18R002001_(SF30).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 reason for this amendment is to make administrative corrections and to add and/or delete clauses/provisions. The changes are:

1. Section B - Edit IDC Restraints.

2. Section F - FAR 52.211-12 change the amount of liquidated damges amount from $342.80 to $342.32.

3. Section I - Add FAR 52.215-22, delete duplicate clauses FAR 52.246-21 and DFARS 252.232-7004, and delete DFARS 252.219-7011.

4. Sections L & M have been edited for minor clerical errors.

5. Attachment 9 w as edited for clerical errors.

6. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Jun-2018

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 FA252118R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jun-2018

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 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)

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

16-Jun-2018

CODE

45 CONS/PKA

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:

FA252118R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization has changed from

45 CONS/LGCBB

1201 EDWARD H WHITE II ST

PATRICK AFB FL 32925-3237

to

45 CONS/LGCAB

1201 EDWARD H WHITE II ST

PATRICK AFB FL 32925-3237

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

IDC CONSTRAINTS

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE

The minimum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not be less than the minimum quantity and contract value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not exceed the maximum quantity and contract value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

1.00 $50,000.00 100.00 $3,999,999.00

DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

$2,000.00 $3,000,000.00

CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

CLIN

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000)

(a) If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $342.32 for the first calendar day and $269.18 for each calendar day of delays until the work is completed or accepted.

Additional liquidated damages may be applicable to individual task orders and will be incorporated based on the following formula: Average daily revenue over the last 365 days multiplied by the number of calendar days of the delay.

(b) If the Government terminates the Contractor's right to proceed, liquidated damages will continue to accrue until the work is completed. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause.

(End of clause)

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.215-22

The following have been deleted:

52.246-21 252.219-7011 252.232-7004

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTION FOR OFFERORS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the General Construction Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity, initial project SXHT 16-1280 Repair Perimeter Fence, as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by 45 CONS/PKA, Bldg 423 room C-202, 1201 Edward H. White II Drive, Patrick Air Force Base, FL. 32925-3002, no later than the date and time specified in Block 13 on the face page of the RFP. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume II, Past Performance Information, so that it is received five (5) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume II by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

Point of Contact

The Procurement Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the e-mail address below. To ensure receipt of information and for continuity purposes, courtesy copy the Procurement Contract Specialist on all e-mail correspondence.

Procurement Contracting Officer: KIMBERLY S. HORNER

45 CONS/PKAB

Bldg 423 Room C-202 1201 Edward H. White II Drive Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3002 Telephone: (321) 494-0447 E-mail: kimberly.horner@us.af.mil

Procurement Contracting Specialist: ANTHONY T. EUBANKS

45 CONS/PKAB

Bldg 423 Room C-202 1201 Edward H. White II Drive Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3002 Telephone: (321) 494-0449 E-mail: anthony.eubanks@us.af.mil

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR

2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first mailto:anthony.eubanks@us.af.mil submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information.) Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx. When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three separate volumes as set forth below:

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 electronic copy Completed RFP II 40 1 electronic copy Past Performance III N/A 2 Price Proposal

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. The proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number (FA252118R0020) and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required.

3. The page limitation includes any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

7. Submission of the initial proposal packages shall be submitted via AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx (see Attachment 16 ARMDEC SAFE User Guide). Offers shall not be submitted to any other Government Official. Proposals received after the time indicated in Block 13 of the SF 1442 shall be considered “late” and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2017). Proposals submitted via ARMDEC SAFE require email notifcation of file upload to the contracting officer and/or contract specialist not later than the date and time listed in Block 13 of the

SF 1442.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

a. Offerors shall complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20A, 20B and 20C of the RFP Section A, (SF1422) in doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in RFP Sections A through K.

b. Section G- Contract Administrative Data. Complete any fill-ins required.

c. Provide Bid Guarantee in the amount of $100,000 or 20% of the proposed price for the initial project SXHT 16-1280, whichever is less, IAW with FAR 52.228-1.

C. Volume II - Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, in accordance with the format contained in the “Past Performance FACTS Sheet” (See RFP Attachment 9) and the following paragraphs. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. That is, on the five (5) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

3. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume II - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror or any joint venture. Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate Past Performance FACTS Sheet for five (5) active or completed contract (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds five (5), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its five (5) most recent and relevant contracts. The offeror's/joint venture member’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The Past Performance FACTS Sheet shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

4. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle, shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order).

When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities. Offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible. However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet this criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be accurate, complete, and in the correct format. If the information is not submitted in the correct format, the Government will not be able to evaluate the effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. There are specific places for submission of this information in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet RFP Attachment 9. Please ensure the information submitted, in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet RFP Attachment 9, is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. This includes but is not limited to information such as the dollar value, period of performance, quantity produced/managed, and type and complexity of data deliverables, for each order or series of orders.

4.1 Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror should list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M paragraph II.C.4. Per the Note in Section M paragraph II.C.4, Relevancy consists of not only technical complexities, but programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations include dollar value, length of effort, quantity produced, and type and complexity of data. If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders), the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), the total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) and the type and complexity of data deliverables for each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted. The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The type and complexity of data deliverables provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders, being submitted, should be for the same continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror or Points of Contacts provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

5. Key Personnel: Offerors, joint venture members, that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting Past Performance FACTS Sheets for five (5) of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Note however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Past Performance Team in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror /joint venture member.

6. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet (RFP Attachment 9) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 11). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume II.

7. Past Performance FACTS Sheet: The offeror/joint venture member shall focus its Past Performance FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The Past Performance FACTS Sheet responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed.

The answering space on the Past Performance FACTS Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages (i.e., no more than eight (8) pages. (See paragraph 2, Relevancy Table and Paragraph N of the Past Performance FACTS Sheet.) Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the Past Performance FACTS Sheets. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs on the FACTS Sheets:

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

(d) Other (As specified in your FACTS Sheet)

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

8. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 10) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 10 to each of the offeror’s, joint venture members (i.e., each entity’s) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each Past Performance FACTS Sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically, or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B. Communications above, and email to:

kimberly.horner@us.af.mil or anthony.eubanks@us.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaires via mail directly to:

45 CONS/PKAB

ATTN: Kimberly S. Horner or Anthony T. Eubanks Bldg 423 Room C-202 1201 Edward H. White II Drive Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3002

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

9. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 12). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

10. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the FACTS Sheets or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources, other than those listed within the FACTS Sheets.

11. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP (Attachments 9 & 10) Past Performance FACTS Sheet and Present/Past Performance Questionnaire must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

D. Volume III, Price Proposal

1. General: Offerors shall complete Attachment 4, Pricing Schedule by filling in their proposed prices for each cost element on the excel sheet. The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the magnitude of effort as described in Section M.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

Section M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

Section M. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered approximately equal to cost/price and each may be traded off, one against the other, to make a best value award decision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Completed RFP shall be completed and signed per instructions in Section L, Paragraph II.B.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information.

Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity, Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

• VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In addition, past performance effort involved managing at least five projects simultaneously with a combined value of at least $750K and included all the Relevancy Elements OR Present/past performance effort involved managing at least two projects simultaneously with a combined value of at least $1.5M; has essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires; and MUST include all the Relevancy Elements.

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort also involved managing at least three projects simultaneously with a combined value of at least $500K, and included three or more of the Relevancy Elements.

• SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort also involved managing at least one project of any value that included two or more of the Relevancy Elements listed below.

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

Relevancy Elements: (Projects which demonstrate familiarity with these types of construction projects).

1. General Construction - New construction, renovation, repair and/or upgrades of all components and structures that are associated with the building envelope to include but not be limited to: interior/exterior finishes (floors, ceilings, doors, windows, paint, siding, etc.), architectural woodwork (molding, cabinets, etc.), electrical systems (conduit, wire, breakers, panels, transformers, lighting, lighting protection, etc.), mechanical systems (HVAC, chillers, cooling towers, controls, VFDs, etc.), plumbing, utility systems, fire suppression systems (fire alarm systems, sprinkler system, etc.), roofing systems, structural systems and fencing.

2. Other Construction - New construction, renovation, repairs and/or upgrades of highways, roads, streets, airport runways, concrete aprons & pads, sidewalks, decorative pavers, athletic/recreational surfaces, landscaping & irrigations systems, seeding/sodding, detection loops, parking lots, traffic lines/markings/signs.

Work can also include the following, but not be limited to: site preparation, earthwork, grading, excavation, stormwater management and erosion control.

3. Incidental Work - Work incidental to the tasks performed in any of the above paragraphs shall include, but is not limited to demolition, carpentry, lighting, and similar minor electrical work that may be required to provide a complete, safe and usable facility during and after the course of roofing, mechanical, plumbing or painting services.

Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, General Construction, IDIQ. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Quantities: Minimum 1, Maximum 100, with guaranteed minimum amount of $50,000.

• Duration of Time: 2 years

• Estimated Total Dollar Value: Not to Exceed $3.99M

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition 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.

Neutral 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. That is, on the five (5) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Volume III, Price Proposal Factor

1. General: Based on the offeror’s price proposal in Attachment 4, the estimated amounts per each cost element and the proposed Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated for reasonable pricing.

a) Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

b) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the initial requirement.

c) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

E. Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the magnitude of effort as stated in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)