2.__FA4661-17-R-0001-0002.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:

1. Update Section L and M by adding the veribaige for the 25 Moorings that w ere left out of the Orginal.

2. Upload site specific draw ings for the seed project.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Apr-2017

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 FA4661-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Mar-2017

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

28-Apr-2017

CODE

7 CONS LGC - FA4661

381 THIRD ST

DYESS AFB TX 79607-1581

FA4661 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

1503120360A Stamp

1503120360A Typewritten Text

FA4661-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS/CONDITIONS/NOTICE

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

NOTE:

ALL PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR. THE

GOVERNMENT WILL NOT REIMBURSE ANY FIRM FOR THEIR PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS.

PERIOD OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS: THE OFFEROR AGREES TO HOLD THE PRICES IN ITS OFFER

FIRM UNTIL 180 DAYS AFTER THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE.

L-1 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Non-conformance with the instructions in Section L may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. The offer shall consist of four volumes: Volume I – Technical Proposal, Volume II – Past Performance Information, Volume III – Price Proposal, Volume IV – Administrative Documents.

A. POINT OF CONTACT/RFP QUESTIONS

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the final authority for this acquisition. Address any questions, concerns or clarifications as soon as possible, but no later than 1400 CST, 14 April 2017. The subject of the email shall be “Questions – FA4661-17-R-0001.” Questions shall annotate a reference to the specific solicitation element to which they pertain. All questions submitted by the deadline set forth above will be taken into consideration and answered via posting to FedBizOpps. Written requests for clarification and questions shall be sent to A1C Stephen Aguero- Cheek at stephen.aguerocheek@us.af.mil AND Capt Hilary Ince at hilary.ince@us.af.mil.

B. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in the table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in Section L, paragraphs L-1.D through L-1.G.

Table 1 - Proposal Organization

Volume # Title Page Limit Electronic Redacted

Copy

Bound Copies/ Electronic Copies

Volume I Technical 45 1 2/1

Volume II Past Performance 50 1 2/1

Volume III Price No limit 1 2/1

Volume IV Administrative Documents No limit 1 2/1

1. Page Limitations. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. The CO may place page limitations on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Unless otherwise indicated in the Volume details, each page shall be counted except cover pages, table of contents and indexes, list of figures, tables or drawings, tabs, blank pages, glossaries, cross reference matrices and document revision history tracking records.

2. Page Size and Format. Page size and format do not apply to Volume III and Volume IV. For all other volumes, a page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be typed and single spaced at minimum. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and footnotes, the text size shall be no less than 11 point in Times New Roman or Arial font. Tracking, kerning, leading values, and footnote font size shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software.

Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume, with each volume starting at page one. Pages listed in paragraph L-1.B.1 that do not count towards the page limitation shall not be numbered.

Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 14 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 11 point.

3. Cross-Referencing. To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix indicating the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section and/or volume as it relates to Section L, Statement of Work (SOW), and/or Contract Line Item Number (CLIN).

4. Binding and Labeling. One of the bound proposals shall be identified as the “original.” The original and copies with attachments shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. The redacted copy shall not include any identifiable information related to the company.

5. Electronic Version of Offer. The offeror shall submit all volumes in an electronic “read only” format, identify the original master document (hard copy or digital), and use Microsoft Office compatible, virus-free CD-ROM(s) or upload to Amrdec Safe (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx). If used it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure proposals are within the Amrdec Safe limitations (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx). If used each CD-ROM shall indicate the offeror’s name, solicitation number, volume, and title. One CD-ROM containing all volumes with all documents is preferred, but multiple CD-ROMs are acceptable. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2003, 2007, or 2013 (MS Word, MS Excel, PowerPoint) format or PDF format. Do not submit any PDF documents that are copied as “images.” Always create PDF documents to enable textual search and copy functions. Hidden fields, comments, macros, etc., shall be omitted. The files shall be consistent and uniformly named to allow for easy distinction by Volume, Tab, etc. Inclusion of company name or abbreviation is acceptable. The documents submitted in electronic format, if printed, should match the original paper copy. In the event there is a discrepancy between the content found in a paper copy and in an electronic copy, the paper copy shall take precedence.

C. DISTRIBUTION

The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and uploaded, mailed, or hand delivered to the appropriate address listed below. Proposals are considered delivered when they are received by the CO or a 7th Contracting Squadron (7 CONS) representative. Timely receipt of proposals is the sole responsibility of the offeror.

If hand delivered or mailed:

ATTN: Mrs. Merry Sargent-Green, Capt Hilary Ince, or A1C Stephen Aguero-Cheek

7th Contracting Squadron 381 Third St, Bldg. 7238 Dyess AFB, TX 79607

Or If using AMRDEC, use the following email addresses Merry Sargent-Green: merry.sargentgreen@us.af.mil, Capt Hilary Ince: hilary.ince@us.af.mil and A1C Stephen Aguero-Cheek: stephen.aguerocheek@us.af.mil.

All proposal volumes shall be submitted by 1400 CST, 1 May 2017. Proposals shall remain valid for 180 days after receipt. Only AMRDEC uploaded, hand delivered, or mailed proposals will be accepted.

Offerors using mail or other carrier delivery are cautioned that security screening of incoming mail might potentially delay arrival of proposals. 7 CONS is located on a U.S. Air Force installation, and all visitor access to the installation is controlled by the U.S. Air Force. An escort may be required, as access will not be granted based solely on the need to submit a proposal. If necessary, as pre-coordinated with the POC listed in L-1.A, the Government will provide a representative to meet the offeror at the gate to the installation to accept the proposal submission. Furthermore, the U.S. Armed Forces conduct random exercises that may require the closure of the main gate entrance and the utilization of an alternate base entry. Any delay based on access will not be accepted as a reason for late receipt of the proposal by the Government. Offerors are advised to plan accordingly.

D. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (45 PAGE MAXIMUM)

1. General. The technical criteria is further broken down into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Management Plan Subfactor 2 – Awardable Task Order (Airfield) Subfactor 3 – Sample Airfield Paving Task Order Subfactor 4 – Sample Street Paving Task Order

2. Volume Organization. The technical volume shall be organized according to the outline below. The information provided for each section of each subfactor shall be separated by tabs (e.g., Tab 4, Subfactor 1 – Overall Program Management, Tab 4-1, Safety Plan, Tab 4-2, Proposed onsite personnel, etc.)

(1) Volume Table of Contents (to include a list of tables, figures, etc.)

(2) Glossary (if applicable)

(3) Cross Reference Matrix (if applicable)

(4) Executive Summary

(5) Subfactor 1 – Management Plan

i. Overall approach to management

ii. Safety Plan

(6) Subfactor 2 – Awardable Airfield Paving Task Order

i. Work plan

ii. Approach for a phasing plan

iii. Proposed equipment

iv. Proposed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN)

(7) Subfactor 3 – Sample Airfield Paving Task Order

i. Work plan

ii. Approach for a phasing plan

iii. Proposed equipment

iv. Proposed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN)

(8) Subfactor 4 – Sample Street Paving Task Order

i. Work plan

ii. Approach for a phasing plan

iii. Proposed equipment

iv. Proposed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN)

3. Technical Subfactors. The technical volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The offeror’s technical volume should provide as specifically as possible the actual methodologies that will be used to accomplish/satisfy the Dyess AFB Airfield and Street Paving requirement. The offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the technical subfactors in Section L. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By proposal submission, the offeror is representing that it will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Reiterating the objectives or reformulating the requirements specified in the solicitation is neither required nor desired. In the technical volume, address the proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor. The executive summary shall provide a narrative summary of the entire proposal and should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. Only “Subfactor 2: Awardable Airfield Paving Task Order” shall be a guaranteed awarded Task Order. All other “Sample Task Orders” will be for technical capability purposes only. All data submitted for technical capabilities will be evaluated on the same basis regardless if it will be awarded or not.

Subfactor 1: Management Plan. The offeror shall provide an approach to manage and execute the contract. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all of the following:

i. The offeror’s overall approach to management. This includes the company’s organizational chart and the area(s) of responsibility for each position. Address how the management approach takes into consideration contracting decisions that must be made on short notice. Also identify key positions with contract responsibilities and decision making authority and associated minimum qualifications.

ii. The offeror’s approach to a sound safety plan. This includes a thorough explanation tailored to the conditions encountered on a military airfield, the approach for planning, reporting, and controlling safety issues that arise during the performance of the contract. Ensure the approach provides a process for transparent safety management which will result in limited customer oversight/intervention. The offeror’s approach should be in line with the requirements of the outline in the SOW, drawings, specifications, and state and federal regulations listed in Section J, Attachment 1.

Subfactor 2: Awardable Airfield Paving Task Order. The offeror shall demonstrate its technical capability to execute the project for the awardable airfield paving task order. This task order will be awarded as the first task order at the time of award of the ID/IQ contract. The offeror’s technical narrative shall take into consideration simultaneous award of all three task orders and appropriately address in the comprehensive plan. The scope of work for the awardable project is to perform a total of 99.5 concrete slabs replacements, 2,700 SF of spall repairs, 1,860 SF of APU slab repairs, replace 25 moorings, and re-paint 8,700SF of airfield markings in the south end of the B-1 Ramp. Work in this task order falls within a restricted area. Operations shall be kept uninterrupted. For this purpose contractor would be required to submit a request for a temporary free zone area based on the proposed phasing plan and shall follow all the requirements specified in the contract specifications for work inside this area. Performance period for this work is 210 calendar days, including 30 days for free zone letter, construction waiver approval and submittals approval.

i. The technical narrative shall address the offeror’s technical approach to execute the above project. The Offeror will ensure simultaneous award of all three task orders is taken into consideration.

ii. The offeror’s approach for a phasing plan. This includes proposing a period of performance and defining the project’s critical path.

iii. The offeror’s proposed equipment.

iv. Provide a price proposal that clearly delineates the proposed CLINS and quantity of each CLIN.

Subfactor 3: Sample Airfield Paving Task Order. The offeror shall demonstrate its technical capability to execute the project for the sample airfield paving task order. The offeror’s technical narrative shall take into consideration simultaneous award of all three task orders and appropriately address in the comprehensive plan.

The scope of work for the sample airfield task order is to replace 10 slabs and perform 300 square feet of concrete spall repairs in runway 16/34. Three of the 10 slabs are located in the center of the runway 1,500 feet from north end of runway; the other seven slabs are located at intersection of taxiway "C" centerline and runway 16/34 centerline (See Section J Attachment 2). Concrete spall repairs are scattered from north end of runway 16/34 to intersection with taxiway "C". The suggested performance period for this work is 180 days; however, the contractor may proposed a shorter period of performance. If the proposed period of performance is longer than 180 days, the contractor shall provide rationale for the longer period of performance. Runway closures are limited to weekends when aircrafts operations are minimal and only prior coordination with the airfield manager.

i. The technical narrative shall address the offeror’s technical approach to execute the above project. The

ii. The offeror’s approach for a phasing plan. This includes proposing a period of performance and defining the project’s critical path.

Subfactor 4: Sample Street Paving Task Order. The offeror shall demonstrate its technical capability to execute the project for the sample street paving task order. The offeror’s technical narrative shall take into consideration simultaneous award of all three task orders and appropriately address in the comprehensive plan.

The scope of work for the sample project is to repair existing asphalt pavement by 3-inches mill/overlay in the following streets: 4th Street from intersection with Ave “D” to intersection with Ave “A” (road width is 32’ from back of curbs); Rapcon Road from intersection of 3rd Street to building 9030 parking lot road width is 30’ from back of curbs). There are about 450 square yards of full depth replacement that have been identified as follows: two 150 SY sections at 4th street and one 150 SY section at Rapcon Road. Replacement section is 3-inches HMAC, 10-inches flex base and 6-inches cement stabilized subgrade. Include 100 linear feet of existing concrete curb and gutter needing replacement on 4th Street and 50 linear feet on Rapcon Road.

i. The technical narrative shall address the offeror’s technical approach to execute the above project. The

ii. The offeror’s approach for a phasing plan. This includes proposing a period of performance and defining the project’s critical path.

E. VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE (50 PAGE MAXIMUM)

1. General. The offeror shall provide past performance information for evaluation for a MIN of 3 and MAX of 6 recent/relevant past contracts, with at least 2 Airfield/1 Street, and at most 4 Airfield/2 Street. An offeror with no or sparse past performance should submit the past performance volume with an explanation that they have no recent or relevant performance. Failure to submit available recent and relevant past performance information may be the basis for an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating. For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror, teaming partner, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors. For the purpose of this evaluation, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor whose anticipated percentage of work to be performed is 25% or greater per TO.

2. Confidentiality of Sources. Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources, are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process.

Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information in an attempt to influence past performance ratings is strictly prohibited and could negatively impact the offeror’s performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the POCs listed in paragraph L.1.A above and not to any other individuals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors are aware of this information and are in compliance.

3. Volume Organization. The past performance volume shall be organized according to the outline below:

(1) Volume Table of Contents (to include a list of tables, figures, etc.)*

(2) Glossary (if applicable)*

(3) Cross Reference Matrix (if applicable)*

(4) Past Performance Information Documents

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire *

(6) Consent Letters*

(7) Client Authorization Letters*

(8) Organization Structure Change History

* Not included in volume page count

4. Recency and Relevancy. Recent is defined as efforts that are ongoing or have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated. Relevancy in regard to magnitude is defined below:

a. Relevancy in regard to magnitude for street paving includes contracts with a minimum value of $250,000.00 annually or an aggregate total of $250,000.00 annually. Relevancy in regard to complexity for street pavement includes but not limited to performance of laying a minimum of 10,000 tons (US) of HMAC, paving work such as

1) base streets and parking lots by full depth pavement section replacement mostly with asphalt but also with concrete; 2) repair by asphalt milling and overlay; repair by application of seal coats; 3) repair or new construction of supporting facilities like driveways, 4) sidewalks, curb and gutters, drainage structures, storm inlets, etc.; 5) repainting pavement markings, and providing other miscellaneous pavement construction activities.

b. Relevancy in regard to magnitude for the airfield paving includes contracts with a minimum value of $1,000,000.00 annually or an aggregate total of $1,000,000.00 annually. Relevancy in regard to complexity for airfield pavement includes performance repairing by full depth replacement involving a minimum total of 6,250 square feet of concrete pavement on an active runway (not including Taxiways or Aprons (Pavement thickness ranging 16-23 inches)).

5. Past Performance Information Document (PPID). Offerors should submit information on contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform airfield and street paving requirements. The offeror shall submit PPIDs in accordance with Section J, Attachment 5. Past performance on IDIQ type contracts should be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the IDIQ contract as a whole. The offeror shall explain that performance on individual orders is not assessed and provide the using activity’s single point of contact that can verify the offeror’s performance. The PPIDs for IDIQs require the offeror to list all other order numbers performed under the IDIQ contract as an attachment to the PPID. This attachment will not count against the page limit. Offerors shall include rationale supporting the determination of relevancy for each contract or specific portion of a contract submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the airfield and street paving requirement. Where problems existed, clearly describe management actions employed in overcoming these problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. A PPID is required on the prime offeror, teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors. The prime offeror, to include their teaming arrangements or joint ventures, may only submit a maximum of six PPIDs. Of these six submitted PPIDs, the prime offeror, to include their teaming arrangements or joint ventures, may only submit a maximum of two PPIDs for major subcontractors (see paragraph L-1.E.1 for the definition of a major subcontractor.) Any additional PPIDs submitted will not be evaluated. The offeror shall provide all contact information required by the PPID for two POCs (e.g., CO, Program/Project Manager) per relevant contract. The contractor’s past performance evaluation information submitted on the PPIDs shall be the same contracts named on the past performance questionnaires.

6. Past Performance Questionnaires. The offeror is responsible for the distribution the Past Performance Questionnaire contained in Section J, Attachment 4. For each questionnaire distributed, include the cover letter contained in Section J, Attachment 4. The offeror shall send the cover letter and questionnaire to all POCs identified in the PPID. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted directly to the CO by the respondent not later than the proposal due date. RESPONDENTS SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The Government will conduct any follow-up required with the POCs as necessary.

7. Consent Letters and Client Authorization Letters. Consent letters shall be executed by each teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or major subcontractor. Past performance information concerning teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors cannot be disclosed to the prime contractor without the teaming partner’s, joint venture partner’s, and/or major subcontractor’s consent. Similarly, client authorization letters shall be executed by commercial customers. The completed consent and client authorization letter(s) shall be submitted as part of the past performance volume. Should the offeror not submit a completed consent and client authorization letters for a teaming partner, joint venture partner, major subcontractors, and/or commercial customers, the Government will not disclose/discuss the applicable past performance information other than with that prospective teaming partner, joint venture partner, major subcontractor and/or commercial customer being reviewed. If there is a concern with the proposed teaming partner’s, joint venture partner’s, major subcontractor’s and/or commercial customer’s past performance, the offeror can be notified, but no details may be discussed without the teaming partner’s, joint venture partner’s, major subcontractor’s and/or commercial customer’s permission. A sample consent letter is contained in Section J, Attachment 9. A sample client authorization letter is contained in Section J, Attachment 10.

8. Organization Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for the CO to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. All offerors shall include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the offeror’s company for at least the three years prior to the date of the issuance of the solicitation. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts the offeror identifies for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment.

Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), the "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. This information is required on the offeror, teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors, as necessary.

F. VOLUME III – PRICE PROPOSAL (NO PAGE LIMIT)

1. General. Each offeror’s proposal should represent its best efforts to respond to the evaluation criteria of this solicitation. Any inconsistency between proposed performance and price shall be explained in the proposal. A significant inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise a question of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its ability to perform within the proposed cost constraints. In accordance with FAR 30.202-6(a) and FAR Appendix 1, 9903.201-1(b)(15), the CO has determined that offerors are exempt from Cost Accounting Standards. Section J, Attachment 3 is a protected Excel file that only allows offerors to insert proposed prices. All other cells are locked and cannot be accessed by offerors. In addition, the Excel file has pre-populated summing calculations that automatically calculate the total evaluated price, which also cannot be accessed by offerors. Offerors shall verify that the total evaluated price offered matches what is calculated by the Excel spreadsheet as the total evaluated price. Offerors shall immediately notify the CO if any errors are discovered in the Excel document calculations.

2. Volume Organization. The price volume shall be organized according to the outline below:

(2) Completed Labor Category Pricing Spreadsheet

(3) Summary descriptions of estimating, purchasing and accounting systems

(4) Each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation, if any, and associated rationale

(5) Each qualification of the price volume, if any, and associated rationale

3. Price Reasonableness. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, 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 CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

4. Estimating Methodology Ground Rules. The offeror is expected to propose a fully burdened labor rate for each CLIN for the base year and each option period. The Government is considering 2,080 hours as the equivalent for one man year; however, when responding to the price proposal requirements in the solicitation, the offeror may use any generally accepted estimating technique to develop its proposal. Provide a summary description of the offeror’s standard estimating system or methods. During performance of the contract, the agreed to quantity is the maximum (ceiling) quantity that can be proposed differently for each labor category during TO competition.

5. Unbalanced. Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. An offer may be materially unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some contract line items and/or significantly overstated in relation to price for others as indicated by price analysis techniques. If the offer appears to be unbalanced, the offeror should provide substantiating information to explain the rationale behind the unbalanced offer.

6. Pricing Instructions. The offeror shall complete all tabs of the pricing spreadsheet contained in Section J, Attachment 3. While completing all tabs the offeror shall round all unit pricing to the nearst dollar, or if under $1.00 round to the nearst tenth. The matrix with the offeror’s pricing per category will be evaluated. The offeror shall price the base year and each option period, although the exercising of the options is at the sole discretion of the Government and not guaranteed. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory.

a. Pricing Assumptions. The offeror shall summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the price proposal.

G. VOLUME IV - ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION

1. General Instructions. The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting contract file.

2. Volume Organization. The contract documentation volume shall be organized according to the outline below:

(2) Glossary (if applicable)

(3) Cross Reference Matrix (if applicable)

(4) Exceptions to the Solicitation (if applicable)

(5) Other Information Required

3. Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form. The offeror shall complete blocks 14, 15,17, 18, and 20A-C. The offer acceptance period shall be 180 calendar days (to be stated in block 12). Signature by the offeror on the SF 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover.

4. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices. The offeror shall not insert any information into Section B. See paragraph L-1.F.6 for pricing instructions.

5. Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors. The offeror shall submit completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

6. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being found unacceptable.

Clarification of Government requirements should be handled in accordance with the instructions in paragraph L-1.A.

If the offeror still finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate each exception to the solicitation and provide complete accompanying rationale and benefit to the Government. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements (Sections A through M, and all attachments) and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the contract documentation volume. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation. The information shall be provided in the format and content of the table 2 – Solicitation Exceptions below.

Table 2 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

CLIN,, SOW, SPEC, etc. Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

7. Other Information Required. Offeror shall include the following information:

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

b. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county, and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; business size (large or small); labor surplus area designation; and current Central Contractor Registration documentation. If applicable, provide a copy of the joint venture or partnership agreement. The purpose is to ensure the offeror’s proposal is treated as a business entity wherein an affiliation exists between those companies.

c. Probable Subcontractors/Partners. Submit a list of the proposed teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

SECTION M

M-1 MINIMUM GUARANTEE

The minimum guarantee is $1M. The offeror shall not consider the value of the minimum guarantee when putting together it’s pricing proposal; it will not be used to calculate the offeror’s total evaluated price.

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will use Past Performance Tradeoff (PPT) source selection technique in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government intends to make a single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) for paving requirements on Dyess AFB, TX. The offeror must receive a rating of “acceptable” on all factors and subfactors in order to be eligible for award. The competitive best value source selection will evaluate offerors’ technical approach, past performance and price to award to the best overall offer. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement, or failure to include all information required by Section L of this solicitation, may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: proposals will be ranked by price from low to high, the evaluation team will perform concurrent evaluation of the offeror’s proposal technical volume and past performance volume, starting with the lowest priced proposal. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

A. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors: management plan, Awardable Airfield Paving Task Order, sample airfield paving task order, and sample paving task order. All subfactors are of equal importance.

In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, all technical evaluation factors and subfactors will be receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A subfactor will be rated acceptable when all the corresponding elements of the subfactor are met and the inherent risk is no more than moderate.

Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings. Risk Levels will be defined using one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

1. Subfactor 1 – Management Plan

Standard. The management plan is intended to provide an approach to successfully manage and execute the contract at the acceptable performance level without unacceptable risk. An unacceptable risk is any factor that may pose a significant risk of technical failure. The management plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

i. Overall approach – The offeror successfully demonstrates a sound approach to management throughout the life of the contract. The offeror provides an organizational chart and the area(s) of responsibility for each position. The offeror outlines a realistic approach to support contracting decisions that must be made on short notice. The offeror identifies key positions, with their qualification and certifications, with contract responsibilities and decision making authority and associated minimum qualifications.

ii. Safety Plan – The offeror outlines the work conditions encountered on a military airfield and outlines a plan for planning, reporting and controlling safety issues that arise during the performance of the contract. The plan successfully provides a process for transparent safety management that results in limited customer oversight/intervention. The approach to quality control is in line with the requirements outlined in the drawings, specs, state and Federal regulations listed in Attachment 1, General Specifications.

2. Subfactor 2 – Awardable Airfield Paving Task Order

Standard. The awardable task order will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the basic IDIQ contract. The following evaluation criteria are applicable to the awardable airfield paving task order only. The scope of the awardable task order is intended to be a representative sample of the work to be performed under the airfield paving section of the basic IDIQ contract. The offeror’s technical narrative shall take into consideration simultaneous award of all three task orders and appropriately address in the comprehensive plan. The project is to perform a total of 99.5 concrete slabs replacements, , 2,700 SF of spall repairs, 1,860 SF of APU slab repairs, replace 25 moorings and re-paint 8,700 SF of airfield markings on the south end of the B-1 Ramp. Work on this task order falls within a restricted area.

Operations shall be kept uninterrupted. For this purpose contractor would have to submit a request for a temporary free zone area based on the proposed phasing plan and shall follow all the requirements specified in the contract specifications for work inside this area. Performance period for this work is 210 calendar days, including 30 days for approval of a free zone letter, construction waiver approval and submittals approval. The sample task order is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

i. Technical Narrative – The offeror successfully demonstrates a thorough understanding and comprehensive knowledge to execute the project. The narrative successfully includes a comprehensive work plan that follows all the requirements specified in the contract specifications and drawings, coordination for road closures, material submittals, required pavement section, testing, density requirements for flex base and HMAC, temporary traffic controls measures, and signs. The plan successfully demonstrates how the offeror takes into account simultaneous award of all three task orders. The offeror successfully demonstrates an understanding of working on an active airfield. The plan shows efficient coordination of the staging area, airfield access, and driving requirements.

ii. Phasing plan – The offeror successfully demonstrates a realistic phasing plan that demonstrates an approach and understanding of the required activities to execute the project. The plan successfully defines the project’s critical path, provides a description of all work, and sequencing activities required to complete each phase within the given period of performance. This will be demonstrated by including a Gantt chart showing all activities and the critical path.

iii. The offeror provides an equipment list to accomplish the work, including a thorough explanation of all equipment proposed to perform the work.

iv. The offeror provides a price proposal that includes the proposed CLINS with pricing and quantities applicable for executing the project. The price for the awardable TO will not be included in the offeror’s total evaluated price. However, the proposed CLINS will be evaluated for technical acceptability and the price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.

3. Subfactor 3 – Sample Airfield Paving Task Order

Standard. The sample task order will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the basic IDIQ contract. The following evaluation criteria are applicable to the sample airfield paving task order only. The scope of the sample airfield paving task order is intended to be a representative of the work to be performed under the Airfield Paving Section of the basic IDIQ contract. The project is to replace 10 slabs and perform 300 square feet of concrete spall repairs in runway 16/34. Three of the 10 slabs are located in the center of the runway 1,500 feet from north end of runway; the other seven slabs are located at intersection of taxiway "C" centerline and runway 16/34 centerline. Concrete spall repairs are scattered from north end of runway 16/34 to intersection with taxiway "C". Suggested performance period for this work is 180 Calendar days.