Solicitation Amendment FA462520R00030011 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

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Begin Performance Delivery Lead Time Duration 10 Calendar Days 180 Calendar Days

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE.

1.0. Magnitude of Construction

a. The estimated project magnitudes fall under three categories:

i. Overall Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Ceiling

ii. Subsequent Task Orders

iii. The Representative Project, Repair Missions End Club Infrastructure - B3008

b. IAW FAR 36.204, Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction Projects, the magnitudes for each category are as follows:

i. Overall MATOC ceiling - $135,000,000.00 in aggregate

ii. Task Orders - Subsequent Task Orders are estimated to be:

1. Between $250,000 and $500,000

2. Between $500,000 and $1,000,000

3. Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000

4. Between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000

iii. Representative Project - Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000

1.1. Budget/Funding Information

Funding is available for the minimum guarantee ($500) for each of the MATOC awardees. Funding is not currently available for the representative project.

1.2. Eligibility

Proposals may be submitted by any Small Business concern. The NAICS for this solicitation is 236220. Joint ventures, teaming arrangements and Mentor Protege partners will be considered for award. Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) by the due date of proposals.

1.3. Notice of Pre-Proposal Conference

FA462520R00030011

Pre-proposal information will be provided in a future amendment. Please continue to monitor beta.sam.gov to stay informed.

1.4 Solicitation Questions

Offerors are requested to submit questions to 509cons.sollgca@us.af.mil, James McCoy, james.mccoy.17@us.af.

mil, 660-687-5435 and Caleb Kirchhoff, caleb.kirchhoff@us.af.mil, 660-687-5436 no later than 17 June 2020.

All questions must be submitted in writing. All appropriate questions will be answered in an amendment(s) and posted to Beta.Sam.Gov. Information provided at the pre-proposal conference shall not qualify as a change in the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. See paragraph 2.5 for amendment acknowledgement requirements.

2.0. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions herein. Proposals shall be neat, indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate), and assembled in an orderly manner. Include only information that is relevant to this source selection. Offerors must understand the functional relationship between Section L and Section 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 the 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. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Proposals that do not contain the information required will be ineligible for award.

Whiteman AFB networks utilizes a firewall that may cause delays in receipt of e-mails/attachments. Late receipts due to the network firewall or outages will be considered late. Offerors should allow sufficient time for the e-mail traffic to be delivered.

Proposals shall consist of three (3) separately labeled volumes; Volume A - Contract Documentation/Company Information, Volume B - Phase I, and Volume C - Phase II.

NOTE: All proposal preparation costs will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation cost.

2.1 Volume A - Contract Documentation and Company Information

2.1.1. Contract Documentation

A signed copy of the SF 1442 and Amendments Acknowledgements must be included in this volume. Offerors must also complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the Offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

2.1.2. Company Information

Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title, telephone number, and e-mail address of the company /division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; and size of business (large or small).

2.2. Volumes B and C - Phase/Factor Index

Proposals will be evaluated in two (2) separate phases spanning five (5) distinct factors. Phases I and II correspond with submission Volumes B and C respectively. See below for a summary of each phase and the corresponding factors:

2.2.1 Volume B, Phase I

Factor 1 - KEY PERSONNEL Factor 2 - PAST EXPERIENCE Factor 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

2.2.2. Volume C, Phase II

Factor 4 - REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Factor 5 - PRICE

2.3. Proposal Formatting

Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

Volume Paragraph Number Factor CD/disc Requirement** Page Limit A. Contract Documentation/ General Information 1.0. N/A 1 Original Unlimited B. Phase I 2.0. Factor 1 - Key Personnel 1 Original 16 Pages B. Phase I 3.0. Factor 2 - Past Experience 1 Original Maximum of 3 Pages for each project (No more than 15 Pages total) B. Phase I 4.0. Factor 3 - Past Performance 1 Original Maximum of 3 Pages for each project (No more than 15 Pages total) C. Phase II 5.0. Factor 4 - Technical Approach to *Representative Project 1 Original 15 pages (not including drawings& Gantt chart) C. Phase II 6.0. Factor 5 - Cost/Price 1 Original Unlimited

*Representative Project NOTE: The Representative Project outlined in this solicitation will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Whereas the project represents a real requirement at Whiteman AFB, a task order will not be issued against the MATOC for the project upon award of the IDIQ Contract. It is intended that this will be a future project based on funding availability.

**CD submission is only required if submitting via mail. If you are submitting electronically, no disc submission is required.

Format for all proposal volumes shall be as follows (this format does not apply to drawings or Gantt charts):

a. Page size is required to be no more than 8 1/2" x 11" with 1" overall page margins.

b. Font size should be no less than 12.

2.4. INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

All proposals and related documents will be submitted via CD/disc or electronically via e-mail/DoD SAFE to the 509th Contracting Squadron, unless otherwise noted. The CD/disc or e-mail must arrive at the designated time specified in the solicitation to be considered responsive and considered in the evaluation process. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure receipt of proposal at this office by the proposal due date and time identified in the solicitation. Mailed proposals (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) must be sent to the following address:

509 CONS/PKA

Attn: Caleb Kirchhoff 660 10th Street, Suite 222 Whiteman AFB, MO 65305

E-mailed proposals must be sent to the following e-mail address:

509cons.sollgca@us.af.mil

Whiteman AFB network firewall or outages may delay receipt of proposals or attachments. Proposals received after proposal due date/time will be considered late. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR

15.208 "Submission, Modification, Revisions, and Withdrawals of Proposals."

If an Offeror elects to submit their proposal electronically but the proposal exceeds e-mail attachment limitations, the Offeror may contract the 509th Contracting Squadron at 509cons.sollgca@us.af.mil to request the establishment of a DoD SAFE Drop-Box. The Government will not be responsible for delays in receiving a proposal due to a DoD SAFE Drop-Box establishment request.

Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments (SF30s) will be accepted electronically on the CD/disc or by e-mail. The acknowledgement must be received prior to solicitation closing date. The e-mail address is: 509cons.

sollgca@us.af.mil. Whiteman AFB network utilizes a firewall that may cause delays in receipt of e-mails /attachments. Late receipt of amendments due to a network firewall or outages will be considered late. Offerors should allow sufficient time for the email traffic to be delivered.

Offerors are cautioned that Whiteman AFB, MO has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HANDCARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at 509 CONS PRIOR to the time specified for receipt.

Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208 "Submission, Modifications, Revisions and Withdrawals of Proposals."

Period for acceptance of offers: The Offeror agrees to hold its offer firm until 180 days after proposal due date.

2.5. Federal Holidays

The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed by Whiteman AFB:

New Year's Day (January 1).

Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Third Monday in January).

Washington's Birthday (Third Monday in February).

Memorial Day (Last Monday in May).

Independence Day (July 4).

Labor Day (First Monday in September).

Columbus Day (Second Monday in October).

Veterans Day (November 11).

Thanksgiving Day (Fourth Thursday in November).

Christmas Day (December 25).

3.0. FACTOR 1 - KEY PERSONNEL. NOTE: No more than sixteen (16) pages for this factor.

3.1. Each of the Factor 1 requirements are deemed to be material requirements of the solicitation. Specific required experience attributes must be supported; inferences will not be made by the Government. With respect to the required minimum durations of experience identified in Section M, Paragraph 2.1, Offerors must calculate and set forth expressly the total number years of experience. These totals must be supported by a Resume(s) which provides beginning and end dates for each period of claimed experience. Offeror shall affirm unequivocally that the proposed key personnel are either currently employed by the prime Offeror or shall submit with its proposal signed letters of intent to accept employment with the prime Offeror contingent upon contract award.

3.2. The Offeror shall submit key personnel that includes all of the following:

a. Offeror shall propose key personnel for all key positions described in Section M Paragraph 2.1;

b. Offeror shall provide identification of each proposed key person by position, title, and name;

c. Offeror's shall not propose that an actual or prospective employee hold more than one key position;

d. Offeror shall propose key personnel that individually meet both the certification and experience qualifications for the applicable key position detailed in Section M, Paragraph 2.1; and

4.0. FACTOR 2 - PAST EXPERIENCE.

NOTE: No more than a total of fifteen (15) pages for this factor.

4.1. Submit a minimum of two (2) example projects and a maximum of five (5) example projects demonstrating the Offeror's recent, relevant past experience. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. The projects submitted shall be limited to no more than three (3) pages each. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe the Offeror's experience, the scope of the project, or the periods of project performance will not be considered. This shall be compiled with Company experience. Do not include individual employee names, or any data that could be used to identify specific employees in this Factor.

4.2. Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) and other types of IDIQ contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of projects may also be submitted for Factor 2. If an IDIQ type contract is submitted, an individual task order issued under the contract must also be submitted. The IDIQ and subsequent task order will be considered overall one project.

4.3. Provide the following information for each project:

a. Project Title

b. Location

c. Contract Number

d. Project Delivery Method: Indicate Design/Build; Design/Bid/Build; Integrated Design; Design Only; etc.

e. Role of Offeror: Indicate type and percentage of work performed by the Offeror or Offeror's team member.

f. Total Dollar Amount: Indicate if for design only, construction only or both design and construction. If the project is an IDIQ, identify the not to exceed (NTE) amount as well as dollar amounts for the range of task orders issued under the IDIQ. If the project is a design only effort, the construction cost estimate must also be included.

g. Construction Start and Completion Dates: Project construction must be identified as complete or substantially complete. If an Offeror presents a project that is not substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered.

h. Brief Description of Project: Address how the project experience is relevant to the Whiteman AFB MATOC Statement of Work. Indicate, as applicable, the facility type; square footage of office/admin space, any applicable security requirements i.e. ICD 705 compliance, and sustainability/energy efficient features. Provide a narrative that provides details on each of the above topics in order for the board to evaluate the relevancy of each project.

i. Customer Primary Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

j. Procuring Activity Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

k. Provide an explanation of relatable contract aspects, which are relevant to the proposed effort. This may include discussion of efforts to resolve problems encountered on previous contracts, and past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

5.0. FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

NOTE: No more than a total of fifteen (15) pages for this factor.

5.1. Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with paragraph 5.4 and 5.5. This information is required for the Offeror and/or Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangements and/or Mentor Protege partners. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

5.2. If applicable, the Offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment L-3) executed by each Joint Venture partner, Teaming Arrangement partner and/or Mentor Protege partners, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to information requests from the Government. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance. Consent letters and client authorization letters are excluded from this factor's page limitations.

5.3. Relevant Contracts. Submit information in accordance with paragraph 5.4 and 5.5 on at least two (2), but no more than five (5) recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Past performance submitted on behalf of a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protege and/or Teaming Arrangement may be from projects performed by the individual partners. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. A minimum of one (1) project submitted for Factor 3 - Past Performance must be from the list of projects submitted for Factor 2 - Past Experience. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see Section M, paragraph 2.3 - Past Performance Factor.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) and other types of IDIQ contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of projects may also be submitted for Factor 3. If an IDIQ type contract is submitted, an individual task order issued under the contract must also be submitted. The IDIQ and subsequent task order will be considered overall one project.

5.4. Contract Information:

Offerors shall include but not be limited to the following information for each contract listed:

a. Offeror Name (include Cage code and DUNS Number)

b. Solicitation Number and Program Title

Contract Specific Information

c. Government Agency/Commercial Organization for which work was performed

d. Address

e. Contract Number

f. Date of Award

g. Period of Performance

h. Prime Contractor or percentage of work performed

i. Relevancy

j. Current/Final Contract Cost/Price

k. Annual Contract Dollar Value

l. Brief Description of Effort

m. Primary Customer Points of Contract

5.5. Questionnaires:

a. The Government requests the Offeror send out past and present performance questionnaires (see Attachment L-1) to each of the points of contact (POCs) identified in the past performance volume. Once the past and present performance questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the Offeror. However, adverse past performance information may be released to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

b. Provide a list of questionnaire recipients, to include two current POCs and phone numbers for each contract reference provided. The Offeror is solely responsible for the accuracy of the contact information provided.

c. The completed past/present performance questionnaire may be emailed to: 509cons.sollgca@us.af.mil, james.

mccoy.17@us.af.mil and caleb.kirchhoff@us.af.mil. Questionnaire(s) may also be mailed to the address listed below. If mailing (through contracted courier providers), the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

509 CONS/PKA

Attn: Mr. James McCoy, Contracting Officer 660 Tenth Street, Ste 222 Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5316

Note: Electronic submission is preferred.

6.0. FACTOR 4 - REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY.

NOTE: No more than a total of fifteen (15) pages for this factor. (Drawings, Design Calculations and Gantt chart not included in page count).

6.1. The Offeror shall provide a conceptual design proposal in accordance with the solicitation and Representative Project Statement of Objectives (SOO), to include the following:

a. List of required permits, tests & surveys

b. Design calculations for each discipline, as appropriate, in accordance with the Representative Project SOO

c. List of code deficiencies to be addressed by design

d. Drawings (must include, but not limited to)

i. Structural Sections

ii. Mechanical, Electrical and other distribution system layouts

e. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) index

6.2. Gantt chart - detailing overall performance period, including design and construction phases, identifying all critical milestones.

6.3. The Offeror's narrative regarding the design/build process that will be used to carry the representative project from the design through the construction phases. This includes the composition of the design/build team.

7.0. FACTOR 5 - PRICE PROPOSAL.

7.1. Price Reasonableness.

This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with this requirement is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

7.2. Representative Project.

Provide proposed prices for the Representative Project on Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form. Instead of completing Section B of the Solicitation, Offerors shall submit a completed Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form for the representative project. The Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown should identify an appropriate mix of labor and materials in reasonable quantities at reasonable prices. Failure to propose pricing in accordance with the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown shall result in a determination that the proposal is nonresponsive to the solicitation. The proposal shall fully justify the proposed prices and document any assumptions made in developing the proposal.

7.3. FFP CLINs.

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's determination, adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror's proposal.

7.4. Price Data.

Data beyond that required by this instruction should not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Factor. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

Attachments L-1: Past/Present Performance Questionnaire L-2: Request for Past Performance Evaluation Letter L-3: Sample Joint Venture/Mentor/Protege/Teaming Partner Consent Letter L-4: Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date 52.232-13 Notice of Progress Payments. 1984-04 52.215-20 Alternate IV Requirements for 2010-10 Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. - (Alternate IV)

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal. 2017-01 As prescribed in 4.1008, insert the following provision:

Alternative Line Item Proposal (Jan 2017)

(a) The Government recognizes that the line items established in this solicitation may not conform to the Offeror's practices.

Failure to correct these issues can result in difficulties in acceptance of deliverables and processing payments.

Therefore, the Offeror is invited to propose alternative line items for which bids, proposals, or quotes are requested in this solicitation to ensure that the resulting contract is economically and administratively advantageous to the Government and the Offeror.

(b) The Offeror may submit one or more additional proposals with alternative line items, provided that alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. However, acceptance of an alternative proposal is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the Government. Offers that do not comply with the line items specified in this solicitation may be determined to be nonresponsive or unacceptable.

(End of provision)

52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards. 1995-10 As prescribed in 16.506(f), insert the following provision:

Single or Multiple Awards (Oct 1995)

The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to a target of three (3) sources under this solicitation.

(End of provision)

END OF SECTION L

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE.

1.0. Evaluation Overview.

The Government will award a target of three (3) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government will utilize a two-phase evaluation process identified herein. The factors below will be evaluated in the following order:

PHASE I:

Factor 1 - KEY PERSONNEL Factor 2 - PAST EXPERIENCE Factor 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

PHASE II:

Factor 4 - REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Factor 5 - PRICE PROPOSAL

1.1. Basis for Contract Award.

This is a best value source selection in which competing Offerors will be ranked highest to lowest via a Two-phased evaluation approach. A single RFP will be issued, with the Government target of awarding three (3) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts and placing up to four (4) Offerors in the On-Ramp Pool. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts based upon Source Selection Authority determination that it is in the Government's best interest. See Section H of the solicitation for all details of the ON/OFF Ramp Provision included within this MATOC. Contract awardees and On-Ramp Pool participants will be the responsible Offerors whose proposals conform to all of the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and provides the subjective trade-off best value based upon the evaluation method described herein. Future requirements will be competed among the contract awardees based on work defined in individual task orders.

This will be a small business set aside under NAICS 236220. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Phase I consists of Factors 1 through 3. Factor 1 - Key Personnel will be evaluated on an ACCEPTABLE /UNACCEPTABLE basis. Offerors must receive a rating of ACCEPTABLE in order to advance in the evaluation. Offerors receiving an UNACCEPTABLE rating will be ineligible for award. Factor 2 - Past Experience will be rated in accordance with Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Factor 3 - Past Performance will be rated in accordance with Table 2: Performance Confidence Assessments. An integrated assessment will then be conducted based on Past Experience (Factor 2), and Past Performance (Factor 3). A target of seven (7) responsible Offerors whose proposals conform to this solicitation and provides the best value based upon the integrated assessment in Phase I will move to the Phase II for further evaluation. The Government reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of Offerors moved to the Phase II pool based on Phase I integrated assessment results.

Phase II consists of Factors 4 and 5. Factor 4 - Representative Project Technical Capability will be rated in accordance with Table 4: Technical Ratings and Table 5: Technical Risk Ratings. Factor 5 - Price Proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 to determine reasonableness. An integrated assessment will then be conducted based on the Representative Project Technical/Technical Risk (Factor 4) and Price (Factor 5). Offerors will be ranked highest to lowest based on the integrated assessment.

The "target of" three (3) highest rated Offerors will be selected for award of the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts. The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts based upon Source Selection Authority determination that it is in the Government's best interest. Up to four (4) of the remaining Offerors will be identified for the opportunity to be placed in the On-Ramp Pool.

1.2. Relative Factor Importance.

Phase I: Factor 1 (Key Personnel Qualifications) is evaluated objectively and acts as a gatekeeper for the remaining evaluation. For these reasons, it is not included in the "Relative Factor Importance" comparison.

Factor 2 (Past Experience) is approximately equal to Factor 3 (Past Performance).

Phase II: Factor 4 (Representative Project - Technical Capability) is significantly more important than Factor 5 (Price).

Lastly, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price; however, Price will contribute to the selection decision.

1.3. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. The Government intends to award without discussions with respective Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial offer should contain that Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. As stated in FAR 15.306(a)(2), "If the award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors." The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Prior to discussions, a competitive range may be established and the Offerors within the competitive range will be part of the discussions. 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. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as "Unacceptable" at the sole discretion of the Government.

2.0. PHASE I

2.1. Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualifications.

The Government shall assess the Offeror's qualifications and certifications of key personnel by evaluating personnel qualifications on an ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE basis. An UNACCEPTABLE rating will be assigned to key personnel qualifications for those who do not meet the established minimum standards. For the purposes of this evaluation, ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE are defined as follows:

ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

CRITERIA: Offeror must provide an organizational chart/diagram identifying key personnel with a resume and Letter of Intent (LOI) (Described in Section L of this solicitation) of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope (Commercial and institutional building construction of multi-discipline efforts; minimum threshold value of $500,000.00) to those expected under this proposal.

MEASURE OF MERIT: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides:

a. An organizational chart/diagram identifying key personnel with resumes and LOIs associated with this requirement to include:

i. Organization chart/diagram identifying names, disciplines/roles, and lines of authority for, at a minimum, the following disciplines/roles:

1. Project Manager,

2. Quality Control Manager,

3. Safety Manager,

4. Site Superintendent

ii. Key personnel: The descriptions for the Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Safety Manager, and Site Superintendent, must include, but not limited to:

a. Commercial and institutional building construction on a project showing project history with these key personnel in relation to the project's description.

b. Each individual's name, title, duty, years of experience, and experience level relating to similar contracts in size and scope of the contract in resume format.

c. After award, any alternates or replacements must have similar qualifications in dealing with projects of similar size and scope, and shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer to verify qualifications.

d. The Offeror demonstrates that no actual or prospective employee hold more than one key position.

e. The Offeror demonstrates that key personnel individually meet both the certification and experience qualifications for the applicable key position.

f. The Offeror shall affirm unequivocally that the proposed key personnel are either currently employed by the prime Offeror or shall submit with its proposal signed letters of intent to accept employment with the prime Offeror contingent upon contract award.

Each position shall demonstrate their years of experience as follows:

Project Manager At least 5 years (60 months) of construction experience with a minimum of 2 years (24 months) of experience in personnel resource allocation or contract management.

Quality Control Manager At least 5 years (60 months) of construction experience with a minimum of 2 years (24 months) of experience in a dedicated construction quality control position.

Safety Manager At least 5 years (60 months) of construction experience. Safety Manager must have an Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) 30-hour safety certification as of the date of the proposal.

Superintendent At least 5 years (60 months) of construction experience.

Note: A Superintendent must be onsite for every active project.

2.2. Factor 2 - Past Experience

The Government shall assess a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) example multi-disciplined construction projects utilizing Combined Technical/Technical Risk ratings (Table 1) for past experience. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five will be evaluated. The projects submitted shall be limited to no more than 3 pages each and any project information beyond the page limit will not be evaluated.

a. For a project to be considered relevant and be evaluated, it must meet all of the following minimum criteria:

i. Design, Design-Build, or Design Bid Build multi-disciplined project with a construction cost between $1M - $7.5M unless the contract is an IDIQ. If an IDIQ is submitted, a task order issued against the IDIQ valued at $1M - $7.5M must also be submitted. Submission of an IDIQ in and of itself does not constitute as past experience.

ii. Completed within the last seven (7) years as of the proposal submission date, except that one (1) project may be substantially complete at the time of proposal submission. If an Offeror presents a project that is not substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered.

iii. Projects submitted should be multi-disciplined.

b. The Government will evaluate the extent of relevant past experience of the prime contractor and will assign a Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating for this factor. Only Company experience will be evaluated for this factor. Individual employee names, or any data that could be used to identify specific employees, shall not be included.

The Government will evaluate the extent of experience for strengths and weaknesses in the following areas:

i. Experience involving construction on military installations.

ii. Experience involving design and construction efforts.

iii. Experience in which the prime contractor's role is similar to the role proposed for this contract.

iv. Experience that has been completed more recently.

v. Experience on projects with a higher amount of disciplines.

vi. Experience on projects with a higher construction cost.

vii. Experience involving LEED certification at silver (or better) or Guiding Principle Validation.

TABLE 1 - COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.3. Factor 3: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. For the Past Performance factor, each proposal will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the table below.

TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

NOTE: Limited Confidence Rating: The Government may have a low expectation that an Offeror will successfully perform the required effort EITHER because of concerns with the scope, magnitude, and/or complexities of recent, relevant present/past-performance AND/OR concerns with the quality of this performance.

The past performance rating considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the MATOC requirements. In determining the Past Performance rating, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's Past Performance proposal submission and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The Government may use any of the methods listed above to obtain past performance information on projects submitted under past experience.

Failure to submit a minimum of one (1) project for Factor 3 - Past Performance that was from the list of projects submitted for Factor 2 - Past Experience, may negatively affect the Offeror's past performance rating.

If an IDIQ type contract is submitted for Factor 3 - Past Performance, an individual task order issued under the contract must also be submitted. The IDIQ and subsequent task order will be considered overall one project. The individual task order must meet the Recency and Relevancy requirements of this factor.

a. Recency Assessment.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will only consider performance on efforts that have been in performance for at least 6 months prior to the issuance of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

b. Relevancy Assessment.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the MATOC requirements. Relevant projects are defined as; projects which are similar in scope (design, repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and/or minor construction projects on various real property facilities across multiple disciplines); construction cost magnitude (between $1 million and $7.5 million); and complexity (projects requiring multiple disciplines, including design work) as the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will also consider contractual information of the project such as the contract type, contract value, contract term, etc.

and how this information relates to the effort described in this solicitation.

In determining relevancy for individual projects/contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, only being proposed to be performed by the Offeror. Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangements, and/or Mentor Protege partners may be included as part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance submitted on behalf of a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protege, and/or Teaming Arrangement may be from projects performed by individual partners. Past performance will not be considered for teaming partners or subcontractors that do not meet the requirements of FAR 52.207-6. A copy of the written agreement between the parties mentioned in FAR 52.207-6 is not required to be submitted at this time, however the Government may require such documentation be provided at a later date. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing relevant contracts:

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant references (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment will consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will afford Offerors the opportunity to address adverse past performance to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment.

d. Assigning Ratings.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating as identified in Table 2. Offerors without a record of recent /relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record. The SSA may determine that a Substantial Confidence or a Satisfactory Confidence performance rating is worth more than a Neutral Confidence past performance rating when making the best value trade-off decision.

3.0 PHASE II

3.1. Factor 4: Technical Approach to Performing the Representative Project.

The Government shall assess the Offeror's approach to and understanding of the overall contract technical requirements by evaluating the following:

i. The Offeror demonstrates a clear and viable conceptual design in accordance with the Section L, Paragraph

6.1 and the Representative Project Statement of Objectives (SOO).

ii. The Offeror's Gantt chart demonstrates a complete and realistic schedule in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.2.

iii. The Offeror's narrative demonstrates a clear, comprehensive, and viable approach…