Amendment 0002.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

CONTINUATION

a. The proposal due date is changed from 16 August 2011 to 15 September 2011, time and place remain unchanged.

b. Incorporate the following: Questions and Answers; Site Visit Sign In Sheet; Attachment 18 - Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement; Attachment 19 - Civil Engineer Work Clearance Request Instruction; Replace Attachment 08 with pdf version.

c. Changes to the Solicitation:

· Section I - Contract Clause 52.236-1 is change to Full Text;

· Section J – Incorporate Attachment 19 – Civil Engineer Work Clearance Request Instructions; Attachment 20 – Questions and Answers; Attachment 21 – Pre-Proposal/Site Visit list of Attendees

· Section L Instruction, Conditions and Notices to Bidders - Paragraph C.10.a. fourth sentence is changed to read ...single-spacing with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs;

· E.1.c. change 35% to read 90%

· E.3. subparagraphs replace with paragraphs a. through c.;

· F.2.c. Page limitation is changed to read 8 pages;

· F.5.b. second sentence add “Teaming”;

· Section M – Evaluation Factors – F.3.b. change 35% to 90%

· F.3.b.(2) change sample to read “seed”

· F.3.b.(3) insert entire sentence

· F.3.b.(3) change (3) to read (4) and change “provide an” to read “Correctly fill out Attachment 08,”

· F.3.b.(4) change (4) to read (5) reword the entire paragraph.

· F.5.c. change second sentence from “shall not” to “will”;

· H.2. first sentenance add “at least 50% will be awarded to 8(a) contractors. Awards will be made”

d. Changes to the RFP Attachment 17: Replace Statement of Work with revised daged 21 July 2011

· Replace Bid Schedule with revised dated 21 July 2011

· incorporate - Out line Specifications

· incorporate - 8 AutoCAD Drawings.

e. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR (APR 1984)

The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least fifteen (15) percent of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract. This percentage may be reduced by a supplemental agreement to this contract if, during performing the work, the Contractor requests a reduction and the Contracting Officer determines that the reduction would be to the advantage of the Government.

(End of clause)

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

Exhibit/Attachments Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE

DESCRIPTION

PAGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

A. PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVE

The Government intends to award up to six (6) contracts for the Langley/Eustis Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) program. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Award will be made on the basis of “best value” utilizing PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF (PPT) source selection procedures with technical factors to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Each awarded contract will have a one (1)-year base period, and four (4) 1-year options. The Government reserves the right not to exercise an option period if determined not to be in the best interest of the Government.

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered non-responsive and thus ineligible for award. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

3. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

4. Pre-Proposal Conference: A pre-proposal conference will be held on 14 July 2011 at 10:00 AM. All prospective offerors are highly encouraged to attend this conference. In order to make the conference as productive as possible, offerors should submit, no later than 12 July 2011, any questions they may have in writing to Delores Powell at delores.powell@langley.af.mil . The submission of written questions will not preclude anyone from posing questions during the conference. Responses to questions asked during the conference shall be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fbo.gov. Prospective offerors are advised that the pre-proposal conference will be held solely for the purpose of explaining the concepts involved in the seed project and the specifications, terms, and conditions of this solicitation. NOTE: Offerors are encouraged to submit all additional questions and requests for clarifications no later than close of business fifteen (15) days prior to the RFP closing date. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification made less than fifteen (15) days prior to the RFP closing shall be at the sole discretion of the contracting officer. Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions or attend the conference will be construed to mean that the prospective offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation.

5. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

C. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. Proposals must be completed and submitted prior to the time listed in Block 13 of the SF 1442. The “original” proposal shall be clearly identified, shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer, and be submitted to the following address:

633 CONS/LGCB

ATTN: DELORES POWELL

74 NEALY AVENUE

LANGLEY AFB, VA 23665-2088

2. Compliance: 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being considered non-responsive and thus ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes;

Volume 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Volume 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Volume 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL

3. Point of Contact: The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Administrator (CA) are the points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO and CA. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO and CA at the address located in Block 7 of the SF 1442.

4. Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify an Offeror of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The CO will notify all unsuccessful Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503 once an award decision(s) has been made. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

5. Discrepancies: If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO and CA in writing with supporting rationale. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

6. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fbo.gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

7. Amendments to Solicitation: Amendments and notices will be posted to FedBizOpps.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. Please note that notices do not change the solicitation. Changes to the solicitation can only be made by the issuance of an amendment. If this RFP is amended, all terms and conditions that are not revised will remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the offeror’s proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the offeror’s proposal may be considered as non-acceptance and may negatively affect their evaluation.

8. Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals: Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages in paper media and electronic media addressed to the CO and CA at the address shown in Block 7 of the SF 1442, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror.

9. 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 and (for paper copies) will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may also be placed 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. Each page shall be counted except the following: executive summary, blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries and those parts of the Proposal noted as unlimited.

10. Page Size and Format:

a. 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 single-spaced with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 points. Tracking, kerning, and leading values 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 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall also apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

b. 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 and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

11. Electronic Copies: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. When discrepancies exist between the written offers and those provided in electronic format, the written offer will take precedence in all cases. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD-ROM the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including required plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments, if any. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007®, MS Excel 2007®, MS-Project 2007®, and MS-Power Point 2007® as applicable.

12. Pricing Information: All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation volumes. Work-hour estimates and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale.

13. 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 that 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.

14. Indexing: Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

15. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

D. OFFERS

1. The offer/proposal and other information shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic copy

(standard CD) format. The proposal shall consist of the following volumes:

Volume 1 – TECHNICAL

Volume 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Volume 3 – PRICE (including SF 1442) Separate CDs are not required for each volume. Offerors shall submit the SF 1442 on paper with an original signature. Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information to enable evaluators to fully ascertain the offeror’s capability to perform the requirements contemplated by the solicitation. The data submitted with each proposal shall be complete and concise but not elaborate.

2. A list of the offeror’s primary Points of Contact shall be submitted as part of the Technical proposal using the format shown in Attachment #01B of the Past Performance Packet.

E. VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

1. Format and Limitations:

a. Three (3) Hard Copies,

b. One (1) Electronic Copy

c. Page Limitation: Unlimited for 90% design as described below, 20 pages for all else.

2. Your response will be evaluated against the Technical factors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specific as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary nor desirable for you to state this in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Furthermore, it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide resumes for individual personnel as part of your proposal.

3. Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project: The offeror shall provide a technical approach to accomplish the design-build seed project: Project No. MUHJ 06-4088, Repair Water Distribution System at Langley AFB, VA, in accordance with Attachment #17, Statement of Work. As a minimum, the proposed approach shall describe all of the following essential components:

a. The contractor shall provide a complete 90% construction design which ensures the successful completion of the seed project.

b. Provide description of proccedures, processes and methods for tracing the progress of the project and interface with the Government which addresses overall performance for both design phase and construction phase. Description shall include, but not limited to a discussion of the overall performance time for the design and construction phases, composition of the design-build team (including any major subcontractors) and their involvement throughout the process with particular attention to quality, timeliness, and cost control. Include a filled out Attachment 08, AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule, and a Schedule of Values for the project.

c. Provide a listing of any and all assumptions made pertaining to the seed project.

F. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Early Proposal Information: Each offeror is requested to submit the past performance volume with past performance information for each relevant/recent contract at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. Failure to submit proposal information early will not result in offeror disqualification.

2. Format and Limitations (exclusive of questionnaires):

a. Three (3) Hard Copies

b. One (1) Electronic Copy

c. Page Limitation: Eight (8) pages per Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), unlimited for all else.

3. PPIS: Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in the PPIS (Attachment #01B of the Past Performance Packet). This information is required on the offeror proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. All past performance information shall be evaluated in accordance with the Past Performance factor as defined in Section M, Evaluation Criteria.

4. Consent and Client Authorization Letter: The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a Consent Letter (Attachment #04 of the Past Performance Packet), executed by each joint venture partner (if applicable), authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment #05 of the Past Performance Packet), authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

5. Past Performance Questionnaire:

a. As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment #01A of the Past Performance Packet) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment #01 of the Past Performance Packet) to all points of contact (POCs) the offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Sheet(s) (Attachment #01B). Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by 633 CONS/LGCB not later than 27 JULY 2011. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by FAX to 757-764-4071 or e-mail to delores.powell@langley.af.mil . RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires.

b. Offerors shall submit information in accordance with Attachment #01B of the Past Performance Packet on at least three (3) but no more than six (6) RECENT contracts as the prime contractor considered most RELEVANT in demonstrating performance abilities on the proposed effort. Also, offerors shall include information, if applicable, on up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each joint venture or Teaming partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Please refer to the Past Performance factor in Section M, Evaluation Criteria for definitions of what is considered recent work and what is considered relevant work. Each PPIS shall not exceed 8 pages. Offerors shall include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see Section M, Evaluation Criteria. NOTE: The requested number of PPIS forms for the prime and subcontractors are preferences, and not requirements. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPIS forms are not automatically assigned an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. There is no limit on the number of PPIS forms allowed per team; however, offerors are requested to limit responses to those efforts necessary for evaluation and that are relevant to this requirement.

6. Specific Content: Offerors shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This 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. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a little or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate 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 considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required.

7. Organizational 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. These changes may have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between the conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, offerors shall include a "roadmap" describing any/all such changes in their organization. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts identified 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, yet general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

G. VOLUME 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL

1. Format and Limitations:

a. Two (2) Hard Copies,

b. One (1) Electronic Copy

c. Page Limitation: Unlimited

2. These instructions are to assist offerors in submitting information that is required to evaluate reasonableness of proposed pricing and costs. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of an offeror’s proposal.

a. Proposed Price: The offeror shall provide a price breakdown for the seed project by providing a completed Attachment #07, Construction Cost Breakdown, and Seed Project Bid Schedules. Offers should be complete, accurate, and sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, and be consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Evaluation of this area will be addressed in Section M under the Price Factor. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the offeror.

b. Contract Documents: In addition, the offeror’s proposal shall include the following sections in the Price Proposal Volume from the solicitation:

(1) Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form SF 1442: Complete Form SF 1442 as applicable and sign and date. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under a separate cover sheet.

(2) Section I - Contract Clauses: Offeror shall complete and submit any applicable clause requiring information to be filled in.

(3) Section K – Representations and Certifications: Complete and submit this section in addition to completing On-Line Representations and Certifications and Application (ORCA) at http://www.bpn.gov/orca.

c. Other Information Required

(1) Executive Summary: Each offeror shall submit an Executive Summary as part of the price proposal of no more than 3 pages total which summarizes the key points from the offeror’s Technical, Past Performance, and Price areas. The Executive Summary Section is not included in the Volume 3 page limitation.

(2) Authorized Offeror Personnel: Offerors shall provide the following information.

(i) The name, title and telephone number(s) of the company/division point(s) of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the proposal and who can obligate the company contractually.

(ii) The name, title, and telephone number(s) of those individual(s) authorized to negotiate with the Government for this solicitation.

(iii) Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Offerors shall provide company/division’s street address, county and facility code; CAGE Code; DUNS Number; and size of business (large, small, 8(a), etc.).

(3) Bank Reference: In order to assist in determining the offerors’ responsibility, offerors shall complete the highlighted areas of Attachment #02, Financial Information Request, provide it to their financial institution, and instruct them to complete and return it to the Contracting Office not later than the required proposal submission date.

(4) Bonding: In order to assist in determining the offerors’ responsibility, offerors shall complete the highlighted areas of Attachment #03, Bonding Information Request, provide it to their surety, and instruct them to complete and return it to the Contracting Office not later than the required proposal submission date.

(5) 8(a) verification from the cognizant Small Business Administration (SBA) office. SBA approved status in the 8(a) program is a prerequisite for award. Joint Venture (JV) relationships and Mentor/Protégé agreements require SBA approval prior to award. It is imperative that offerors intending to perform as a JV or under the Mentor/Protégé program submit verification of their status in the 8(a) program with, or as soon as possible after, submission of their proposal. Prior to award, the Government will notify potential awardees who have declared their intent to apply for SBA approval of a JV or Mentor/Protégé program that they must provide their approved agreement within three (3) calendar days of receipt of the notice. Such notice does not, in any way, imply that the Government will make award to any particular offeror. No award will be made to an entity who has not been approved by SBA in their 8(a) program.

H. EXCEPTIONS TO SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Table 1—Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

I. ALTERNATE PROPOSALS: Alternate proposals will not be accepted.

K. INCURRED EXPENSES: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. All contractors who are awarded a contract under the MACC solicitation will be awarded a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at time of award at time of award (also see Section M, Paragraph H.2). The Government reserves the right to issue a task order for the seed project to the lowest priced successful offeror in lieu of a task order for the minimum guaranteed amount. NO OFFEROR WILL BE COMPENSATED FOR SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL.

(End of Provision)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1. This acquisition will utilize Past Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Contract(s) shall be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by evaluation factors attached to this request for proposal and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the overall best value to the Government.

2. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale as indicated in Section L, Para. H, Exceptions to solicitation requirements.

3. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation in terms of quality and affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable, superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference.

4. 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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss or revise their proposals. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer and the SSA to be necessary.

B. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award up to six (6) contracts for the Langley/Eustis Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) to the offerors:

1. who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented;

2. whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, submissions, and all other information required by evaluation factors attached to this request for proposal); and

3. whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation factors and subfactors.

C. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government will evaluate the individual line items of the seed project price proposal to determine whether costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates and comparison to competitor’s cost proposals, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program or failure to understand the requirements of the project.

D. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

E. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY (GFP)/EQUIPMENT (GFE)

Government Furnished Property (GFP) or Equipment (GFE) to be provided will be as specified in each individual task order. For proposal purposes, no GFP or GFE is to be considered as provided as part of the seed project.

F. EVALUATION

1. Proposals: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon a two-phased evaluation process of the below.

•Technical

•Price

•Past Performance (significantly more important than price)

In PPT, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between cost/price and past performance. For all technically acceptable proposals, Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2. Sequence of Evaluation: The Government shall evaluate sufficient offers to award up to six (6) contracts. The specific steps for evaluations are as follow:

First Phase:

a. Price: Initially, the Government shall rank offers according to their proposed price for the seed project, from lowest to highest price.

b. Technical: The technical evaluation team will then evaluate a minimum of the eight (8) lowest priced technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign ratings of acceptable, reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, and unacceptable as described in paragraph (F.3) below. If six (6) technically acceptable proposals are not found, the Government reserves the right to go back and evaluate, one-by-one, the next lowest priced offerors until six (6) technically acceptable proposals are found.

Second Phase:

c. Price: The Government shall evaluate the proposed pricing for the seed project of at least the eight (8) technically acceptable proposals as described in paragraph (F.4).

d. Past Performance: Past Performance will then be evaluated on at least the eight (8) lowest priced acceptable proposals. Past Performance shall be evaluated as described in paragraph (F.5) below. The Government reserves the right to evaluate higher priced offerors if an insufficient number of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment. The evaluations shall continue until at least six (6) offerors with Substantial confidence are found.

e. The Source Selection authority (SSA) will then assess the price and past performance ratings for all evaluated offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

3. Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability:

a. Initially, the government technical evaluation team will evaluate all technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, and assign one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed. A final unacceptable assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating and be eliminated from further consideration.

ACCEPTABLE – The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE – The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “Unacceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE – The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an Unacceptable rating are not awardable.

b. Execution And Completeness Of The Seed Project: Project No. MUHJ 06-4088, Repair Water Distribution system at Langley AFB, VA. An acceptable 90% design is one that:

(1) includes all the required work elements listed in Attachment #17, MACC Seed Project Statement of Work

(2) provides a not to exceed 2 page overview that defines a reasonable approach to the seed project;

(3) clearly identifies members fo the design-build team by their title, to include major subcontractors, and describe the roles of each in the execution of the project;

(4) correctly fill out Attachment 08, AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule, showing a logical work sequence and work element percentage;

(5) provides an AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown, and Schedule of values that assigns percentages to work performed in all divisions required in the execution of the project. Progress schedule reflects a critical path that accounts for long lead items, design time, Government submittal review time, and project closeout using the performance period specified in the seed project..

4. Factor 2 - Price:

a. The offeror’s price proposal for the seed project will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but shall be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness. The Total Estimated Price (TEP) to the Government will be calculated for each offeror by adding the design and construction price provided on Project Bid Schedule, and presented to the SSA for consideration in the integrated assessment for the source selection decision.

(1) Completeness: All information/data required by the solicitation has been submitted. The price volume will also be evaluated to ensure the inclusion and submission of other general information required by the solicitation’s requirements.

(2) Price Reasonableness:

(a) Reasonableness will be based on the total estimated price and evaluated design and construction prices compared to historical actual for similar effort(s), as well as comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and price competition obtained by the other offerors’ proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

(b) The Government will evaluate the individual line items of the seed project price proposal to determine whether costs are realistic and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic proposal. Offeror’s are cautioned against unbalanced proposal pricing which may be an indication of a lack of understanding of the overall project.

(c) The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, there is adequate price competition, no additional price information, will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required.

(d) If at any time during the evaluation the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. Price analysis will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal.

5. Factor 3 – Past Performance

a. Evaluation Process - The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing construction services that meet the customer’s needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance on individual projects, focusing on performance that is relevant to the MACC.

(1) Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed shall have had at least six (6) months of performance prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions shall not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

(2) Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the construction services performed under those contracts relate to the MACC.

b. 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, such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and other available commercial sources.

c. Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors will be considered.

d. Ratings: The past performance information sheets (PPIS) contained in the Past Performance Packet as Attachment #01B and information that may be obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

Past/present performance effort involved little or no construction work.

e. Performance Quality: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts related in the past performance questionnaire responses, CCASS, PPIRS, CPARS, or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and, as applicable, commercial clients. It may also include information obtained from other sources known to the Government. The review may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Contractors shall be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings not previously provided for a response. 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.

f. Past Performance Ratings: As a result of the assessments of the recent and relevant contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the areas addressed by the past performance questionnaire (project management, technical performance, safety/labor compliance, customer satisfaction, change and cost control management, and quality control program), the resulting performance confidence assessment rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. Upon conclusion of the evaluation, the Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments:

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

G. TRADEOFFS: The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offers if a lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or higher. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Tradeoffs will only be made between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable.

H. AWARD

1. The government intends to evaluate proposals without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, they would be held only with offerors who submitted proposals determined to be Acceptable or Reasonably Susceptible of being Made Acceptable. If used, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2. The government intends to award up to six (6) contracts, at least 50% will be awarded to 8(a) contractors.