FA2521-14-R-0018-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to remove verbiage from Section M as w ell provide responses to questions.

A. Question and Answ er Response Dated 26 Feb 2015 is provided under Attachment #13.

B. Remove "Quality w ill be evaluated for each past performance effort" from Section M - Evaluation Factors for Aw ard - Volume III - Past

Performance, Paragraph e.

C. Incorporate Question and Answ er Response into solicitation as Attachment #13.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Feb-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA2521-14-R-0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jan-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 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)

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 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Feb-2015

CODE

45 CONS/LGCAA

1201 EDWARD H WHITE II ST

PATRICK AFB FL 32925-3237

FA2521 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA2521-14-R-0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT TABLE OF CO

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Statement of Work 30 01-FEB-2014

Attachment 2 Technical Specifications 5992 01-JAN-2012

Attachment 3

2014 Construction Task

Catalog

01-AUG-2014

Attachment 4a

Attachment 4b

Attachment 4c

Attachment 4d

Attachment 4e

Attachment 4f

Brevard County Wage

Determination FL150001

Homes County Wage

Determination FL150137

Indian River County

Wage Determination

FL150160

Martin County Wage

Determination FL150167

Palm Beach County Wage

Determination FL150173

St Lucie County Wage

Determination FL150179

23-JAN-2015

02-JAN-2015

Attachment 5 Price Cost Factor (CLIN

Calculation)

Attachment 6 Chart of Historical

SABER Data

Attachment 7 Performance Evaluation

Questionnaire Cover

Attachment 8 Past Performance

Questionnaire

Attachment 9 Sample Consent Letter 1

Attachment 10

Attachment 11

Attachment 12

Attachment 13

Question & Answer

Template

Question & Answer

Response

Question & Answer

Response

Question & Answer

Response

06-FEB-2015

19-FEB-2015

26-FEB-2015

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

a. IAW FAR 15.204-5(c) and DoD Source Selection Procedures, this acquisition will utilize a tradeoff source selection process with tradeoff between price and past performance. The government will make a best-value determination considering proposed price and past performance ratings. Based on the best-value determination, award may be made to a higher-priced offeror with a better past performance rating. Past performance is approximately equal to price in this trade-off analysis. Only one award will be made as a result of this process.

b. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale; however, failure to agree to all solicitation requirements and terms and conditions may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

c. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Clarifications may be requested as described in FAR 15.306(a). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

d. Offeror Responsibility - Prior to any award from this solicitation, the offeror may be requested to provide business information for the purpose of determining their responsibility for award. Failure to provide requested information may result in a determination of non-responsibility.

e. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal

(any pages going beyond the limit requested in Section L will not be evaluated):

Factor 1, Volume II - Price Proposal: Based on the offeror’s price proposal in Attachment 5, the estimated amounts per CLIN and the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated for reasonable and balanced pricing.

a. Reasonable. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and other agency supplements. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offer being unacceptable for award. An offeror’s proposal shall represent the offeror’s best efforts to respond to the RFP. Price reasonableness will include evaluating the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

b. Balanced. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government will evaluate Attachment 5 to determine if the proposed coefficient of one or more of the CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques. The proposal may be rejected if it is determined to be unbalanced and as a result poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Offeror’s are encouraged to include explanatory notes regarding any fluctuations in coefficients that may otherwise be viewed as unbalanced.

Factor 2, Volume III - Past Performance

a. Under the Past Performance factor a Performance Confidence Assessment will be generated based on the offerors recent and relevant experience. In evaluating an offerors past performance, the Government will utilize all available sources of such information, including past performance questionnaires, seeking additional performance information through the use of one of many automated systems to include the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System

(CCASS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), performance evaluation documentation filed in the 45 Contracting Squadron, and using data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. When performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts and performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

b. Recent contracts, for purposes of this solicitation, are defined as those where work was performed during the last three (3) years from RFP release date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The offeror must explain why the past performance is considered relevant to this acquisition.

c Relevancy. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts requiring multi-project/multi-discipline (i.e.

Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Masonry, Painting) that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity as the effort described in the SOW. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the

Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevant past performance is defined in Table 1 and will be assessed to determine the relevancy of each recent past performance effort.

d. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Table 1. RELEVANCY CRITERIA

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved managing at least five (5) projects simultaneously with a combined value of $750K and each project was similar in terms of scope, magnitude and complexities and included all the Relevancy Elements listed OR

Present/past performance effort involved managing at least two (2) projects simultaneously with a combined value of $1.5M and the combined efforts of the projects were similar in terms of scope, magnitude and complexities and included all Relevancy

Elements listed.

Relevancy Elements Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Masonry, Painting

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved managing a similar project in terms of scope, magnitude and complexities. Project must have been above $100K and included three (3) or more of the Relevancy Elements listed.

Relevancy Elements Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Masonry, Painting

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort did not involve managing a similar project(s) in terms of scope, magnitude and complexities and does not meet the Relevant or Somewhat Relevant criteria described above.

e. Quality. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offerors performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this RFP.

f. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS. The assessment will be accomplished by reviewing the offeror’s quality of recent and relevant present and past performance. Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. The Government will evaluate past performance on the basis of information that may be obtained from the offeror and from other sources. Based on the assessment described above, the Government will assign one of the adjectival ratings from the DoD Source

Selection Guide as shown below (See Table 2). Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The Government will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history. The Government will also not use in its assessment a past/present contract where performance cannot be verified through the customer of that contract.

However, the Government reserves the right to award to a higher-priced offer with a favorable performance confidence rating if an integrated assessment indicates that this will provide the best value to the Government. In addition, past performance regarding predecessor companies or key personnel (i.e. Onsite Program Manager) who have relevant experience, that will perform major critical aspects of the requirements WILL NOT be considered as highly as past performance information on the principle offeror.

Table 2. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(End of Summary of Changes)