Amendment_02.pdf

NZAS 14-0021

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this modification is to remove the requirement for Heating and Ventilation Systems experience in Subfactor 4 and Subfactor 6 of the Section M Evaluation Criteria.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jun-2016

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA4626-16-R-0013

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Jun-2016

CODE

FA4626 341ST CONTRACTING SQUADRON

7015 GODDARD DRIVE BLDG 145

MALMSTROM AFB MT 59402-6863

FA4626 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4626-16-R-0013

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-9-LPTA. EVALUATION CRITERIA (4 Jun 14)

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Focus Area 1: Technical Ratings Subfactor 1: Installation and Programming of Water Monitoring Work Equipment Subfactor 2: Prior Experience Installing SCADA Systems Subfactor 3: Prior Installation of Fiber Optic Lines Subfactor 4: Prior Installation of Electrical Services, Heating and Ventilation Systems Subfactor 5: Prior Construction and Installation of Pre-Fabricated Steel Structures Subfactor 6: Management Plan

b. Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Installation and Programming of Water Monitoring Work Equipment Description: Provide specific project descriptions of work involving the installation and programming of water monitoring equipment, underground piping systems and valves.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(a) A minimum of three projects involved experience in all aspects of the (1) installation and programming of water monitoring equipment. (2)These systems must also include analyzer panels, drainage piping, and associated underground and interior valves and piping.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates required prior experience on a minimum of three projects requiring work installing and the programming of water monitoring equipment, underground piping systems and valves, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 2: Prior Experience Installing SCADA Systems Description: Provide prior examples work involving installation of SCADA Systems including the ability to interface with existing SCADA network.

(a) A minimum of three projects involved experience in installing new SCADA systems with the experience to interface with existing SCADA systems.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates required experience on a minimum of three projects and evidence of successful completion, of projects requiring new SCADA systems which will interface with existing SCADA systems, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 3: Prior Installation of Fiber Optic Lines

Description: Provide prior examples of installation of fiber optic lines.

(a) A minimum of three projects involved experience in excavation work, to include work around underground utilities, and other underground and above ground obstacles in accordance with OSHA regulations.

(b) Experience in the excavation of trenches for utility installations in accordance with recommended manufacturer requirements and/or acceptable industry standards that requires proper sloping, bedding, backfill, and compaction for fiber optic lines.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates required experience on a minimum of three projects and evidence of successful completion, of projects requiring extensive fiber optic line work, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 4: Prior Installation of Electrical Services, Heating and Ventilation Systems Description: Provide prior examples of installation of electrical services, heating and ventilation systems for commercial buildings.

(a) A minimum of three projects involved experience in installation of electrical services, heating and ventilation systems for commercial buildings.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates required experience on a minimum of three projects and evidence of successful completion, of projects requiring extensive electrical, heating and ventilation systems work, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 5: Prior Construction and Installation of Pre-Fabricated Steel Structures Description: Provide prior examples of construction and installation of pre-fabricated steel structures.

(a) A minimum of three projects involved experience in construction and installation of pre-fabricated steel structures including new concrete slabs and associated conduit.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates required experience on a minimum of three projects and evidence of successful completion, of projects requiring construction and installation of pre-fabricated steel structures. These systems must also include construction of new concrete slabs with associated conduit, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 6: Management Plan Offeror will provide as part of their proposal a written Management Plan comprised of the following:

Contractor must provide specific project personnel resumes for the following personnel/trades, including tier one sub-contractors in the Management Plan. These personnel include: Project Manager, Site Superintendent and Quality Control Manager. Also include the key personnel working on the SCADA system, fiber optics installation, electrical, heating and ventilation installation; pre-fabricated steel structures, and water monitoring installation and programming.

Provide name, title, years of experience, and experience level relating to projects of the same size and scope. All documentation shall show specific details of how the person/s, manufacturer/s, and equipment will be relevant to this project. Each person working on the project team shall have at least 5 years experience working in their respective trade.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror has provided a sufficient list of all required personnel and evidence that all required personnel have the minimum of five years of experience in all identified areas above.

c. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unrealistic may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award). (2) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Schedule B prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Schedule B will be used to assist the Contracting Officer in determining Price Reasonableness. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to work on exterior, liquid water based, direct-bury piping systems which operate at 400 degrees F and 350 psi at the same time. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

(End of Summary of Changes)