Solicitation_Amendment_0001.pdf

F2A3E16165A001 JFSD201152

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 for this amendment to FA4659-16-R-0008, Repair/Reconfigure Gray Hall Bldg. 222 is to change the Evalutation Factors for Aw ard. Section M Para M-01 (Basis for Contract Aw ard). The changes w ill be italicized in revised Section M. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Aug-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 FA4659-16-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Aug-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 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

12-Aug-2016

CODE

319 CONTRACTING FLIGHT

575 TUSKEGEE AIRMEN BLVD

GRAND FORKS AFB ND 58205 6436

FA4659 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4659-16-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Revised Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-01 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offeror's past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. The small business participation plan, which is required from all offerors with their proposal at time offers are due, shall be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with the below requirements in paragraph "B.", Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All responsive acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their price, performance records, and small business participation plan submissions. Failure to meet a requirement discussed in section L of the solicitation may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, the Government shall rank all 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. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. 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 unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award.

B. Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation.

If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52-219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; and FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Small businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

As a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required from other than small business concerns, DFARS 215.304(c) requires evaluation of small business participation of all offerors for source selection/award evaluation purposes.

Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated on a acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with the below requirements. The Small Business Participation Plan is required at time offers are due and is to specifically address:

• Names of subcontractors to be utilized and the products/services they are to provide.

• Describe type and complexity of products/services to be provided.

• State extent of utilization quantitatively.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 the Department of Defense (DoD) has the following goal subcontracting goal for Small Business: 34.5%

DoD also has these goals for the following small business subcategories:

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5% Service Disabled Veteran (SDV) Owned Small Business: 3% Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone Small Business: 3%

A target rate of 34.5% of the total contract value shall be subcontracted to small business for this solicitation/resultant contract. Small Business Participation Plans shall be evaluated on a pass/fail basis based upon this 34.5% target. If an offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan does not meet the aforementioned small business target of 34.5%, the offeror’s proposal will be disqualified from further consideration. The Small Business Participation Plan shall also include positive percentage goals for each small business subcategory with an effort to reach the goals. If a small business subcategory does not meet the DoD goal, reasoning must be provided as to why one cannot be reached and what steps may be taken in the future to provide a positive goal.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

D. Relevant contracts include but are not limited to: Relevant contracts include major interior renovation to include electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and fire protection systems, and interior finishes with similar scope and magnitude of effort that this solicitation requires; projects constructed to Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) standards. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in conjunction with its relevancy. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, they may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating. Confident assessment ratings are defined as the following:

E. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

G. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence 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 then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. 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

(End of Summary of Changes)

TABLE 5- 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.