FA2823-17-R-4014-0005_Amendment_0005.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 incorporate Questions and Answ ers # 3, dated 8 May 2017 and Revise paragraph 4(b)(2) Relevancy Assessment of Section M.

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-May-2017

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 FA2823-17-R-4014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Apr-2017

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

08-May-2017

CODE

AFTC/PZIO EGLIN - FA2823

308 WEST D AVE. BLDG 260 STE 130

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:

FA2823-17-R-4014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize subjective tradeoff source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made between past performance and price only among those offerors whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by evaluation factors of this request for proposal). A contract shall be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

3. EVALUATION

(a) Proposals: The basis of award will be a subjective tradeoff with past performance being significantly more important than price, when evaluating proposals. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

• Factor 1: Price

• Factor 2: Past Performance

(b) Evaluation Process/Subjective Tradeoff: The Government shall evaluate offers to make one (1) award. Offers will initially be ranked by Total Evaluated Price from lowest to highest. The Government shall evaluate all offerors’ price proposals. The Government will then evaluate the past performance of those offers starting with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined to have a Substantial Confidence rating, and is determined responsible, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or not deemed to meet the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the next lowest offeror’s Past Performance will then be evaluated, and the process will continue until a rating of Substantial Confidence is determined or all offers have been evaluated. From the population of evaluated offerors, the best value trade-off will be conducted in order to determine the best value offeror.

For the purposes of the tradeoff, past performance will be considered significantly more important than price. The Source Selection Team will compile all data and present their findings and recommendations to the Source Selection Authority who will make a subjective evaluation to determine which offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(c) Clarifications, Discussions, and Negotiations. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Communications (Clarifications) 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. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range.

Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the Source Selection Facility 210 W. D Ave, Bldg. 373 Eglin AFB, FL, 32542.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) FACTOR 1 – PRICE

(1) The offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated for award purposes. To determine TEP, each line item ‘Item Cost’ (the product of the offeror’s proposed Unit Cost multiplied by the government-supplied estimated quantity as listed on the Pricing Schedule) will be added together to provide a total for the Base Period and each Option Period. The totals for each Period will then be added together to identify each offeror’s TEP. All five Periods will be considered in determining the offeror’s total evaluated price.

OPTIONS: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(2) Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating; however, an Offeror with an unreasonably high TEP is ineligible for award. Failure to provide complete pricing as required by this solicitation may cause the Government to determine that the offer is ineligible for award. The Offeror's TEP will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance:

Reasonableness: Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

Unbalanced pricing: Offeror’s price proposals will be evaluated to determine if unbalanced pricing exists. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(b) FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will perform a Past Performance evaluation and determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. The evaluation considers recency, relevancy and quality.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level. The Government may consider aggregate Past Performance in addition to Past Performance on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and in the information obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions may not be evaluated. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the information in its entirety may be evaluated for Past Performance.

(2) Relevancy Assessment – Relevant efforts/projects are defined as construction efforts/projects meeting the following:

Performance of roofing construction work as a Prime Contractor or Joint Venture on federal or commercial buildings with an estimated value of $150K or greater that was the same or similar as the requirements set forth in the RFP, including the specifications and drawings. The Government will not evaluate the past performance of subcontractors or key personnel. In evaluating the past performance of a Joint Venture, the Government will evaluate any relevant past performance of the Joint Venture or the relevant past performance of its members. The Government will consider past performance as a Prime Contractor or Joint Ventures involving Job Ordering Contracts (JOC), Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), Task Order Contracts (TOC), specifically for the repair and replacement of roofs, more relevant than projects for a single repair or roof replacement project.

TABLE 1 – Relevancy Assessment

Rating Description

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

(3) Performance Quality - The quality review consists of an evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses, CPARS or other similar systems, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may also include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas, which are addressed in the Past Performance Questionnaire: management; schedule; cost control, and quality. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

(4) Performance Confidence Assigning Ratings - The Government will review all Past Performance information collected and determine the performance confidence assessment. As a result of review of all three (3) aspects of Past Performance, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the areas addressed by the Past Performance Questionnaire (management, schedule, cost control, and quality control), the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Offeror performance. Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessments listed in Table 2:

TABLE 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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.

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)

FA2823-17-R-4014-0005

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #3

8 May 2017

Question 1: Per the instructions in Section L, Paragraph 2(f) of this solicitation, I'm requesting Contracting Officer clarification regarding the presentation of the line item costs in Attachment 3 - Roofing Bid Schedules.

As an 8(a) firm working under NAICS 238160, we will use a qualified roofing contractor--a subcontractor to us--to execute work under this contract. Hence, in addition to our direct subcontract costs, we as the prime will also have costs for general conditions, project administration, etc. As the Roofing Bid Schedules are currently designed, it seems we will need to incorporate our prime contractor costs into every line item in the Bid Schedule in order to effectively capture total contract cost to the Government. Is that the Government's preference?

I'm asking because, due to the differing complexity of individual task orders under this IDIQ, I can envision scenarios where general project conditions, etc. for some task orders could be significantly greater than for others. Trying to average those costs into each line item could potentially result in either higher risk to an 8(a) contractor on more complex task orders or higher cost to the Government for more straightforward roofing projects.

Answer: This is a firm-fixed price contract and as such the prices are not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract and this contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. Therefore, Offerors should propose prices that take into account all aspects of the cost to perform the contract, to include any overhead and profit. Additionally, all Offerors are reminded that the awarded contractor is subject to FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and that the Government considers this effort to be construction by special trade contractors. The awarded contractor will be required to perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.

Question 2: Solicitation, Page 55. If representations and certifications are up-to-date in SAM, shall the offeror provide printed copies of data from the website for Volume 1, Tab#5?

Answer: Yes. Offerors are reminded to complete both the FAR and DFARS representations and certifications in SAM. Offerors must also ensure that any additional representations and certification listed in Section K that are not in SAM are completed and submitted with their offer.

Question 3: Solicitation, Page 57. Shall the offeror submit individual task orders under an IDIQ contract for the past performance examples or shall the offeror use an entire IDIQ contract as one Past Performance example?

Answer: The entire IDIQ should be submitted as one reference and the Offeror should annotate the number of task orders completed under the contract in their description of the work performed and explanation of why the referenced effort is relevant.

Question 4: Solicitation, Page 58 and Attachment 8, Page 1. According to the solicitation, the Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted with the proposal from the offeror. However, according to the instructions on Attachment 8, the evaluator is to email/fax the completed evaluation directly to Mr. Wesolowski. Is it acceptable for the evaluators to send the evaluations to the offeror to include in the proposal documents?

Answer: No. If you will notice above in the Tabs there is no specified Tab for completed Past Performance Questionnaires. As specified in Section L, Offerors are to complete Section A of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 8) and forward to their clients and instruct them to complete Sections B and C. Offeror’s clients will then follow the instructions on the Questionnaire and forward the completed Questionnaire directly to Mr.

Wesolowski.

FA2823-17-R-4014-0005

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #3

8 May 2017

Question 5: Attachment 8, Page 1. If the PPQ's are to be emailed/faxed to Mr. Wesolowski, what is the latest date these can be emailed/faxed by the evaluator?

Answer: We need all PPQs no later than the date for receipt of proposals, 24 May 2017.

Question 6: 1. On page 65 of the Solicitation Document, it is stated "in evaluating the past performance of a Joint Venture, the Government will limit its evaluation to the past performance of the Joint Venture, not its members." It is the intent of our firm to submit an offer for the subject solicitation as a new Joint Venture. The strength of this new Joint Venture comes from one member bringing exceptional roofing expertise, while the other member brings exceptional construction management expertise. Is it permissible to submit a proposal from a new Joint Venture and show past performance from each of the Joint Venture members for evaluation?

Answer: Yes. Paragraph 4(b)(2) Relevancy Assessment of Section M has been revised to allow for the submission of past performance for the members of any Joint Venture. See Amendment 0005.

Question 7: What weight do you place on Team Members? It is stated on page 58 of the Solicitation that we may include a teaming or partnership agreement or letter of intent for consideration. It is not stated that we can submit our Team Member’s past performance, but we believe that being able to include these references would be the best way to show the strength that a Team Member would bring to the teaming arrangement. How will you evaluate (or what weight do you place on) a Team Member? And is it permissible to submit our Team Member’s past performance as part of the 5 requested past performance references?

Answer: In regards to the requirement for the submission of teaming/partnership agreement. In accordance with FAR 9.603 in order for the Government to recognize the validity and integrity of any contractor team arrangement, the arrangement must be fully disclosed in an offer. In the context of this solicitation it is primarily for those contractor team arrangements in which two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor (See FAR 9.601 (1)). The Government will not evaluate subcontractor past performance under a typical Prime-Subcontractor team arrangement. (See FAR 9.601(2))

In the context of a Joint Venture, the Government has not established any weighting of individual Joint Venture participants. However, the Government will consider and evaluate the past performance of the members of a Joint Venture taking into consideration the information presented in an Offeror’s SBA approved Joint Venture agreement.

Question 8: Are bidders permitted to include major subcontractors’ past performance for certain aspects of work?

Answer: No. See response to Question 7 and revised Section M (Amendment 0005).

Question 9: Please clarify if you will accept a CPARS Evaluation in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 8) for Solicitation No. FA2823-17-R-4014, or if we need to use the attachment 8 PPQ for all past performance references?

Answer: It may be the policy of some Government agencies to respond to Past Performance Questionnaires by attaching the CPARS evaluation in lieu answering specific questions. In these instances Offerors may instruct their clients to complete Section B of the PPQ and attach the CPARS Evaluation instead of completing Section C. If the agency does not have a specific policy in regards to PPQs and CPARS Evaluations then we request that they complete the PPQ and send directly to us.