FA3047-14-R-0046_Amendment_1.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 Amendment 1 is to do the follow ing:

1. Update 52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation

2. Update 52.212-1 Addendum

3. Incorporate Statement of Work Revision 1

Points of Contact:

Contract Administrator: Lauren Macias lauren.macias.1@us.af.mil 210-925-9124 Contract Off icer: Leslie Richardson leslie.richardson@us.af.mil 210-925-9125

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-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 FA3047-14-R-0046

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Aug-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

05-Sep-2014

CODE

502D CONTRACTING SQUADRON

1655 SELFRIDGE AVE

JBSA LACKLAND TX 78236-5253

FA3047 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA3047-14-R-0046

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

U52.212-1 ADDENDUM

52.212-1 ADDENDUM INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. In absence of discussions, non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation thereby, making the offer ineligible for award. Proposals shall include the following:

1. UVOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The technical proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirement but shall provide facts and convincing rationale addressing how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. The technical proposal shall consist of the following:

a. UPROJECT TEAMU. The Contractor shall submit a detailed listing and/or flow chart identifying key members of their management team that will be assigned to this project. At a minimum, the key members listed shall include: project manager/engineer, project superintendent, and project safety competent person (if separate from superintendent). If key positions are currently vacant, the Offeror shall submit minimum qualifications required for individuals to fill these vacancies. If personnel presented here are later replaced, replacement personnel must have equal or better qualifications as those proposed and shall be requested in writing with a valid reason for replacement and require approval by the Contracting Officer.

Offeror shall also submit a detailed listing of the subcontractors, fiber suppliers and installers that they have partnered with for this project. If major subcontractors are unknown at time of proposal submission, offeror shall submit a short list of no more than three potential subcontractors per discipline from which a subcontractor will be chosen, along with qualifications and relevant experience for each as requested elsewhere in this solicitation.

Contractor shall provide a resume for each key team member, including subcontractors, listing their qualifications. Key members shall speak English fluently.

b. UINSTALLATION PLANU. The installation plan shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough understanding of the technical requirements contained in the SOW. The installation plan shall include, but not limited to,

i. Design that sufficiently demonstrates a clear understanding of all aspects of the SOW, and effectively outlines the steps the offeror will take to meet the requirements of the

SOW.

ii. List of materials that include part numbers and quantities appropriate for the specific requirements in SOW.

iii. Clear identification of Government resources (personnel, equipment, storage, etc...)

offeror needs in order to meet contractual requirements.

c. UQUALITY CONTROL PLANU. Offerors shall submit an effective and complete quality control plan that addresses requirements of the SOW. The plan shall address as a minimum:

i. Role and authority of the Primary Quality Control personnel.

ii. Procedures used to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of deficiencies.

d. UTEST PLAN. UThe proposal shall demonstrate how the offeror intends to conduct the Pre/Post Testing of newly installed fiber optic distribution system and check for functionality and interoperability with existing components as stated in the SOW.

e. USCHEDULE/MILESTONESU. The maximum anticipated completion of this project is expected to be 120 calendar days. The Offeror shall provide a time scaled [Gantt Chart] summary network Construction Schedule. The total contract duration in calendar days shall be reflected on the Schedule. The Schedule shall fully demonstrate how the Offeror plans to complete all contract work, within the specified completion of work from the receipt of the contract Notice-to Proceed.

At a minimum, the schedule shall include the following:

1. Mobilization

2. Required Submittals

3. Various Phases of Work (35/65/95 design review)

4. Testing (Pre/Post)

5. Punch list

6. Final inspection

In addition, the Offeror shall provide a narrative of the Offeror’s proposed schedule. The narrative shall include discussion of any challenges the Offeror foresees that may jeopardize the successful completion of all contract work. The Offeror shall describe the plans for overcoming these challenges. If no challenges are foreseen, offeror shall state so.

2. UVOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall select a minimum of one (1) but no more than five (5) past and current contracts for past performance information (PPI) consideration. These contracts may include Federal, State, and local government and private efforts similar to the requirements of this solicitation performed within the Ulast 3 yearsU. Offeror shall include information on contracts relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the referenced contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

It is the offerors responsibility to forward questionnaires the evaluating agencies/ companies, and ensure that completed questionnaires are submitted by the evaluating agencies via e-mail to

30TUlauren.macias.1@us.af.mil U30Tand 30TUleslie.richardson@us.af.milU30T by closing date of the solicitation. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to not delay award decision based on late questionnaires.

Relevant contracts (similar in scope, size and complexity) shall include the following work requirements:

i. Scope – Including but not limited to the following Work: Engineer, furnish, install and test (EFI&T) new concrete encasement Manhole/Duct System, fiber optic cable (FOC) and copper cables to core buildings.

ii. Size – Reference Disclosure of Magnitude: Between $250,000 and $500,000 U.S. Dollars.

iii. Complexity – Multiple efforts (Task Orders/Projects) with same degree of difficulty being performed concurrently. Quality of Contracts: Submit documentation to support the quality of work performed, timely performance, effectiveness of Management/Key personnel, and compliance with safety standards. For example, letters of recommendation from previous customers, awards, quality certificates, etc.

Subcontractor Consent: Past Performance Information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide a signed consent to the release of Past Performance Information to the prime offeror for each subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

UNoteU: The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Offerors are encouraged to submit past experience information for Umajor subcontractorsU to help demonstrate that the team they select to perform this project has an acceptable record of past experience. The Government may rate a proposal less favorably where it is unable to evaluate the past experience of major subcontractors.

3. UVOLUME III- PRICE PROPOSAL

Offerors Price Proposal shall identify the price for each CLIN. Failure to submit prices on all CLINS will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award in absence of discussions. Offeror must agree to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal. The price proposal shall be based on Offeror’s technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I) and the SOW requirements.

For evaluation and award purposes, offers containing unit prices of more than two decimal places shall be rounded off to two decimal places.

mailto:lauren.macias.1@us.af.mil mailto:leslie.richardson@us.af.mil

U52.212-2 ADDENDUM EVALUATION

52.212-2 ADDENDUM EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

I. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussion if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Offerors are cautioned that price will be evaluated as a part of an award decision, and if all technical proposals attain equal ratings and equal past performance ratings, price will be the differentiating factor that determines the successful offeror.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. The Government seeks to award to an offeror whose technically acceptable proposal, demonstrates substantial confidence past performance, a fair and reasonable price.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Proposals shall be evaluated according to technical acceptability. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, will be considered for award. Failure to meet a technical acceptability will result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable.

2. Evaluate the proposed price of all technically acceptable proposals. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. The Government will determine the offeror’s TEP by adding all FFP CLINs together to calculate the TEP. All technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

3. Performance confidence assessment will be assessed to the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable offer. A performance confidence assessment may not be conducted on all technically acceptable proposals if a lower price offer receives the highest performance ratings (Substantial Confidence) that has fair and reasonable pricing. Performance confidence assessment will cease upon identifying a proposal with substantial confidence.

II. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor A – Installation Plan Subfactor B – Quality Control Plan Subfactor C – Test Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub factor. Any sub factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Capability Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Technical capability consists of three (3) sub factors: (A) Installation Plan, (B) Quality Control Plan, and (C) Test Plan. All sub factors are weighted equally. Each subfactor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating. An unacceptable subfactor assessment will render the entire proposal ineligible for award in absence of discussions.

Subfactor A – Installation Plan. Installation Plan will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has an acceptable Technical Approach. To be determined acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate a complete understanding of the SOW requirements and their ability to perform all tasks identified in the SOW.

Subfactor B – Quality Control Plan. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has an acceptable Quality Control Plan. To be determined acceptable, the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan must include a quality control definition, approach for quality control and how it will be applied, and methods for handling deficiencies.

Subfactor C – Test Plan. Offeror’s proposal will be “Acceptable” when the proposal exhibits testing procedures/schedules that meets the expected testing requirements in accordance with I3A Standards and the SOW.

FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government’s will evaluate past performance and assign an overall UPerformance ConfidenceU Assessment ratings of the offeror’s past and present work that is UrecentU and UrelevantU to this acquisition. The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the offeror’s past performance Volume II and information obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and COs, and other known commercial sources. Consideration will be given to the business relationships between the offeror and teaming partners/subcontractors.

Recency Assessment. To be recent, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A completed effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years with at least six (6) months of that effort in the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Performance dates will be verified.

Relevancy Assessment. Relevancy includes performance of efforts that are similar in scope to the requirement of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the work performed most closely resembles the scope of this solicitation. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those efforts deemed more relevant. Information obtained from other sources may be used to establish the degree of relevancy. The Government will use the rate relevancy as outlined in the Relevancy Table below.

Relevancy Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

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.

Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance is similar to the current effort, assessment will consider information such as reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for customer’s interests.

The performance 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.

Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the Government 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.

The quality ratings defined in the table below are also used in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

Quality Performance Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

Performance Confidence Assessment. Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. As a result of the UrelevancyU and Uperformance qualityU assessments of the UrecentU efforts evaluated, offerors will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating as defined in the table below.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will result in an "Unknown Confidence" rating, which is not evaluated as favorably. Past performance confidence rating of Satisfactory Confidence or above may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Performance Confidence Ratings

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 an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (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.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE

For all Utechnically acceptableU offerors with an overall Past Performance Rating of USubstantial ConfidenceU, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price Proposal to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

Proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced. If the proposal analysis techniques outlined in FAR 15.404 are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, the CO may request data other than certified cost or pricing data.

(End of Summary of Changes)