FA301018R0011A0001.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

To answ er questions submitted by potential offerors. Solicitation Section L, Instructions to Offerors and Section M, Evaluation Factors for Aw ard have been revised to clarify ambiguities identif ied by questions. Section J, List of attachments did not change w ith the exception of spelling corrections.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Mar-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 FA301018R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Mar-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 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

27-Mar-2018

CODE

81ST CONTRACTING SQUADRON

DONALD KINSMAN

500 FISHER ST, BLDG 0701, RM 202G

KEESLER AFB MS 39534

FA3010 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA301018R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Volume III Technical Proposal, Subfactor 3 Sample Project

Q: The Government states the Offeror is required to prepare a complete proposal for Project MAHG 17-1073. To confirm, is the Government looking for a technical approach to perform the project?

A: Utilizing the SGSOW, UPG and the proposed coefficients the Offeror is required to prepare a complete proposal for project MAHG 17-1073 (The Government will amend the solicitation to correct the project number to MAHG-16-1002), Relocate Recycle Center. The Sample Project Package is attached as indicated in Section J of this Request for Proposal (RFP). The Sample Project proposal will be evaluated based on whether it demonstrates an understanding of the TO Proposal preparation process using the SGSOW, UPG and coefficients; and completely and adequately addresses the work required by the Sample Project Package attached at Solicitation Section J, and provides any required documents to support the proposed TO work.

2. Volume IV Past Performance Information paragraph (h) Questionnaires –

Q: In lieu of past performance questionnaires, can the Offeror submit a Final CPARS evaluation?

A: No, offerors should follow the instructions in Paragraph (h).

3. Q: Would the Government prefer to see 5 projects that are IDIQ contracts with listed task orders, or would the Government prefer to see individual task orders under an IDIQ contract for the past performance submission?

A: The Government has no preference in regards to the question. We recommend offerors submit five projects (either IDIQ task orders or other efforts) they deem most relevant according to the relevancy definitions contained in Section M of the solicitation.

4. Q: In Section L, Paragraph C Coefficient (Price) Proposal, it states “The Offeror’s coefficients submitted in Attachment 3.” Attachment 3 is a wage determination. Is there supposed to be another attachment to place coefficients in?

A: No. Section L, Paragraph C is revised by this amendment. Coefficients are to be inserted in solicitation Section B as stated elsewhere in the paragraph. A separate volume for the price proposal will not be required.

5. Q: Is a bid bond required for this solicitation?

A: A bid bond is required for the sample project only. See solicitation Section I, clause 52.228- 1 Bid Guarantee

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Document Type Description Pages Date Attachment 1 General Statement of Work (SGSOW) 48 12 Feb 18 Attachment 2 Wage Determination MS180141 5 5 Jan 18 Attachment 3 Wage Determination MS180155 4 5 Jan 18 Attachment 4 Wage Determination MS180237 5 5 Jan 18 Attachment 5 Sample Project MAHG16-1002 SOW 22 30 Jan 18 Attachment 6 Sample Project MAHG16-1002 Drawings 2 22 Dec 17 Attachment 7 Sample Project MAHG16-1002 Drawings 2 28 Dec 17 (Alt I) Attachment 8 Sample Project MAHG16-1002 129 4 Aug 17 Mechanical Specifications Attachment 9 Sample Project MAHG16-1002 AF Form 1 Undated 66 Schedule of Material Submittals Attachment 10 Past Performance Reference List 1 Undated Attachment 11 Past Performance Questionnaire 2 Undated

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

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 (including Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section J, Attachment 1, and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS) may cause their proposal to be determined to be 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, as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by 81 CONS/LGCM, 500 Fisher St. Room 202E, Keesler AFB, MS 39534-2701, Attention: Donald Kinsman, 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 III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information after the release of the RFP between the 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 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.

C. Acceptance Period: The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 120 calendar days from the date of receipts of offerors; however, offerors may specify an acceptance period exceeding the Government’s minimum requirement. The offeror’s proposal must affirmatively state an acceptance period equal to, or greater than, 120 calendar days.

D. Points of Contact: The contracting office Points of Contact (POC) are the sole POCs for this acquisition.

Solicitation information and amendments will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at http://fbo.gov. Offerors may e-mail written questions pertaining to this RFP, or any of its attachments, to the addresses below. The Government will answer questions received up until 4:00PM local Biloxi, MS time on 30 Mar 18 and provide responses to interested parties via FBO. Questions received after this date may not be answered.

Mr. Donald Kinsman, Contracting Officer E-mail: donald.kinsman@us.af.mil

TSgt Marcos Morales, Contract Specialist E-mail: marcos.morales.2@us.af.mil

E. Site Visit: A site visit will be held on 15 Mar 18 at 1000 Central Time. All parties will meet at the 81st Contracting Squadron, 310 M Street, Bldg 4605, Keesler AFB, MS prior to departing to the facilities. All parties must contact the contract specialist and the contracting officer at the e-mail addresses above by 3:00PM Central Time on 14 Mar 18 to confirm attendance. Each offeror is limited to two attendees.

F. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is requesting the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. NOTE: The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion in accordance with FAR 15.306.

G. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the FBO website. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for e-mail notifications to be updated when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

H. Late Proposals: Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.

mailto:donald.kinsman@us.af.mil mailto:marcos.morales.2@us.af.mil

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Offer shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below:

All volumes shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable.

Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. The electronic version of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft Office 2013 which includes software programs such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. For those pages of the proposal that cannot be submitted using Microsoft Office, such as the Standard Form 33, offerors shall include those pages electronically using Adobe Acrobat portable document files (.pdf) format.

Proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number 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.

Telegraphic or facsimile offers will not be accepted.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 10. 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. 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.

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

5. 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

6. Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered. Offerors are cautioned that Keesler Air Force Base has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Some delay should be anticipated when hand-delivering proposal packages. Offerors should allow for sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

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 rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may

Volume Paragraph # Title Max Page Limit I I.1 Completed RFP None II I.3 Technical Proposal

(Written)Past Performance

III I.4 Past Performance 20 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.

4.1.1. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20a-c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1442 in block 20a-c. (In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, Sections A through K).

4.1.2. Complete the Bid Schedule located in Section B, paying close attention to the notes referenced within the Bid Schedule. Insert proposed coefficients for each category listed within the Bid Schedule for the each of the three (3) years in the ordering period. Calculate the “Adjusted Total Estimated Value” for each category by multiplying the “Adjusted Annual Amount Based on Percent of Estimated Volume” by the associated “Proposed Coefficient”.

Calculate the “Total Estimated Usage” by adding the “Adjusted Total Estimated Value” for each category within the associated base ordering period or option period. Calculate the “Total Proposed Price for All Years” by adding the “Total Estimated Usage” for each of the three years in the ordering period. Failure to fully comply may eliminate the offer from competition.

4.1.2.1. It is estimated that the maximum dollar amount of this contract will be distributed amongst the following categories as indicated below (this shall be reflected in the proposed coefficient for each CLIN/performance period identified in Section B).

a. Standard Hours (0700 – 1600) --- 92%

b. Non-Standard Hours --- 4%

c. Secure Area* Standard Hours --- 4%

d. Secure Area Non-Standard Hours --- 2%

* Secured Area - is any area that requires more stringent measures to enter that area; that may vary between personnel background checks/clearances to work hours/regulations.

4.1.3. Complete all representations and certifications in Section K or the System for Award Management (SAM).

C. COEFFICIENT (PRICE) PROPOSAL

The following paragraphs are for information only. Insert proposed coefficients in solicitation Section B.

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition per FAR 15.403- 1(c)(1)(i); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required. However, if adequate price competition does not exist or the PCO cannot determine price reasonableness, the Offeror may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data or certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the PCO to determine price reasonableness.

i. The pricing vehicle, Unit Price Guide (UPG), used for the basic award evaluation will be the current edition (2018) of RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data book or an updated version when it becomes available. It lists tasks by unit measure and price. Coefficients are factors multiplied against the standard unit prices in the UPG to calculate Task Order (TO) prices. The Offeror’s coefficients must represent all allowable costs including but not limited to all direct costs, overhead, G&A, bond premiums, profit, and applicable taxes. IAW (Express or Implied), Cost Proposal.

Separate coefficients shall be provided for both Standard working hours (Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. through 4:30 P.M. local time) and Non-Standard working hours (hours outside of Standard Hours) as well as Secure Are Standard Hours and Secure Area Non-Standard Hours for Keesler AFB as indicated in Section B Bid Schedule and paragraph 4.1.2.1 above.

ii. The coefficients shall be provided as a factor of one and carried out to a maximum of two decimal places (e.g., 0.XX% or 1.XX %).

iii. Cost adjustments for labor and material will be reflected in the latest edition of the RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data Book. Revisions of the RS Means price book will be in effect upon publication.

D. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Written) – Submit one original and three hard copies with one electronic copy on CD/DVD. Page limit is 75 pages single sided in accordance with the General Instructions in Section L. The Government will evaluate the technical proposals and assign ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Three technical subfactors will be evaluated as indicated below:

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Coefficient Rationale Subfactor 3: Sample Project

1. Subfactor 1, Program Management.

The written technical proposal shall describe a logical organizational and management structure, key personnel with the proper qualifications and experience, and effective management of key personnel capabilities and functions.

Offerors shall provide evidence that their proposed key personnel meet the minimum standards (education and/or experience) for those positions in accordance with the SABER General Requirements (Solicitation Attachment 1), paragraph 2.6 and all subparagraphs. Provide individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience and experience level relating to similar multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property including size and scope. At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide information for the following disciplines:

SABER Program Manager Project Superintendent Quality Control Manager

Provide resumes clearly showing the level of education, experience, training and qualifications of proposed key personnel identified above. Resumes may be up to four (4) pages per each of the above positions. These pages will not count against the overall 75 page limit associated with the technical proposal.

The technical proposal shall provide evidence that the offeror is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $750K and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $3.0M, backed by a bonding surety with a certified Department of Treasury Surety, as listed in FAR 28.202. The document(s) shall include the surety company’s name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

2. Subfactor 2, Coefficient Rationale.

Offerors shall submit information to substantiate their proposed coefficients. The Government requests this information in order to examine if an Offeror has a complete understanding of contract requirements. Offerors shall provide the rationale that was utilized to develop their proposed coefficients. The Offeror’s rationale must acknowledge the applicability of the City Cost Index to this acquisition and address, at a minimum, the perceived accuracy of the pricing within the RS Means price book as well as the City Cost Index Weighted Average Total for Biloxi MS (to include any increments or decrements), and potential limitations associated with the local labor force.

The Offeror shall address assumptions and adjustments made with regard to developing each proposed coefficient to account for the increased complexity in accomplishing work on an active DoD installation (i.e. additional paperwork, increased security and contractor vetting procedures, etc.). Offerors shall address their assumptions regarding the expected volume of work, in both dollars and number of task orders, and the sensitivity of each coefficient to the expected volume of work. Examples, not all inclusive, of elements that are typically included in a coefficient are Full Time Equivalents, Labor Burden, Field Office, Home Office, Permits and Licenses, Mobilization/Demobilization, Minimum Design Costs, Software, References and Codes, General and Administrative, Bond Premiums, Subcontractor Mark-Up, Mississippi Construction Tax, other taxes, Clean-Up, Quality Control, Overhead, and Profit.

Subfactor 3, Sample Project.

The Sample Project proposal will be evaluated based on whether it demonstrates an understanding of the TO Proposal preparation process using the SGSOW, UPG and coefficients; and completely and adequately addresses the work required by the Sample Project Package attached at Solicitation Section J, and provides any required documents to support the proposed TO work.

Utilizing the SGSOW, UPG and the proposed coefficients the Offeror is required to prepare a complete proposal for project MAHG 16-1002, Relocate Recycle Center. The Sample Project Package is attached as indicated in Section J of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Offerors shall include two line items in their proposal for the sample project. One line item for the basic project and one line item for the work identified in Solicitation Attachment 7, Alternate I Drawings.

3. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Submit one original with one hard copy and one electronic copy on CD/DVD. Page limit is 20 pages single sided in accordance with the General Instructions in Section L. Limited to no more than three pages per contract listed.

a) The Offeror shall submit to the PCO its past performance information (contact references per Solicitation Attachment 10) with its proposal. Offerors shall provide information for up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies or commercial customers. No more than five contracts can be included for each offer submitted. For the purpose of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as those on which some portion of the performance occurred during the last three (3) years from date of the date proposals are due. Relevant performance includes present/past performance effort involving similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities as those required by this solicitation.

(b) The evaluation of PPI will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this solicitation. The type of past performance information (PPI) identified under Attachment 10 will determine which of the remaining paragraphs apply.

(1) For PPI where the offeror (including Joint Ventures (JV)) was a prime contractor; comply with paragraph (c)

(2) For PPI where the offeror was a subcontractor; comply with paragraphs (c) & (d)

(3) For PPI where the offeror is using a subcontractor’s PPI; comply with paragraph (c) & (e)

(4) For PPI where the offeror(s) are part of a teaming arrangement or JV; comply with paragraph (c) & (f)

(5) For PPI where the offeror key personnel; comply with paragraph (g)

(c) Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Total Contract Dollar Value and Annual Contract Values

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number and e-mail address of the contracting officer

(vii) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(d) If offeror is using PPI from work they performed as a subcontractor listed in Attachment 10, in addition to information requested in paragraph (c) above, furnish the following information:

(i) What function(s)/task(s) did offeror perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(ii) What percentage of the total contract value/annual value did the offeror perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(iii) What was the value of the subcontract (if applicable) for each year and total amount on the Attachment 10 contract?

(e) If using PPI from subcontractors as part of list in Attachment 10, in addition to information requested in paragraph (c) above, furnish the following information:

(i) What function(s)/task(s) did the subcontractor perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(ii) What function(s)/task(s) will the subcontractor perform on this contract?

(iii) What percentage of the total contract value/annual value did the subcontractor perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(iv) What percentage of the total contract value/annual value will the subcontractor perform on this contract?

(f) If a teaming arrangement or JV is proposed, the offerors shall provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming or JVs with same partner. In addition to information requested in paragraph (c) above for each team/JV member, furnish the following information:

(i) What function(s)/task(s) will each team or JV member perform on this contract?

(ii) What approximate percentage of the total contract value/annual value will each team or JV member perform on this contract?

(g) If using PPI from key personnel as part of list in Attachment 10, in addition to information requested in paragraph (c) above, furnish the following information:

(i) What function(s)/task(s) did the key personnel perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(ii) What function(s)/task(s) would the key personnel perform on this contract?

(iii) What percentage of the total contract value/annual value did the key personnel perform on the Attachment 10 contract?

(iv) What percentage of the total contract value/annual value will the key personnel perform on this contract?

h) Questionnaires. Offerors shall send Past Performance Questionnaires (Solicitation Attachment 11) to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume III. Completed questionnaires shall be submitted directly to the PCO. The questionnaire to be submitted to each POC is included as Solicitation Attachment11, Past Performance Questionnaire. Each of the Offeror’s POCs shall e-mail the completed questionnaire to Donald Kinsman at donald.kinsman@us.af.mil, with a courtesy copy to TSgt Marcos Morales at marcos.morales.2@us.af.mil. Respondents may also fax the completed Past Performance Questionnaire directly to (228)377-3298. Mailing the questionnaire(s) to the address listed below is an acceptable alternative method of transmission. If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

81 CONS/LGCA, Attn: DONALD KINSMAN 310 M Street Keesler AFB MS 39534-2147

THIS OFFICE STRONGLY RECOMMENDS ALL OFFERORS REQUEST THEIR REFERENCES TO SUBMIT

THEIR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES IMMEDIATELY. RECIEPT IS DESIRED BY THE

OFFER DUE DATE.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

mailto:donald.kinsman@us.af.mil mailto:marcos.morales.2@us.af.mil

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (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. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. 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. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unawardable.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Price (Volume I) Factor 2 – Technical (Volume II) Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Coefficient Rationale Subfactor 3: Sample Project Factor 3 – Past Performance (Volume III)

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. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Although the Government intends to award without discussion, it 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. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

2. Clarifications: In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). 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.

B. Coefficient Price Proposal

1. Price Reasonableness: Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis.

Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data certified cost or pricing data or other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): TEP will be calculated by applying the Offeror’s Proposed Coefficients from the Solicitation Section B Bid Schedule, to the Adjusted Annual Amount Based on Percent of Estimated Volume for each category of labor (Standard Hours, Non-Standard Hours, Secure Area Standard Hours and Secure Area Non- Standard Hours) appearing in the bid schedule. The Adjusted Total Estimated Value for each labor category for all three years of the ordering period will be summed to arrive at the TEP. The TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for award decision purposes.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical factor.

Table 1. Technical Rating Definition Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Proposal. This Technical Factor will assess the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the solicitation as well as assess the offeror’s proposed program management plan, coefficient rationale and complete and adequate preparation of the sample project proposal. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response to each Technical subfactor as outlined below in the right-hand column.

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 1: Program Management

To be determined acceptable, the technical proposal will have to demonstrate the following:

1. A logical organizational and management structure

2. Proper key personnel qualifications and experience

3. Evidence that the offeror is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $750K and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $3.0M.

Subfactor 2: Coefficient Rationale To be determined Acceptable, the technical proposal will have to demonstrate the following:

1. Adequate information to indicate Offerors understand the cost elements that should be included in coefficients and information to substantiate the proposed coefficient is reasonable.

Subfactor 3: Sample Project To be determined Acceptable, the technical proposal will have to demonstrate the following:

An adequate understanding of the TO Proposal preparation process using the UPG and the coefficients IAW the SGSOW, completely and adequately addresses the work required by the Sample Project Package attached at Section J, is submitted in accordance with the SGSOW and provides required supporting documents to support the proposed TO work.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: Using questionnaires, the contracting officer will 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 and commercial sources. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement critical to overall successful performance. Major or critical aspects include work elements such as demolition, new construction, facility renovation, alteration and repair, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ 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 last three (3) years from date of receipt of proposal. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), 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 proposed instant effort.

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 and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. 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 or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposal) 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 date of receipt of proposal. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

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 relevancy criteria in Table II apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume IV of its proposal. Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of information demonstrating construction and design experience with contracts that have multiple projects/task orders containing work elements such as demolition, new construction, facility renovation, alteration and repair, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and teaming partners. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

4(b)1. Work Elements.

E1 – Demolition E2 – New Construction E3 – Facility Renovation, Alteration, and/or Repair E4 – Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) E5 – Electrical E6 – Mechanical E7 – Plumbing

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past performance involving all work elements (E1 through E7) listed in Section M, paragraph 4(b)1.; demonstrates a minimum of 4 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $1.0 M; and a minimum of 6 projects/task orders annually with a combined value of at least $2.0 M.

Relevant Past performance involving all of the following work elements: E1, E3, E5, E6, and E7; or all work elements E3 through E7 listed in Section M, paragraph 4(b)1.;

demonstrates a minimum of 3 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $750K; and a minimum of 5 projects/task orders annually with a combined value of at least $1.5M.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance involving all of the following work elements: E1, E3, E5, E6, and E7; or all work elements E3 through E7 listed in Section M, paragraph 7.1.2.1; and demonstrates a minimum of 3 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $500K.

Not Relevant Past performance efforts not involving any combination of the work elements defined in the other relevancy ratings, or not meeting the minimum thresholds as defined in the other relevancy ratings.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: 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. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. 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.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

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 to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

E. Evaluations will be conducted in the following manner:

1. Initially, offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The technical evaluation will determine if the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Offerors will receive a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.”

2. Offerors receiving an “Acceptable” technical rating will then be ranked according to price.

3. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, 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

4. If the lowest priced offeror is not assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

5. Clarifications and communications, as defined in FAR 15.306, do not constitute discussions. The government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. However, the government may determine it is necessary to conduct discussions.

(End of Summary of Changes)