FA4417-14-R-0038 _Amendment_1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Aug-2014 02:00 PM to 20-Aug-2014 02:00 PM.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following have been modified:

52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984)

The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 10 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed (NTP), (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 240 calendar days after issuance of NTP. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.

(End of clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

HF021

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(1) These instructions prescribe the format of the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. The instructions are designed to ensure the submission of all necessary information.

(2) To aid in the evaluation process, proposals shall be complete, comprehensive and clearly presented, as detailed in section M of this solicitation. Proposals shall be neat, indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper/binding, and expensive visual and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the Request for Proposal (RFP)/Solicitation number. Include only information that is relevant to this source selection. Pages in excess of the maximum will be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated.

(3) A complete proposal shall consist of the following THREE (3) sections:

(a) Section I, Technical Proposal

(b) Section II, Past Performance; and

(c) Section III, Price Proposal/Executed RFP Documents, to include one (1) original bid guarantee.

(d) Offerors shall submit:

(i) ONE (1) original proposal, including all three sections

(ii) ONE (1) additional copy of Section I, Technical Proposal sanitized (for source selection evaluation purposes) of all names, logos and other company identifiers

(iii) ONE (1) additional copy of Section III, Price Proposal/Executed RFP Documents.

(4) Section I - Technical Proposal (Reminder: Submit original with ONE (1) original and ONE (1) sanitized copy. Sanitized means CAGE code only, no logos, company names, etc.)

Technical evaluation contains Two (2) subfactors: Subfactor I - Proposed Construction Schedule and Subfactor II - Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work.

(a) SUBFACTOR 1. Proposed Construction Schedule: Prepare and submit a practicable construction schedule showing all necessary work elements to complete the project identified under this solicitation. The schedule must be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the performance period. The submitted schedule must be developed using project scheduling software such as MS Project, Primavera, or any other comparable form. The AF Form 3064 (Contract Progress Schedule) may also be used for submission of this item. Paragraph 1.16 of Section 01000 of the specifications identifies numerous possible work elements offerors can use in preparing their technical proposals. Offerors should only include the work elements necessary to complete the required work. This list is provided as a guide and is NOT all inclusive or exclusive. It is the offeror’s responsibility to identify all necessary work elements. Each offeror’s technical proposal must address the following:

(1) Order of work elements to include project phasing (if required)

(2) Number of days for each work element

(3) Identification of work elements in the critical path MUST include mobilization, testing, and closeout elements

(4) Identification of long lead time materials

(5) Identification of separate work elements

The proposed schedule must include the activities which are consistent with those described within the project specifications and drawings and must not exceed the Government’s maximum allowable performance period, as noted in FAR Clause 52.211-10, paragraph (c) of the RFP.

(b) SUBFACTOR 2 - Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work. Page Limitation is two (2) pages. The critical elements for this acquisition are:

1. Foam Expansion Fire Suppression work

2. Fire Alarm and Mass Notification

Lack of experience in these areas is considered a high risk to the government, therefore, to evaluate contractor capability and risk to the government the contractor must provide projects that include experience with both of the critical elements, either combined on one (1) project or on separate projects. The projects must be current or completed projects within five (5) years of the issuance month of the solicitation.

A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) AND MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) EXPERIENCE/PROJECTS MAY BE SUBMITTED. IF NO EXPERIENCE/PROJECT IS SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL WILL BE DETERMINED TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND THE OFFEROR WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATED FROM COMPETITION.

(c) For each experience/project you MUST submit the following information:

1. Name of Project/Title

2. Description of project relevancy to current project

3. Scope/Magnitude

4. Contractor Key Personnel for Project

5. Reference/POC for project

6. Name of Owner of Facility/Project Manager/ Contracting Officer

7. Phone number/Fax number, Email address

8. Period of Performance

9. Any delays/extensions, if Yes provide explanation

10. Liquidated Damages, if Yes provide explanation

(d) You must include a response to ALL items, if the item doesn’t apply TYPE/WRITE in “Doesn’t Apply” or “N/A”. Failure to provide a response to ALL items MAY result in the experience/project NOT to be considered for Subfactor 2, if relevant experience cannot be determined and verified.

(e) Failure to submit a response to both subfactors Proposed Construction Schedule (Subfactor 1 and Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work (Subfactor 2) will determine an offeror to be nonresponsive and result in immediate elimination from competition.

(f) Offerors are encouraged to provide, as necessary, additional information to clarify their technical proposal. Additional information is limited to one (1) page and will be considered part of the technical proposal. If more than one (1) page of additional information is received, ONLY the first page will be included as part of the Technical Review.

(5) Section II—Past Performance (Reminder submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of proposal documents) Offerors may reuse the project experience in Section I, Technical Evaluation, Subfactor 2, for Past Performance, however, it MUST be submitted separately as part of the Past Performance.

Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/specification).

(b) Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offeror’s actions under previously awarded contracts. Recency is defined as projects performed in the five (5) years from issuance month of the solicitation. Relevancy is defined as projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached Specifications, and Cost within project magnitude as specified on SF 1442, Block 10. Offerors shall identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement as stated in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ previous performance in the following areas:

i. Adherence to progress schedules

ii. Management, technical, and administrative experience

iii. Effective quality control

iv. Timely submission of submittal data

v. Approach to problem solving

vi. Timely resolution of punch list items

vii. Ability to meet contract performance schedule.

viii. The Government may evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and corrective actions taken by the offeror.

(c) Limit contract references to work performed in the last five (5) years ( from issuance date of the solicitation) with a MAXIMUM of ten (10) total references. All references for work that have not been performed within five (5) years of the issuance month of the solicitation will not be evaluated. In addition, past performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror may be solicited and used in determining the overall past performance rating.

(d) Complete Section A, Contractor Information, of Attachment 4, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire and mail, fax or email the attached Past/Present Performance Questionnaire to all past performance references listed above and instruct them to return the completed questionnaire to the individual(s) indicated in paragraph (5)(g) below. Evaluators are only allowed to use the Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. Altered or substituted questionnaires will not be evaluated. Also, Past Performance Questionnaires will only be accepted from Project Owners or their authorized representatives. Past Performance Questionnaires will not be accepted from Prime Contractors, Subcontractors, or Manufacturers.

(e) Inform your references that they shall forward questionnaires directly to the address below. Questionnaires must be received in the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron office not later than the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their references transmit the questionnaire to the Contracting Office. In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in the Construction Contractor’s Appraisal Support System (CCASS), the contractor should attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron office before the official closing date and time. Offerors are responsible to ensure questionnaires are transmitted to their references, and to indicate which references the questionnaire was sent to (see paragraphs (5) (a) and (5) (c).

(f) Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Price Performance Trade-Off (PPT) technique described in Section M.

(g) If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the contracting officer not later than the date/time proposals are due from all offerors.

(h) All Past performance questionnaires/CCASS should be submitted to the individuals listed below:

1 SOCONS/LGCB

Attention: Romeo Reyes AND Tina Kneip

350 Tully St, Bldg 90339

Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5810

Fax: (850) 884-1272 (Attention: Romeo Reyes AND Tina Kneip)

Email: romeo.reyes.1@us.af.mil AND tina.kneip@us.af.mil

(6) If Teaming Agreements are contemplated they must comply with the appropriate Federal Regulations. The teaming members must provide complete information as to relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming agreements. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the teaming agreement must provide information on all relevant contracts as specified in paragraph (ii). The maximum number of references shall not exceed a total of ten (10).

(a) The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of formal contractor teaming agreements; provided, the agreements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer. A teaming agreement must establish each party’s role in the proposal preparation process and will be incorporated into the contract. Failure to clearly define roles and/or provide a teaming agreement with a proposal shall make teaming arrangements and related subcontractor past performance ineligible for evaluation and consideration of award. The prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming agreement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

(7) Section III – Price/Cost Proposal. Submit the Standard Form 1442 and all pages originally included in the RFP. As a reminder, submit original and one (1) copy.

(a) 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).

(b) Insert proposed prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Net Amount.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Section K.

(8) Relationship between Instructions and Evaluation. Your attention is directed to the functional relationship between Sections L and M of this solicitation. Section L provides information for the purpose of organizing the proposal and is not intended to be all inclusive. Section M describes evaluation factors for award. Since the Government evaluation of proposals will cover areas identified in Section M, proposals should address all such areas of evaluation.

(9) Questions. All questions regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing. All questions received prior to RFP closing date and subsequent answers will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website www.fbo.gov. It is the responsibility of the contractor to continuously monitor the site for updates. To mitigate the risks associated with the cancellation of this solicitation due to untimely submission of questions, all questions must be submitted to the individual(s) listed below no later than close of business 5 calendar days after the site visit. Any questions submitted after this period may not considered and/or receive a response.

Fax: (850) 884-1272 (Attention: Romeo Reyes AND Tina Kneip)

Email: romeo.reyes.1@us.af.mil AND tina.kneip@us.af.mil End of Clause

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

HF022

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

(IAW FAR 15.204-5(c))

(1) This acquisition will utilize a best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique chosen for this particular acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT).

(2) The PPT approach permits tradeoffs between price/cost and past performance, and will include an evaluation for technical acceptability. Contract award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is considered technically acceptable, and will provide the best value to the Government, considering price and past performance. For this acquisition, past performance is significantly more important than price/cost.

(a) Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical acceptability or price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. Discussions or negotiation may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL.

(b) Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers.

(c) Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

(3) Technical Evaluation. Offers shall be evaluated independently of the cost/price proposal evaluation to determine the offerors’ compliance with the technical requirements of this solicitation. The government may make a final determination as to the rating of an offer based on the proposal as submitted without requesting any further information. Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactors: Subfactor I - Proposed Construction Schedule and Subfactor II - Specialized Experience on Similar Type Work

(a) SUBFACTOR 1 - Proposed Construction Schedule: In accordance with Section L, Clause HF021, Subfactor 1, the offerors proposed construction schedule will be evaluated relative to overall coordination of the construction phase, to include ability to identify all required activities of the specific project, and the offerors ability to schedule the activities in a logical sequence and within the time required in this solicitation. The Proposed Construction Schedule will be evaluated against the following requirements:

(a) Order of work elements to include project phasing (if required)

(b) Number of days for each work element

(c) Identification of work elements in the critical path - MUST include mobilization, testing, and closeout elements

(d) Identification of long lead time materials

(e) Identification of separate work elements

(b) SUBFACTOR 2 - Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work. Page Limitation is two (2) pages. In accordance with Section L, Clause HF021, Subfactor 2, Specialized Experience on Similar Type Work will be evaluated against the following requirements:

1. Foam Expansion Fire Suppression work

2. Fire Alarm and Mass Notification work The evaluation of Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work will consider the experience and capability of the contractor to manage and successfully complete the critical elements. Evaluation will consist of reviewing offerors projects that include experience for both of the critical elements, either combined on one (1) project or on separate projects. Offerors that do not show experience in both of the critical elements will be considered Technically Unacceptable and will be eliminated from competition. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) AND MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) EXPERIENCE/PROJECTS MAY BE SUBMITTED. IF NO EXPERIENCE/PROJECT IS SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL WILL BE DETERMINED TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND THE OFFEROR WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATED FROM COMPETITION.

i. For each experience/project you MUST submit the following information:

1. Name of Project/Title

2. Description of project relevancy to current project

3. Scope/Magnitude

4. Contractor Key Personnel for Project

5. Reference/POC for project

6. Name of Owner of Facility/Project Manager/ Contracting Officer

7. Phone number/Fax number, Email address

8. Period of Performance

9. Any delays/extensions, if Yes provide explanation

10. Liquidated Damages, if Yes provide explanation

ii. You must include a response to ALL items, if the item doesn’t apply TYPE/WRITE in “Doesn’t Apply” or “N/A”. Failure to provide a response to ALL items MAY result in the experience/project NOT to be considered for Subfactor 2, if relevant experience cannot be determined and verified.

iii. Failure to submit a response to both subfactors Proposed Construction Schedule (Subfactor 1 and Specialized Experience on Similar Type of Work (Subfactor 2) will determine an offeror to be nonresponsive and result in immediate elimination from competition.

Technical evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of the offeror’s capability and risk in satisfying the Government’s requirements. Each Subfactor is determined to be equal in importance to each other, and will be assigned a rating of ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE based on the minimum requirements established above.

i. ACCEPTABLE – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

ii. UNACCEPTABLE – Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The offerors proposal MUST receive an ACCEPTABLE rating for both Subfactor 1 AND Subfactor 2 to continue in the evaluation process. A rating of UNACCEPTABLE in either Subfactor 1 OR Subfactor 2 will result in immediate elimination from competition and no further consideration will be given. If all offerors are deemed unacceptable, the government may establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

(4) Price/Cost Evaluation. Offerors who are deemed technically acceptable shall be ranked according to price, including any/all option prices. Each offeror’s price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Unrealistically low proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that either the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

(5) Past Performance Evaluation. Any specialized experience provided as part of Technical Subfactor 2, may be reused but MUST be submitted separately as part of Past Performance Evaluation. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek performance information for only those offerors rated technically acceptable.

(a) Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offerors action under previously awarded contracts. Offerors shall identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement as stated in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ previous performance in the following areas:

ix. Adherence to progress schedules

x. Management, technical, and administrative experience

xi. Effective quality control

xii. Timely submission of submittal data

xiii. Approach to problem solving

xiv. Timely resolution of punch list items

xv. Ability to meet contract performance schedule.

xvi. The Government may evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and corrective actions taken by the offeror.

(b) In the case of an offeror for whom relevant past performance or information on past performance is not recent (within five (5) years of issuance month of the solicitation), the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (neutral)”.

(c) Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2). Performance confidence ratings assess the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offerors’ past performance. In assessing past performance confidence, the evaluators will primarily rely on information provided by offerors’ completed past performance questionnaires and/or from the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS). However, the Government may use information previously obtained from past performance questionnaires or data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources in the evaluation process.

(d) In the event an offeror submits a Past Performance Questionnaire and it is subsequently determined that the referenced project was formally evaluated in the CCASS, these ratings shall take precedence.

(e) Each teaming offeror’s past performance will hold equal value and be evaluated as part of the

Government’s overall evaluation of best value.

(f) The Government will evaluate the offerors’ ability to successfully complete projects based on demonstrated past and present experience under recent and relevant contracts. Recency is defined as projects performed in the five (5) years from issuance month of solicitation. Relevancy is defined as contracts involving:

i. Projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached Specifications,

ii. Cost within project magnitude as specified on SF 1442, Block 10.

(g) The following relevancy definitions, apply:

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.

(h) The process will result in an overall performance rating as defined below. This performance assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offerors demonstrated past and presents performance. The ratings are defined as follows:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will 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.

(6) Performance/Price Tradeoff Evaluation. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror, that is technically acceptable, is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, 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 rating or all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

(7) Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities. Attachment 5, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors financial capabilities.

(8) The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

End of Clause

(End of Summary of Changes)