Amendment7.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 27-Sep-2010 05:00 PM to 25-Oct-2010 12:00 PM.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment #

Title/Date

Pages

Attachment 1

Statement of Work/Technical Exhibits

74 Pages

Attachment 2

DOL Wage Determination

14 Pages

Construction Type: Residential

Construction Type: Heavy and Highway

Construction Type: Building Attachment 3

Statement of Objectives

SABER Seed Project Convert Honor Guard to VTC 2 Page

Attachment 4

Pre-performance Conference Guidelines

2 Page

Attachment 5

NCIC Memorandum

2 Pages

Attachment 6

Past Performance Questionairre

12 Pages

NOTICE FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS

***Effective immediately Offutt AFB will no longer provide paper copies of drawings and specifications. Electronic drawings and specifications will be used to solicit offers/bids***

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The ceiling amount of the contract is: $45,000,000.

General Instructions: This section of the RFP provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format of the proposal. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested in the RFP.

Only the required minimum amount of information is requested to provide for proper evaluation. Efforts should be made to keep offers as brief as possible, concentrating on substantive information essential for proper evaluation. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating its validity. Elaborate format and color representations are not desirable.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

Who May Submit: Proposals may be submitted by Small Business Administration Certified 8(a) firms. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. ONLY LEGALLY BINDING JOINT VENTURES, AS APPROVED BY THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, WILL BE CONSIDERED.

Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the offeror, or offeror’s subcontractor, has on its permanent staff professional architects and engineers registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and provided that the requirements specified in the solicitation are met. All designs must be accomplished under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals.

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS – Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides, however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL OR BIDS.

Preparation Instructions: Proposals shall be prepared in three volumes: Volume I – Technical Proposal, Volume II – Past Performance Information, and Volume III – Price Proposal. Specific guidance regarding content of these volumes is discussed below.

(1) Construction: Each volume shall not require extensive searching throughout the document(s) to locate and evaluate any items or area. Sub-categories of information in each of the volumes should be highlighted for ease of evaluating the information contained therein. All written information and data shall be in an 8 ½” x 11” format. 11” x 17” sheets will be allowed for charts and tables. Only written proposals will be accepted. Oral, electronic, and/or facsimile proposals will not be accepted.

(2) Cover Sheet: A cover sheet identifying the offeror and the project shall be provided. NOTE: THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT SHALL HAVE ANY IDENTIFYING FACTOR OF THE OFFEROR’S COMPANY AND/OR LOGO. NO OTHER PAGE SHALL CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION.

(3) Binding: All volumes shall be submitted in three pronged folders. Each binder shall contain: Table of Contents, List of Tables or Figures (if required), and List of Appendices.

(4) Text: Text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc.). Font size shall not be less than 12 point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page.

Firms submitting proposals shall limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies are expended in preparing information required by the RFP. Data submitted must reflect the designer’s interpretation of criteria contained in the RFP. Unnecessarily elaborate or voluminous brochures or other presentations, beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response, are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/extensive visual and other presentation aids are unnecessary.

Technical proposals will be evaluated for conformance with the minimum RFP criteria. While the intent is to keep the pre-award design effort to a minimum, proposals must provide adequate detail for effective evaluation. It must also form sufficient basis for a fair and reasonable price proposal.

Restrictions: Incomplete proposals – failure to submit all the data indicated in this section will be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for further technical evaluation or for subsequent award.

Proposal Submission

Mailing Requirement for Special Marking of Proposal Data: Envelopes or other cover for material submitted in response to this RFP shall be opaque, and must be so presented that they may easily be identified. At a minimum, the outside cover must show:

Destination of Proposal

Name and location of project as described in the RFP documents

Solicitation number

Name and address of Offeror

Volume Number

Mail or deliver the proposal to the address listed in the solicitation.

The proposal submitted shall include an original and copies as indicated in the table below. Each proposal shall be marked to clearly identify the original and the copies. The copies shall be numbered (i.e. 1 of 6, 2 of 6, etc.).

II

III

Section 1 - Introduction and Summary.

The Government will not evaluate this introductory section which is limited to three pages. This section is not included in the page limit for the Technical Proposal Volume. It should contain, in no more than three pages, a concise summary of your proposed approach to the SABER effort.

Section 2.

Project Execution and Technical Capability. This section will address the offeror's technical staff and ability to complete projects under the contract. The Government will evaluate two demonstration (“seed”) projects both for technical capabilities and cost..

A. Seed Project #1: Convert Honor Guard to VTC (see attachment 3), this project WILL NOT be awarded as a contract. It will be for evaluation of technical capabilities only.

B. Seed Project #2: Contract pre-performance conference (see attachment 4), has been identified for award under the SABER program for a demonstration of technical capability at the time of contract award.

The specific project description will be provided to each offeror to propose a design concept, design analysis with calculations, list of assumptions, list of priced items from the price guide, and an overall proposal of project execution. The Statement of Objectives (SOO) and drawings are all included with each project in Attachments 3 and 4. This proposal shall be evaluated in terms of completeness and reasonableness based on the Means Pricing Guide/Coefficients/Quantities. This proposal shall be evaluated during the source selection process. The Government may consider the following elements under this area in evaluating the proposals for the demonstration project:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS:

Project Execution and Technical Capability

1) Key Technical Support Staff

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Indicates the support staff dedicated for this contract on-site and/or at the home office.

1. Minimum functions must include clerical, inspection (quality control), drafting, technical design/planning staff personnel.

b. Indicates availability of design capability (A/E support) if design is to be performed by other than in-house resources.

1. List of A/E firms must indicate capability to perform civil, mechanical, and electrical work to the degree required under this contract.

2. List of registered Professional Engineers must show capability and availability of these persons/firms consistent with the type of work required under this contract.

2) Level of Overall Effort in the Execution of the Demonstration Project

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Shows that the appropriate engineer (discipline and skill level) was consulted on the project (paving engineer for paving projects, electrical technician on electrical work, etc.);

b. Provides drawing details showing all aspects of the work to be executed with a description of materials to be used and all proper dimensions shown;

c. Provides calculations to support the proposal for the project (asphalt depth on paving projects; structural capabilities and lighting levels as required; etc.);

d. Shows the request for existing drawings and/or a site visit has been made; and

e. Proposal includes all necessary disciplines (pavements and markings for resurfacing projects; structural engineering, sheet metal, protective coating, electrical, floor covering, etc., for other projects, as appropriate).

3) Cost Effectiveness of Decisions/Assumptions

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Provides comparisons on cost of various materials/alternatives;

b. Provides maintainability considerations in the comparisons (floor carpeting vs. tile, glass vs. Plexiglas, concrete vs. asphalt, paint vs. tape, etc.); and

c. Provides initial cost and life cycle cost considerations.

4) Completeness of Priced Listings

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Provides at least 95 percent of all price listed items contained in the Government estimate;

b. Provides reasons for significant or unusual differences due to Government oversight or a better offeror's proposal;

c. Provides the listing in the format provided in the sample project; and

d. Provides a listing that is clearly followed and flows in a logical order; the listing should group similar types of work, such as grouping all pavement work together.

When addressing past performance evaluation criteria set forth in Section M of the solicitation, the Offeror shall provide, at a minimum, a list of their past performance data from Federal, State and Local Government and private industry contracts from the past three (3) years from the posting date; not to exceed the 10 most relevant projects from the RFP date. All the items identified below shall be addressed in the listing. Elaborate listings and extensive comments are not required or requested. This volume shall be limited to the length of Attachment #6, Past Performance Questionnaire, plus a maximum of two pages for any additional comments.

(1) Contract number, type;

(2) Whether the offeror performed as the prime or a subcontractor;

(3) Name of contracting office and verified name, address, phone/fax number of point(s) of contact

(4) Project Title and/or brief description of construction project.

(5) Initial price and final or current price, Contract start date, scheduled completion date, and current or final completion date.

(6) Percent complete as of the date of submission of the proposal; and

(7) Brief comments, if desired.

Should Offerors wish to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and their corrective actions in accordance with FAR 15.305(2), they shall submit such information at the same time references are submitted.

On the above list, the Offeror shall identify recent and relevant past performance consisting of multi-discipline construction projects of varying complexity, each exceeding $50,000.00, performed within the past three (3) years. No more than the 10 most relevant of these projects within the past three (3) years will be considered. Uncompleted projects with work-in-progress may be included. Relevant projects shall be defined as contract performance consisting of multi-discipline construction projects, each exceeding $50,000, including a broad range of maintenance, repair, alteration or new construction of real property showing the capability to perform and manage a wide scope of construction trades including, but not limited to, carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior and exterior electrical, steam fitting, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry, and welding. Recency refers to projects that have taken place within the last three (3) years. In selecting the references, Offerors should consider the recency and relevancy of the past performance information to the work required under this solicitation.

The Offeror shall then email Attachment #4, Past Performance Questionnaire, to those agencies/firms responsible for the solicitation and administration of those identified projects. Prior to forwarding the questionnaire to each reference, the Offeror shall complete Section A, Contractor Information, on the questionnaire. Your references shall complete the questionnaire and email it to 1Lt Jacob Kriegbaum at jacob.kriegbaum@offutt.af.mil. Offerors are responsible to ensure that their reference sources receive, complete, and return the questionnaires on time. The evaluation may take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontract work where your firm performed major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. However, the proposal should clearly define who accomplished the work if performed by other than the prospective contractor (e.g., a key personnel) and define the role (e.g., prime contractor, subcontractor, subtier subcontractor, etc.) performed by the Offeror. The government shall consider the information provided from the Offeror and may well consider any other source when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each offeror's proposed coefficient(s). Financial data will be requested to support the proposed coefficient(s) and to assess the offeror's understanding and ability to meet financial requirements such as bonding and plan for covering initial cash flow deficits. The Government does not envision the need for a formal DCAA audit or field pricing assistance, as a significant amount of the total price to the Government will be a commonly-directed amount through the application of the price book. Price will be evaluated by the Contract Team in terms of completeness and reasonableness. The evaluation in this area will be geared towards determining the offeror's overall understanding of the program and adequate coverage of operating expenses and bonding.

The price proposal must set forth all pricing information necessary to provide a meaningful basis for the Government's analysis and evaluation of price as set forth in Section M of this solicitation. The Offeror is requested to provide prices/costs in accordance with the Price Schedule, Section B. The Government IS NOT requesting certified cost or pricing information. While price will not be rated and color-coded, price will be evaluated in terms of completeness and reasonableness. Volume III shall contain the following:

1.

Section A. Complete in its entirety the "Offeror" portion of the Standard Form 1442

(Page 2 of this solicitation, blocks 14, 15, 17, 19, 20A, 20B, 20C, and 30). An official having the authority to bind your company contractually must sign and date the SF 1442. One copy of the SF 1442 must bear an original, authorized signature.

2.

Section B. Offerors shall insert the prices/costs for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS). The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

3.

Section K. Complete ALL required certifications and representations (Note: be sure to sign and date where required.)

4.

Amendments. Any amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged in Block 19 of the SF1442 or by returning a signed copy of the amendment(s) SF 30 with the proposal.

NOTE: The prices submitted for the seed projects will be evaluated under the technical proposal in terms of the completeness of priced listings.

If a Joint Venture is contemplated, provide complete information on each firm.

Review of Proposals: Upon receipt of proposals in response to the RFP, all volumes will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with the solicitation requirements. The Technical Proposal Volume will be evaluated and determined to be acceptable or unacceptable. The Past Performance Volume will receive a detailed evaluation employing the criteria as identified in Section M. The Price Volume will be evaluated to establish completeness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

Communications/Exchanges: If required, communications will be conducted with Offerors after receipt of proposals IAW FAR 15.306.

Competitive Range Determination: IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as defined in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Evaluation Notices (ENs) are inquiries which may be issued to Offerors to better understand their proposals, or to notify Offerors about deficient aspects of their proposals. ENs issued prior to competitive range determination are for the purpose of enhancing Government understanding of proposals without revisions to those proposals. 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.

Discussions: The objective of discussions is “to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation”(See FAR 15.306(d)(2)). If discussions are necessary due to perceived weaknesses or other issues that must be addressed before award, they will be conducted with only those Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. ENs will be issued for those areas of a proposal which are considered deficient, where weaknesses exist which are significant enough to affect the selection decision, and/or where data presented by the Offeror is unclear. Offerors shall respond to all ENs during the discussion process IAW guidance provided by the Contracting Officer.

Final Proposed Revision (FPR): If held, once discussions have been concluded all Offerors will be provided an opportunity to submit a FPR. It is the Government’s intent to have a full understanding of the Offeror’s proposal, including any revisions and answers submitted by Offerors, prior to requesting FPRs. In the event any adjustment to price becomes necessary in a FPR to reflect changes resulting from discussions, a complete, traceable audit trail shall be provided to show how the changes took place. Evaluation of FPRs will be conducted, and the final decision of award will be made by the Contracting Officer. THE GOVERNMENT DOES, HOWEVER, RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS; THEREFORE, THE OFFEROR SHOULD PROPOSE THE BEST OFFER INITIALLY.

Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying to unsuccessful Offerors where changes can be made to improve future source selection participation. Successful or unsuccessful Offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505 for pre-award debriefings, and FAR 15.506 for post-award debriefings of Offerors.

In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government shall destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals. No destruction certificate will be provided.

YOUR OFFER MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE IF YOUR PROPOSAL IS INCOMPLETE.

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for--

15 Oct 10 at 08:00 AM CDT

(c) Participants will meet at--

Bellevue Welcome Center

1600 Hwy 370

Bellevue, NE 68005

(End of provision)

5352.215-9001 NOTICE OF PRE-BID/PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE (MAY 1996)

(a) A Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit will be held at 08:00 AM CDT, on Friday 15 Oct 2010. The initial meeting will occur at the Bellevue Visitor Center for those who require base passes. The contract manager, 1Lt Jacob Kriegbaum, can be contacted at 402-232-1456. Individual and vehicle passes will be issued to contractors that need them and we will then proceed to the SAC gate. After a short meeting in the conference room, we will proceed to the work site of the seed projects. The objective is to provide all offerors an opportunity to ascertain the nature and location of the work, and to become acquainted with the solicitation requirements. A complete record of the conference shall be made by detailed notes.

(b) Your attendance at the Pre-Proposal Conference is highly encouraged. Offerors who wish to attend are requested to complete the Pre-Proposal Conference Reservation Form and return it to 1Lt Jacob Kriegbaum no later than 2:00 PM CDT 14 Oct 2010. You may submit the form via fax to (402) 294-7280. Alternatively you scan and email the form to Lt Kriegbaum at jacob.kriegbaum@offutt.af.mil.

(c) Questions pertaining to the solicitation which offerors wish the Government to address during the pre-proposal conference shall be submitted in writing to the 55th Contracting Squadron, by 2:00 PM CDT 19 Oct 2010. Information provided at this conference shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgment and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.

(d) A record of the conference shall be made and furnished to all prospective bidders/offerors. The record should include minutes of the meeting, including questions (on a non-attribution basis) and answers.

(e) Accommodations while in Bellevue, NE shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M-0 BASIS FOR AWARD: This is a competitive best value Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, price, and performance records. Failure to meet any requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall consist of assessing the following factors: Technical Capability, Price, and Past Performance.

Each factor is described in detail in paragraph M-2 Evaluation Factors, Subfactors, Elements.

M-1

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This source selection will be conducted using the procedures from the Air Force Source Selection policies and procedures contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15, DOD FAR Sup, and Air Force FAR Sup. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible, whose proposal conforms to the Request For Proposal’s (RFP) requirements and represents the best value to the Government. Only one award will be made. The best value is represented by the most advantageous offer, technical, price and past performance considered, providing the best value in consonance with the Government’s stated importance of evaluation criteria. To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in the paragraphs that follow. The factors and subfactors are the uniform baseline against which each Offeror’s proposal is compared to determine the confidence the Government has that the Offeror will be able to satisfactorily accomplish all work required. They establish the level an Offeror’s proposal must meet in any area, factor, subfactor, or element in order to be determined acceptable. To be eligible for award, a proposal must meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all information required. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. Therefore, the proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government also reserves the right to enter into discussions if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

M-2

EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS, ELEMENTS

The proposals will be evaluated for the entire performance period (to include the base period of the contract plus all the option periods) as well as on the basis of the evaluation factors listed below. These primary areas of importance comprise the decision making process to be used in determining which proposals are acceptable. The technical proposal will be the first step and will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. For those offers which pass the technical portion, Past Performance is significantly more important than price. The following areas will be evaluated:

(1) Technical Proposal -Seed Project Proposals (STEP 1)

(2) Price (STEP 2)

(3) Past Performance (STEP 3)

(a) If the contractor does not provide sufficient completed questionnaires with their proposal, or if the evaluation team determines additional information is required, the government may attempt to contact other customers known to the government, consumer protection organizations, and any other sources that may have useful and/or relevant information.

(b) The application of the evaluation procedures to the primary “areas” of importance permits placing past performance considerations above total price. As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED PRICE. The Government will consider awarding to an Offeror with higher qualitative merit and/or experience and past performance, provided the difference in price is commensurate with added value. Conversely, the Government will consider making award to an Offeror whose offer has lower qualitative merit and/or relevant experience and past performance if the price differentials between it and other proposals warrant doing so.

(1) Technical Proposal (Seed Project Proposals):

Technical evaluations will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. The Technical area is based on an acceptable/unacceptable scale. A rating of “Acceptable” shall be required in all Technical subfactors in order to be eligible for award. “Unacceptable” is defined as not sufficiently meeting the RFP requirements of the Technical Factor. “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable” is defined as not meeting the RFP requirements of the Technical factor, however, there is reason to believe the proposal could be made “Acceptable” through minor revisions. If the Government elects to award without discussions, “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable” proposals are considered “Unacceptable.”

If the proposal receives an unacceptable, the Offeror will be excluded from competition, and they will not progress to the next round of evaluations. The Contractor will be notified of his/her exclusion and will not be allowed to correct any deficiencies.

The Government will evaluate two demonstration (seed) projects.

· Seed Project #1: Convert Honor Guard to VTC (see attachment 3), will be evaluated for technical capability only, and may or may not be awarded during the SABER contract period.

· Seed Project #2: Pre-performance Conference (see attachment 4), has been identified for award under the SABER program for a demonstration of technical capability. This project will be awarded at the time of the SABER contract award.

The following requirements apply to both seed projects address the following.

A. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN: Provide design (Drawings, specification outline, i.e. table of contents, catalog cut sheets, manufacturer/supplier recommendations, schematics, process flow diagrams, supporting data, etc.) as required to clearly present contractor’s proposed design concept to comply with the government’s requirements for the “seed” projects and permit offeror to establish price. As applicable to the seed projects, address the following:

SITE DESIGN: Provide site design (Drawings, specification outline or table of contents, catalog cut sheets, manufacturer/supplier recommendations, schematics, process flow diagrams, supporting data, etc.) as required to clearly present contractor’s proposed design concept to comply with the government’s requirements for the “seed” projects and permit offeror to establish his price.

B. SCHEDULE:

The Offeror shall provide his proposed project schedule for design, site clearing and demolition, submittals, and construction work for the seed projects. Prepare in the form of a time-scaled summary network diagram and graphically indicate sequences proposed to accomplish each general work operation including design and design reviews, site clearing and demolition, construction, final clean-up of premises, appropriate interdependencies among various activities. The proposed completion time will be a contract requirement. If the Offeror fails to complete the work within the time specified, the Offeror will be subject to liquidated damages.

The Offeror shall provide a verification statement that the Contractor has read the contract requirements and that the number of days includes all design time, Government review time (2 weeks) of all design submittals, construction time, and demolition time necessary to complete the project. The duration shall reflect the design and design review requirements.

C. SUPPORTING DATA:

Provide supporting data design (Drawings, specification outline or table of contents, catalog cut sheets, manufacturer/supplier recommendations, schematics, process flow diagrams, supporting data, etc.) as required to clearly present contractor’s proposed design concept to comply with the government’s requirements for the “seed” projects and permit offeror to establish his price.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS:

1) Key Technical Support Staff

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Indicates the support staff dedicated for this contract on-site and/or at the home office.

1. Minimum functions must include clerical, inspection (quality control), drafting, technical design/planning staff personnel.

b. Indicates availability of design capability (A/E support) if design is to be performed by other than in-house resources.

1. List of A/E firms must indicate capability to perform civil, mechanical, and electrical work to the degree required under this contract.

2. List of registered Professional Engineers must show capability and availability of these persons/firms consistent with the type of work required under this contract.

2) Level of Overall Effort in the Execution of the Demonstration Project

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Shows that the appropriate engineer (discipline and skill level) was consulted on the project (paving engineer for paving projects, electrical technician on electrical work, etc.);

b. Provides drawing details showing all aspects of the work to be executed with a description of materials to be used and all proper dimensions shown;

c. Provides calculations to support the proposal for the project (asphalt depth on paving projects; structural capabilities and lighting levels as required; etc.);

d. Shows the request for existing drawings and/or a site visit has been made; and

e. Proposal includes all necessary disciplines (pavements and markings for resurfacing projects; structural engineering, sheet metal, protective coating, electrical, floor covering, etc., for other projects, as appropriate).

3) Cost Effectiveness of Decisions/Assumptions

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Provides comparisons on cost of various materials/alternatives;

b. Provides maintainability considerations in the comparisons (floor carpeting vs. tile, glass vs. Plexiglas, concrete vs. asphalt, paint vs. tape, etc.); and

c. Provides initial cost and life cycle cost considerations.

4) Completeness of Priced Listings

The standard is met when the proposal:

a. Provides at least 95 percent of all price listed items contained in the Government estimate;

b. Provides reasons for significant or unusual differences due to Government oversight or a better offeror's proposal;

c. Provides the listing in the format provided in the sample project; and

d. Provides a listing that is clearly followed and flows in a logical order; the listing should group similar types of work, such as grouping all pavement work together.

(2) Price:

Price will be evaluated based on reasonableness of all technically “acceptable” or “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” proposals. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total overall evaluated price.

The total evaluated price consists of the basic contract period and option periods (“option periods” include the option to extend services NTE 6 months). The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the skill sets required for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various aspects of the offeror’s proposal.

Evaluation: For pricing purposes only, the evaluated prices will total the sum of: each coefficient multiplied by the estimated amounts for each fiscal year and the 6 month optional extension of services. The estimated number of projects are for informational purposes only.

Total Contract Ceiling: $45M (includes base year + four option years)

$8.5M per year and $2.5M for the 6 month extension

*Base $ includes figures excluding offeror’s coefficient objectives and are derived from each offeror’s individual approach and quantities derived from RS Means.

The base year total dollar amount consists of the total value of task orders placed against the IDIQ contract. Each task order represents the total line items from RS Means multiplied by the coefficient.

EXAMPLE: RS Means Line Items = $300K multiplied by coefficient 1.175 = $352.5K

Price is not the most significant factor in the selection of a Contractor for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. Should multiple offerors pass with a technically acceptable proposal and rated equally in past performance, price will then become the deciding factor.

(3) Past Performance:

Those offers which pass the technical evaluation will proceed through an integrated assessment based on tradeoff between price and past performance. The Government will use past performance information from the offeror’s referrals, as well as from other sources, in the Government's assessment of the offeror’s past performance. The offeror’s past performance information must meet the recent and relevant criteria described in Section L of this solicitation. The Government will award the contract to the offeror that represents the best value to the Government in terms of price and past performance, after technical capability has been established. The evaluation process considers past performance significantly more important than price. In a past performance price tradeoff, the Contracting Officer will only clarify the offerors’ information, and no discussions are contemplated in accordance with FAR 15.306. Offers may be given the opportunity to clarify relevance or adverse past performance to which the offers have not previously had an opportunity to respond. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors.

This is a competitive best value request for proposal. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in this solicitation, the offeror agrees to the terms of this contract and all such offers shall be treated equally in the evaluation of the seed projects. Those proposals determined to be technically acceptable shall be treated equally except for price and past performance. The past performance evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Using the questionnaires provided with the proposals, the contracting officer shall seek performance information on all offerors. This is a best value, award acquisition. The Government intends to award a contract to an offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements and is determined to represent the best value to the Government. The best value is the most advantageous after, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government’s stated importance of evaluation criteria. This may result in award being made to higher rated, higher priced offeror where the contracting officer determines that an offeror’s past/present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the Government will make a “Best Value” determination considering an offeror’s past/present performance and total proposed price for the project. While the Government evaluation team and the contracting officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process. The assessment process will result in an overall confidence rating as defined below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

The evaluation of past performance may include, but are not limited to factors such as quality control, timely performance, management effectiveness, pricing, management and superintendence, compliance with labor and safety standards, and overall performance. (NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. See FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iii) and (iv).)

M-3

SOURCE SELECTION

The team will then compile all the data and present their findings and recommendations to the Source Selection Authority who will make a subjective evaluation to determine which Offeror’s technical proposal, past performance and proposed price represent the best value to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned to completely read this entire solicitation and submit sufficient and correct information, and in the format specified. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond. This type of communication or that which is conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offerors not submitting the required information, initially, with their proposals may be rejected as non-responsive. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interests.

(End of Summary of Changes)