Amendment 1

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Jun-2008 04:30 PM to 14-Jul-2008 04:30 PM.

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 L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

L-1 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. 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 ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The offer/proposal and other information consists of three (3) separate bound volumes. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; VOLUME 1 – Request for Proposal (RFP), VOLUME II – Past Performance Information, and VOLUME III – Sample Project

B. 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, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. VOLUME 1 – Request for Proposal: - Submit original and one (1) copy.

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 17, 19, (if applicable) 20, 20A, 20B, 20C of Standard Form 1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. Only official(s) having the authority to bind the company contractually must sign and date the SF 1442.

(b) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For all other sections (if applicable) through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

(c) If you are an 8(a) firm and your company is not listed in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration (SBA) showing proof of Section 8(a) status.

2. VOLUME II – Past Performance Information: Submit original plus three (3) copies. REQUEST VOLUME II BE SUBMITTED 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO PROPOSAL DUE DATE

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed project for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as amendments, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Past Performance Information: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of no more than ten (10), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Areas of past performance include Management, Quality and Quality Control, Knowledge and Professionalism, Problem Resolution, Adherence to Schedules, Working Relationships, Design Capabilities, Environmental Awareness and Contract Performance. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

2.

VOLUME III – Sample Project: Submit original plus three (3) copies.

(a) Required Documents: Provide required documents as referenced in the sample project (Attachment 6). In addition, an AF Form 3052 is required (Attachment 11)

(b) Contact Information: Documents shall be sent to:

20 CONS/LGCAB

ATTN: MICHAEL CORP/ DO NOT OPEN – RFP FA4803-08-R-A009

321 CULLEN STREET (Bldg 216)

SHAW AFB, SC 29152

Formal communications such as requests for clarifications and/or information concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing to the above address, fax or by e-mail the following:

Fax: 803-895-9520

E-mail: michael.corp@shaw.af.mil

(c) Pre-proposal Conference: A pre-bid/pre-proposal conference will be conducted at 9:00a.m., on 28 May 08, at the base theater, Shaw AFB, SC for the purpose of answering questions regarding this solicitation. Submit names of all attendees (not to exceed four per contractor) to Mr. Michael Corp by e-mail to michael.corp@shaw.af.mil or by fax to (803) 895-9520 prior to 22 May 08.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offeror’s' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, cost or price considerations. 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. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their pricing based upon sample project and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offeror’s must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

1. Drawings: Drawings must be legible, conform to the requirements contained in the definitions for 35% and 95% design, conform to the requirements of MACC General Provisions (Attachment 4) and display the professional certifications required by Sample Project (Attachment 6)

2. Construction Cost Estimate: The construction cost estimate (AF Form 3052) must be legible (front and back), contain pricing for each line item category as well as a total cost and be signed and dated by the contractor.

3. Design Calculations: All required design calculations must be legible and conform to the requirements of the MACC General Provisions (Attachment 4) and the Sample Project (Attachment 6)

4. Specifications: All sections required by paragraph 9 of the sample project Task Order must be legible, edited to match the project scope and conform to the MACC General Provisions (Attachment 4) and the Sample Project (Attachment 6)

5. Submittals: All submittals required by the Sample Project (Attachment 6) must be legible and correspond to the products being proposed for the project.

6. Color Board(s): Color boards required by the Sample Project (Attachment 6) must conform to the requirements contained in MACC General Provisions (Attachment 4)

7. Prospective Drawing: The drawing must conform to the requirements of MACC, General Provisions (Attachment 4)

8. Design Submittals: The 35% and 95% design submittals must contain all the elements required by the definitions in the MACC General Provisions (Attachment 4). The elements must be indexed or otherwise easily identifiable, for example, the design calculations for primary structure components (foundations, structures, roofs, etc.) should be clearly identified as such.

NOTE: Technical proposals will be evaluated for conformance with the RFP criteria. The Technical area is based on an acceptable/unacceptable scale. While the intent is to keep the pre-award information to a minimum, proposals must provide adequate detail for effective evaluation. The Technical Evaluation Team will rate the technical proposals according to the chart listed below:

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by price, including all option prices.

Offerors have been provided a sample project on which to submit a price proposal for evaluation. The Government will evaluate the individual line items 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 mission capability proposal. An unrealistically low or high proposed price for the sample project may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. In addition, offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced may be rejected. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced, and if:

1. There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

2. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

3. The Government’s price analysis may include, but is not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices received, contract prices for the same or similar services, comparison with current Defense Contract Audit Agency inflation indexes and a comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

NOTE: The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using information in Volume II provided by the offeror and the Past Performance Questionaire, the Government will assign one of the performance confidence ratings for each proposal. The evaluation may consider the offeror’s demonstrated ability to achieve the criteria as identified below in the paragraph entitled Past/Present Performance Evaluation Factors. An offeror with no past performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel and/or subcontractors. If such information is not applicable (i.e. the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror may be evaluated as “neutral”.

1. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance. Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Current is generally defined as performance that is taking place at the present time. Recent is generally defined as performance occurring within the last three years. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed or evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

2. The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The evaluation team will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources.

3. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). If adverse past performance information, to which the contractor has had no opportunity to respond, is the reason an offeror may not receive an award, the offeror will be provided an opportunity to address the information. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

4. The evaluation team may consider the offeror’s, including subcontractors and joint ventures, past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis.

5. As a result of an analysis of those positive and negative aspect indicators identified, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Each offeror will receive one of the ratings described below for the Past Performance factor:

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

6. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

7. The Government’s evaluation of the past performance factor may include the following:

· Demonstrated record of successful design, construction and completion of multi-discipline projects; successful compliance with established minimum standard operations; compliance with standards of good workmanship; ability to meet user’s mission needs, including cost and schedule.

· Timeliness of performance; demonstrated ability to adhere to contract schedules; compliance with notification requirements; successful record of work integration among subcontractors/ teaming arrangements and other parties affected by the work; and ability to solve multiple problems and to stay on schedule.

· Successful business relations to include effective project management and workforce structure to perform the contract; track record of principal individuals selected to manage and perform key aspects of the contract to include the past performance of the offeror as a whole and how well the offeror’s employees and subcontractors have performed.

D. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in MP5315.3, Table 3. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offeror’s with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

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

F. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until the appropriate number of offerors are judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment or until all offeror’s are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

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

H. The government intends to award a contract without discussions to respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)