Amendment_02.pdf

F1TBAU4133A001 FTFA 13-3005

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:

1. Correct Section M Relevancy Definition to reflect Section L Relevancy Definition.

2. Update "Specif ications" attachment to Include Section 07 56 10.

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

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-Sep-2014

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

FA2823-14-R-6024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Sep-2014

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

25-Sep-2014

CODE

AFTC/PZIO EGLIN - FA2823

308 WEST D AVENUE, SUITE 130 (BLDG 260)

EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5418

FA2823 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA2823-14-R-6024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1. Correct Section M Relevancy Definition to reflect Section L Relevancy Definition.

2. Updated “Specifications” attachment to include Section 07 56 10.

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Section M – Evaluation of Proposals

Paragraph b.- Evaluation Process - 2. ii. Relevancy Definition has been updated to reflect the following:

Performance of construction work which is the same or similar in scope, magnitude, trade, and complexity, as described in the RFP, including the specifications and drawings, contract type, contract environment, subcontractor interaction, and Price. Relevant contracts include experience as a prime contractor and/or Joint Ventures or Significant Subcontractor expertise in the area of construction activities with a focus on tall steel structures (tall structures are considered structures above three stories), variable height buildings, and concrete foundations that include pumping and vibration around rebar mats as well as experience with anchor bolts.

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

The following have been amended in attachment #2, Specifications:

1. Division 7 – Thermal and Moisture Protection, section 07 56 10 – Fluid Applied Roofing, previously missing from the specifications, has been added.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. This is a competitive best value acquisition utilizing the tradeoff process without technical proposals in accordance with FAR 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by DoD Source Selection

Procedures, AFFARS 5315.3, MP5315.3, and the evaluation process and criteria set forth in this Request for Proposal (RFP). This procurement will be conducted as a 100% Total Small Business set-aside. The

Government will award a contract resulting from the RFP to the acceptable, responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to this RFP, offers the best-value to the Government. The evaluation factors are:

Factor 1: Price; and Factor 2: Past Performance, with Past Performance being approximately equal to

Price. Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing Offerors.

2. Offerors shall assure that proposals are submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in clause

FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisitions and Section L of this RFP. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all RFP requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, exhibits, attachments, drawings, and specifications.

3. Offerors shall propose prices for all CLINs. Any offer that fails to cite a Price for each item, or fails to make an entry, may be rejected as nonconforming to this RFP.

4. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement risks rejection.

5. Only Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) offers will be evaluated for FFP Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).

An offer using a sliding price scale, or subject to escalation based on any contingency for FFP designated

CLINs, will not be accepted. Only one contract will be awarded for this requirement.

b. EVALUATION PROCESS:

1. Price Evaluation: Initially, offers will be ranked according to their Total Evaluated Prices (TEPs).

The Offeror’s proposed CLIN prices will be determined by multiplying the “Unit Price” by the

Government provided ”Quantity” identified to determine the “Amount” for each CLIN. As part of the Price evaluation, all CLIN “Amounts” will be added together (summed) to establish an Offeror’s overall TEP for the acquisition. Price will be reviewed and evaluated based on the CLINs shown within solicitation Part I, Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices which begins on the page following the SF 1442- Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

The Offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Once the Contracting Officer has determined that adequate price competition exists within this source selection price fair and reasonableness will be evaluated, at a minimum, based on the comparison of the Offeror’s overall TEP with all other competitive Offerors’ overall TEPs received in response to the solicitation.

After the proposals are ranked by Price, the Past Performance evaluation will proceed as defined in Section b.

2. Past Performance Evaluation: Using the information provided in Volume II, Past Performance

Proposal and Volume III, Past Performance References (Appendix A’s) and completed Past Performance

Questionnaires (Appendix B’s) and other available information, the Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government, commercial and other sources.

i. Recent Definition: Ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation (see Standard Form 1442, Block 3).

ii. Relevancy Definition: Performance of construction work which is the same or similar in scope, magnitude, trade, and complexity, as described in the RFP, including the specifications and drawings, contract type, contract environment, subcontractor interaction, and Price. Relevant contracts include experience as a prime contractor and/or Joint Ventures or Significant Subcontractor expertise in the area of construction activities with a focus on tall steel structures (tall structures are considered structures above three stories), variable height buildings, and concrete foundations that include pumping and vibration around rebar mats as well as experience with anchor bolts.

iii. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced Offerors if none of the lower priced Offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the Past Performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and Past

Performance. The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon Past

Performance of the Offerors as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s record of (i) conforming to the Specifications and contract requirements, (ii) management of the project, (iii) reasonable and cooperative behavior and performance and commitment to customer satisfaction, and (iv) quality control. This assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an Offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort, based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated present and Past

Performance. The rating may be determined initially, or as a result of discussions. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence, as defined in

Table 1.0.

iv. Offerors submitting Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors, are highly encouraged to provide sufficient details regarding them to allow the

Government to fully evaluate the relative value of the information. For example, but not limited to, how is the Past Performance of a predecessor company, key personnel, or subcontractor recent and relevant to the determination of this Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. What will the level of involvement of key personnel be on this contract effort? Provide full details of any subcontractor’s involvement on this work effort. However, Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent and relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will NOT be rated as highly as Past Performance information for the principal Offeror.

v. In evaluating Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

vi. Offerors with no recent and relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Definitions for Performance Confidence Assessments and Relevancy are as defined below:

Table 1.0 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Performance Confidence Assessments

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

Table 2.0 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Definitions

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Definitions

Very Relevant

Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. BEST VALUE DETERMINATION: Offerors will be initially ranked from lowest TEP to the highest TEP.

1. If the proposal with the lowest TEP is determined to be reasonable, and is judged to have an overall

Substantial Confidence performance rating, and the Offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the Best Value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award will be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

2. IF THE LOWEST TEP OFFER IS NOT JUDGED TO HAVE AN OVERALL SUBSTAINIAL

CONFIDENCE PEFORMANCE RATING THE EVALUATION WILL CONTINUE AS

FOLLOWS:

i. If the lowest TEP acceptable offer is reasonable, but does not have a confidence rating of Substantial

Confidence, the next lowest TEP, acceptable offer will be evaluated and the process will continue until an Offeror whose Price is reasonable receives a confidence rating of Substantial Confidence overall for

Past Performance.

ii. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment Best Value award decision by determining if the Best Value to the Government is to pay a higher cost for a higher Past

Performance assessment rating. The Government reserves the following rights:

(A). To award a contract to the lowest TEP Offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating;

(B). To award to higher TEP Offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating;

(C). To award a contract to the lowest TEP Offeror who has at least a Satisfactory Confidence

Rating.

3. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisitions and Section L of this solicitation. Offeror’s 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.

4. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors. The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if later the Contracting Officer determines this to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers, if such, is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in received offers.

5. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in Price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of Price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The Offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort.

6. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that discussions are necessary, Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the Specialized

Contracting branch, 308 West D Avenue, Suite 130, Bldg. 260, Eglin AFB FL..

(End of Summary of Changes)