Amendment_2.pdf

VDYD 15-1246

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

Revised Section J, Atch 20 Proposal Checklist FA440718R0004 Revise Section M, Para M-4.2.1 Recency.

Note: Amendment 1 w as executed prior to issuance of RFP. Offerors shall acknow ledge receipt on SF 1442, Block 19, beginning w ith Amendment 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jun-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA440718R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jun-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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-Jun-2018

CODE

375 CONS/PK

201 E WINTERS STREET BLDG 50

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5015

FA4407 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA440718R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award SECTION M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of a higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. 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. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and represents the best value to the Government based on evaluation results as described in paragraph M-2 below.

M-1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the project.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal shall be performed.

The Government’s evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical/Risk – Work Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, Technical/Risk and past performance when combined are approximately equal to cost/price.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2. All conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price from lowest to highest. For efficiency purposes, the five

(5) lowest-priced proposals shall be evaluated initially. If none of the five (5) lowest-priced proposals are considered acceptable, additional proposals will be evaluate until an award decision can be made.

M-4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M-4.1 Factor 1 – Technical/Risk Evaluation – Work Plan: Combined technical/risk rating method includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. To receive an Acceptable rating the offeror's Work Plan shall demonstrate a clear and concise understanding of the challenges and risks of the proposed design and construction. Furthermore, the offeror's Work Plan shall demonstrate their technical approach to meet design and construction; taking into consideration the provided phasing plan, drawings, specifications, statement of work, and other attachments within Section J. Narratives that are vague, general, or restate documents within Section J will not receive an Acceptable rating. Work plans addressing solutions to the perceived challenges and risks are considered beneficial and may result in a higher technical/risk rating.

M-4.1.4 To receive an Acceptable rating the offeror’s summary schedule shall demonstrate each phase and major milestone or critical element of design and construction with corresponding completion in calendar days. The total proposed project completion shall not exceed the 365 calendar days stated in the Statement of Work.

M-4.1.5 The Government will use a combined technical/risk rating method which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. Each offeror shall receive an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable in accordance with Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Work Plan satisfies all requirements and demonstrates an exceptional organizational and technical approach. Proposal contains numerous strengths and exceptional features that far outweigh any weaknesses. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is low.

Purple Good Work Plan satisfies all requirements and demonstrates an exceptional organizational and technical approach. Proposal contains at least one strength that outweighs any weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Work Plan meets all requirements and indicates a satisfactory organizational and technical approach. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or have little or no impact on contract performance. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is low to moderate.

Yellow Marginal Work Plan does not demonstrated an adequate organizational and technical approach as well as an understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Work Plan does not meet requirements and contains significant weaknesses and one or more deficiencies. There is no reasonable expectation that acceptable performance would be achieved. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is high.

DEFINITIONS USED IN ASSESSING EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Strength: A strength is an aspect of the proposal that has merit or exceeds stated requirements and evaluation standards of the solicitation in a way that is beneficial to the Government for the purpose of this particular acquisition.

Weakness: A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Weakness: A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A combination of weaknesses in a single factor can equate to a significant weakness.

Deficiency: A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-4.2 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-4.2.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors must submit three (3) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF1442 Block 3). Submissions that do not meet the recency requirement shall be rated “Neutral”. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory will be rated more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

M-4.2.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have an award value of no less than $1,000,000 and no more than $10,000,000 and be similar in scope and complexity. Design-build efforts will be rated more favorably than bid-build or construction-only efforts. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 3 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevance Ratings

Adjectival 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 and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-4.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 4 below. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

Table 4 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

M-4.3 Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

(End of Summary of Changes)