Solicitation Amendment FA461025R00060001 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(a) The purpose of this solicitation FA461025R0006 amendment 01 is to amend the Statement of Work Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

(SOW). Four minor changes were made to the SOW, including: (1) references to $700k in Section 8, subparagraph 8.1 were updated to $750k, (2) language in Section 9, subparagraph 9.1.1.1 was updated from TOR to FOPR, (3) language in Section 9, subparagraph 9.1.2.2.4 was updated from Uniform Mechanical Code to International Mechanical Code, and (4) language in Section 9, subparagraph 9.1.2.2.5 was updated from Uniform Plumbing Code to International Plumbing Code.

(b) Additionally, this solicitation FA461025R0006 amendment 01 removes the language "for approval" from Section M-2, subparagraph 2.05, Step 5 in the second bullet.

(c) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Section J - List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

WOOKIE MACC_SOW_Final_20250219

The following attachments were deleted:

ATT 01_SOW_20241120

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a competitive Highest Technically Rated Offeror with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRO) source selection performed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov/. The Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the HTRO with a fair and reasonable price.

1.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a).

Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

1.3. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance (IAW) with FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and the requirements in Section M, paragraph M-2 subparagraph 2.0, Step 5, whose proposal conform to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements and successfully perform the requirement. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.4. The Government intends to strictly enforce all of the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an offeror's proposal being determined non-conforming to the solicitation and rejected.

1.5. In the event the evaluation team discovers an exaggerated Self-Scoring Worksheet with numerous point deductions required based on ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, misleading, or inadequate supporting documentation, the offeror shall immediately be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

2.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

Multiple awards shall be made as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to award to up to five (5) 8(a) businesses who are validated as the highest technically rated, have a fair and reasonable evaluated price, and are determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 and the requirements in Section M, paragraph M-2 subparagraph 2.0, Step 5.

3.0 Minimum Guarantee

All contractors who are awarded a contract under the Western Operational Ordering Contract for Infrastructure Enhancement Multiple Award Construction Contract (WOOKIE MACC) solicitation will be awarded a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount of $2,000.00. Contractors will be required to attend a Pre- Construction Conference to discuss VSFB specifics and general WOOKIE MACC requirements. After the conference all the contractors awarded a contract under the WOOKIE MACC may invoice for the minimum guarantee. There is no guarantee of any task order beyond the minimum guarantee.

4.0 IDIQ Ceiling

The overall program will not exceed $525,000,000.00 for the five (5) year base period and one (1) two (2) year option period. The total value of all task orders awarded under the indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) will not exceed this amount. Task orders will range in value from $2,000.00 to $25,000,000.00.

Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

FA461025R00060001

5.0 Proposal Compliance and Offeror Responsibility

5.1 Proposal Substantiation

Unsubstantiated or misleading claims for any technical evaluation element could result in the Government determining that the offeror's proposed self-rated score is artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the offeror's score, potentially down to zero points. Self-rated scores shall be determined grossly misrepresented if an offeror misrepresented their scoring on six (6) or more Relevant Experience Projects. If the Government determines an offeror's self-rated score to be grossly misrepresented the Government may immediately cease evaluation and eliminate the offeror from further consideration for award.

5.2 Proposal Compliance

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, submission requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the offeror to be unresponsive and ineligible for award. The Government will review each offeror's proposal to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer's determination of proposal compliance.

5.3 Offeror Responsibility

No award shall be made to an offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1 and the requirements in Section M, paragraph M-2 subparagraph 2.0, Step 5. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any section of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

1.0 Evaluation of Proposals

The Government will select the proposal(s) that give the best value to the Government. To arrive at a decision, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate each offeror's Volume 1 - Executed Contract Documentation and Price Proposal and Volume II - Technical.

2.0 Evaluation Process

The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

Step 1 - Perform compliance review on all proposals to assess compliance with terms and conditions of the solicitation. Non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award.

Step 2 - The Government will sort the offerors not eliminated from consideration in Step 1 from highest to lowest by the offerors' self-scores identified on the Self- Scoring Worksheets.

Step 3 - The Government will validate the offerors' self-rated technical proposals beginning with the top five (5) highest scored offerors' Self-Scoring Worksheets. If the Government is unable to validate an offeror's self-rated score based on the substantiating documentation, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the offeror's self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the offeror's self-rated score downward, no upward adjustments will be made. The Government may cease evaluation of an offeror and eliminate it from further consideration for award if its Self-Scoring Worksheet is found to be grossly misrepresented as defined in paragraph M-1, subparagraph 5.1 above.

If an offeror's validated score causes the offeror to fall below the top five (5) scores, the next highest self-score will be evaluated. Validation of self-scores will continue until the Government identifies the top five (5) validated scores. The Government at its sole discretion may continue validation of scores below the top five

(5) highest validated scores to determine up to three (3) TBD IDIQ awardees eligible for potential on-ramping in accordance with the On-Ramping Procedures detailed in Section H, or if one or more of the prices for the top five (5) validated scores is determined not to be fair and reasonable in Step 4, or as otherwise determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

In the event two or more offerors achieve the same Government-validated technical proposal scores, the following will be used, in order, to rank proposals: (1) offeror with the higher number of unique design-build projects, (2) offeror with the higher number of highly complex projects, and (3) drawing of lots. Unique design-build projects are defined as projects included in Section I: Relevant Experience Projects of the Self-Scoring Worksheet which are not reused in multiple categories.

Highly complex projects are defined as projects with 5 or more tasks as defined in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.2.1.9.

Step 4 - The Government will evaluate the price for the top five (5) validated scores as identified in step 3 and not eliminated from consideration in step 1. If the price for one or more of the top five (5) validated scores is determined not to be fair and reasonable, the Government will resume score validation as detailed in Step 3 until the Government identifies the five (5) highest Government-validated technical proposal scores with fair and reasonable pricing. The Government, at its sole discretion, may continue price evaluations to determine up to three (3) TBD IDIQ awardees eligible for potential on-ramping in accordance with the On- Ramping Procedures detailed in Section H or as otherwise determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Step 5 - Perform a responsibility determination on the five (5) highest Government-validated technical proposal scores with fair and reasonable pricing. In order to be determined responsible an offeror must meet the following conditions:

--Offeror must meet the standards identified in FAR 9.104-1;

--Offeror must have an active 8(a) status at the time of initial bid due date. Joint ventures must have an SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement or have submitted its Joint Venture Agreement to the SBA prior to the initial bid due date.

--Offeror must possess an active California General Contractor's License, "Class A" or "Class B", or equivalent license from a state with a reciprocity agreement with State of California, registered in the prime contractor's name; or must demonstrate a four (4) year history of experience in successfully completing multiple trade construction efforts. Multiple trade construction efforts are defined as projects which involve at least two (2) separate and distinct construction trades including but not limited to carpentry, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, painting, pipe fitting, sheet metal, welding, roofing, site work, site utilities, excavation, concrete, masonry, pavement repair, asbestos abatement, lead paint removal, security hardware installation, or demolition.

--Offeror must provide evidence that it is able to obtain a minimum single project bonding capacity of $25M from an approved surety listed in the Department of the Treasury Circular 570 (http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/) or other security permitted by FAR Subpart 28.2, unless prohibited by law or regulation.

If one or more of the five (5) offerors with highest Government-validated technical proposal scores and fair and reasonable pricing are determined non-responsible, the Government will forward the determination of non-responsibility to the Small Business Administration for review in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.6, except as exempted in FAR 19.602-1(a)(2), and may resume score validation and price evaluation as detailed in Steps 3 and 4. Evaluations will continue until the Government identifies the five (5) highest Government-validated technical proposal scores with fair and reasonable pricing who are determined responsible.

3.0 Evaluation Factors and Standards

3.1 Volume I - Executed Contract Documentation and Price Proposal

3.1.1 Compliance with Section L, Paragraph L-2, Subparagraph 2.1

3.1.1.1 The Government will review each offeror's Volume I - Executed Contract Documentation and Price Proposal to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer's determination of proposal compliance.

3.1.1.2 Offeror's Executive Summary Sheet, Chapter 1 - SF 1442, Chapter 2 - Section K, Chapter 3 - Joint Venture Agreements (if applicable), Chapter 4 - SBA Validation, Chapter 5 - Contractor's License, Chapter 6 - Bonding Capacity, and Chapter 7 - Price Proposal will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis regarding whether the requested proposal submission information meets all the conditions for the information requested in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.1.

3.1.2 Price Proposal

3.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the price for the top (5) highest scored offerors as identified in Section M paragraph M-2 step 3 Evaluation Process. The next three (3) offerors may be evaluated for price at the Government's discretion for TBD IDIQ award. The Government will evaluate highest scored offerors' Section J, Attachment 03, Volume I_Price Proposal Template for fair and reasonableness as a pass/fail criteria. An offer may be determined non-conforming to the solicitation and rejected if there is any missing or incomplete data on the Section J, Attachment 03, Volume I_Price Proposal Template.

3.1.2.2 Price proposals will be evaluated by reviewing the Program Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager hourly rates across fiscal years (FY) 2025 through FY 2032. These FYs will cover the five (5) year base and one (1) two (2) year option. Price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404(b), in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. For a price to be determined reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

3.1.2.3 Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis and other techniques need not be utilized. In limited circumstances, other price analysis techniques may be appropriate to establish price reasonableness.

3.2 Volume II - Technical

3.2.1 Self-Scoring Worksheet

3.2.1.1 Compliance with Section L, Paragraph L-2, Subparagraph 2.2 The Government will review each offeror's Volume II - Technical to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer's determination of proposal compliance. Proposal submission information shall meet all conditions for the information requested in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.2.

3.2.1.2 Scoring Validation

3.2.1.2.1 The HTRO methodology requires the offeror to submit a self-rated score based on the objective criteria and definitions described in Section L. The maximum number of points a contractor can receive is 75,000. Assessing technical excellence is inherent to the HTRO methodology with price. The Government will evaluate the offeror's self-rated technical proposal by validating the proposed Self-Scoring Worksheet. The Government will validate the offeror's self-rated scores using the substantiating documentation provided in accordance with Sections L paragraph L-2 subparagraphs 2.2.1.5 through 2.2.1.12. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced pages, paragraphs, tables, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that offeror's self-rated score based on the substantiating documentation, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the offeror's self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the offeror's self-rated score downward, no upward adjustments will be made. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the offeror.

1515 ICELAND AVE RM 150, VANDENBERG SFB CA 93437-5212

VANDENBERG SFB, CA 93437-5212

UNITED STATES

Jennifer Paccioretti, Email: jennifer.paccioretti@spaceforce.mil Telephone: 276-6367 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: