORMANCE), page 62:

Add it in its entirety: In evaluating past performance, the Government may consider information provided by offerors in their proposal submissions, as well as any other information available to the Government.

7) Under Section M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, paragraph M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD, page 63:

Delete it in its entirety: The government will accept the offer that is considered the most advantageous. Considering the evaluation factors outlined above, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than cost.

Replace it in its entirety: The government will accept the offer that is considered the most advantageous. The Government’s source selection decision will be based on a Best Value, Trade-off process using the above three factors, (A) Technical; (B) Price; and (C)

Past Performance. As differences in technical ratings and evaluations between offerors proposals become narrower, price will increasingly become more important as a factor.

Considering the evaluation factors, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than cost and allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically acceptable rated Offeror.

8) Responses to RFP Questions:

The following questions were submitted for RFP (DTFH61-13-R-00021) by prospective offerors:

Question 1:

The proposal suggests the scope of this work will focus singularly on asphalt materials but not on pavement underlying layers. Is this correct?

-Yes.

Question 2:

In Task B, the contractors are responsible for assembling a technical advisory committee (TAC). Is the intent of the TAC to provide assistance in not only identifying projects but also collecting other information, especially traffic, climatic and forensic data, for the projects identified?

- The intent of the TAC is to establish a team of technical specialists to provide assistance in identifying projects as described in Task C and also to review the draft materials prepared as part of this contract. The contractors are open to negotiating additional support with the TAC as needed.

Question 3:

In Task C, the contractor is to sample and collect data from projects in each climatic region. Should these be existing projects, new projects or a combination which include both rehabilitation and full-depth construction?

- This is up to the discretion of the contractor, subject to review and approval by the

COR.

Question 4a:

The RFP in Task C states “The Contractor shall work with the TAC and State DOT’s to determine by type listed in the primary objective no less than two (2) each R2AMs projects in each of the 4 climatic regions.” It also states “it is anticipated that no more than two (2) project visits in each of the 4 regions will be required” (page 5). Please clarify how many projects and revisits are expected for each region.

It is anticipated that no more than two (2) project visits in each of the 4 regions will be required and that all other meetings and data collection needs can be managed by email and/or conference calls. However, the Contractor will hold as many face to face meetings as necessary to accomplish the work.

Question 4b:

Are mixtures with all four materials expected to be sampled from each region?

- Propose in accordance with the Statement of Work.

Question 5:

In regards to the performance testing in Tasks D and E, NCHRP Report 673 (Table 6-4) only recommends TSR, Flow Number, and E* for mix design. Should this guide be developed for only these tests, or should the research team recommend additional performance tests.

- Performance tests results that are not applicable to the MEPDG do not need to be considered; however there may be opportunities to enhance the design methodology by using performance test not included in the MEPDG testing requirements. An example of this would be the use of Flow number results to modify the rutting transfer functions as described in NCHRP) Report 719: Calibration of Rutting Models for Structural and Mix Design. Testing of asphalt materials and binder properties listed on Table 11-2 in the AASHTO MEPDG Manual of Practice (July 2008) such as G* and delta are also required for level 1 inputs to the ME design procedure. Differences in the test results of R2AMs mixes vs. conventional HMA as they apply to MEPDG design should be considered.

Question 6:

Do items ii and iii in task F require a calibration of the MEPDG for R2AMS? It would seem that this is necessary to complete items i, v, vi, and vii of this task.

However, a calibration of the MEPDG for R2AMS is not described as an objective of this project in the RFP.

- Verification of the procedure used to incorporate R2AMs into the ME design process is needed through a calibration process as indicated in bullets i, ii, iii of Task F.

Question 7:

Does the $60,000 travel budget for the first four years include all of the following travel?

a. TAC meeting YES including paying for TAC member travel

-TAC member travel was not intended but could be if needed subject to approval by

COR.

b. Kick-off meeting in Baltimore, MD

-YES

c. Travel to regional outreach meetings

- YES

d. Travel for technical support (one trip per year)

- YES

e. Travel to construction sites for sampling and data collection

- YES

f. Travel to site revisits

Was not intended but could be if needed subject to approval by COR.

Question 8:

There has been some confusion on our part as to whether or not the team is going to have to conduct any calibration on the current design guide. These two statements are what have caused the concern. These are items ii and vi under Task F of the proposal.

ii. Performance assessment drawn on national data sets, including the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program managed by FHWA. (The Contractor should work with the FHWA LTPP team to determine any R2AMs test sections existing or planned that are applicable to this task). Consider other accelerated performance testing facilities results using R2AMs for calibration purposes.

vi. Provide practical guidance on the selection and effect on the performance criteria for pavement designs incorporating R2AMs. This includes a discussion of the interaction of reliability and performance thresholds when using R2AMs.

-Verification of the procedure used to incorporate R2AMs into the ME design process is needed through a calibration process as indicated in bullets i, ii, iii of Task F.

Question 9:

This is a rather fast turnaround for a proposal of this magnitude. We would like to request an extension on the deadline if possible to provide FHWA the chance to get proposals of higher quality. Not only is the 31st less than one month after the RFP was posted, but August 1 is also deadlines for TRB submittals.

-FHWA shall not extend the RFP due date and time. Submit as proposed.

No additional questions concerning this solicitation will be accepted.

Except as noted herein, all other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT