Amendment_0001.pdf

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 amendment is to change the evaluation factor listed in Section M of this solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-May-2018

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 FA462618R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-May-2018

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

16-May-2018

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:

FA462618R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M – Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT)

1. Basis for Award.

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance will be slightly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher confidence rating, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government intends to award one contract. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the solicitation. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

b. Evaluation Process:

(1) Initially offers shall be considered for technical capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)1.

(2) Offers with an Acceptable technical rating will then be ranked according to price, including option prices, described in paragraph 2(a)2.

(3) The three lowest priced Offeror’s will then receive a performance confidence assessment in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)3.

(4) If none of the three lowest priced Offerors is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, the next lowest priced Offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an Offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment or until all Offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision if the lowest priced Offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment.

(5) Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

c. Offerors must include prices for CLIN and Sub-CLIN prices identified on the SF 1449 of the solicitation for the basic period and all option periods. Failure to do so may be considered by the Government as non-responsive and cause for rejection of the entire offer.

d. 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 interest.

e. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1. Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals: Technical Capability, Price and Past Performance, with past performance being significantly more important than price.

1. Factor 1: Technical Capability.

a) An evaluation of technical acceptability of each offeror's technical capability proposal shall be made. The contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements. The basis for evaluation of technical capability proposals is described below.

At a minimum, the technical capability proposal shall consist of the following:

Subfactor 1: HTHW System Experience.

Description: The offeror shall provide proof of experience within the last five years for at least three High Temperature Hot Water distribution systems that simultaneously operate at a psi of 350 or higher and at an operating temperature of 400 degrees or higher. Such experience shall include the maintenance, removal and/or repair, welding, test welding, and certification of welding of HTHW systems.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the submitted experience demonstrates within the last five years the maintenance, removal and/or repair, welding, test welding, and certification of welding of HTHW systems. The offeror can adequately fulfill the requirements of the project and provides information on the individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience, and experience level relating to similar projects in size and scope on key personnel.

Subfactor 2: Excavation Work.

Description: The offeror has experience in at least three projects within the past 5 years: (1) excavation work, to include work around underground utilities, and other underground and above ground obstacles in accordance with OSHA regulations, (2) experience in backfill and compaction around underground utilities and obstacles, and (3) experience in excavation on utilities under high pressure.

Measure of Merit: Offeror is considered successful upon meeting all required aspects by providing documentation of excavation work, to include work around underground utilities, and other underground and above ground obstacles and having experience in the excavation of trenches for utility installations in accordance with recommended manufacturer requirements and/or acceptable industry standards that requires proper backfill and compaction around utilities under high pressure.

Subfactor 3: Previous Project Magnitudes.

Description: Contractor must provide a minimum one or more projects which the contractor acted as the general contractor, within the past five years, that includes the repair of HTHW distribution lines with a magnitude above $500,000.00. HTHW distribution lines repair and maintenance of the HTHW distribution lines.

Measure of Merit: Offeror is considered successful upon providing evidence of successful completion and management of one or more HTHW distribution lines within the past five-years valued at $500,000.00/per project or more.

b) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical capability proposal identified above. The Government’s evaluation team shall evaluate overall technical capability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All areas of the Technical Capability proposal must be determined “Acceptable” using the descriptions below for the Technical Capability proposal to receive an Acceptable rating. If any of the areas are determined to be “Unacceptable,” the Technical Capability proposal will receive an Unacceptable rating.

Technical Capability Rating. The technical capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical capability area will receive one of the ratings described below. The focus of the technical rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

2. Factor 2: Price.

a) The government shall rank all technically Acceptable offers (and Unacceptable proposals that are correctable) by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unrealistic may not be considered for award.

b) All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered to be the offer.

c) The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices offered are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options (if applicable) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s).

d) Offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed on the SF 1442.

e) 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.

f) Realism: The offeror’s Price proposal may be evaluated to ensure it is realistic, pursuant to FAR

15.305(a)(1). For additional information see FAR 15.404-1(d)

g) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

a) Past performance will be evaluated on recency and relevancy. Each offeror will receive an integrated overall Performance Confidence Rating. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

b) For the purpose of this evaluation, “recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of release of this solicitation. The following relevancy definitions apply to each citation reviewed:

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 none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c) The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offerors’ references, other sources such as other federal government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement. This information may include efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to the current effort.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not Applicable to Small Business). Although not separately rated the evaluation will take into consideration the offeror’s small business participation efforts based on the following table:

SB 30%

WOSB 5%

SDB 5%

HUBZone 3%

SDVOSB 3%

* Small Business (SB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)*

The effort to meet the above small business participation levels will influence the overall performance confidence level.

d) Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the

Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors will be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Unknown Confidence.”

e) Each offeror will be assessed a Performance Confidence Rating described below, taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of each citation reviewed:

2. Contractor Responsibility. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(End of Summary of Changes)