Amendment_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 clarify and correct the solictation based on Questions and Responses #1:

A. The Site Visit meeting location and time has been updated to correct an ambiguity. The site visit start time has been changed to 10:00am EST.

B. Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire has been updated to reflect the correct recency and relevancy definitions.

C. The number of proposal copies required has been updated from 1 original and 3 copies to 1 original and 2 copies per Section L Paragraph

I. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

D. Corrected a typo in Section M, Paragraph D. 2.

E. Correct number of copies required for the MASTERSPEC in Attachment 10, C-133a(1)(b).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Jun-2015

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 FA4809-14-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-May-2015

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

05-Jun-2015

CODE

4TH CONTRACTING SQUADRON

1600 WRIGHT BROTHERS AVENUE, BLDG 3010

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB NC 27531-2459

FA4809 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4809-14-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The number of offeror copies required has decreased by 1 from 3 to 2.

The required performance has changed from Simplified Acquistion of Base Engineering Requirements

(SABER IX) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. A pre-proposal conference/site visit is scheduled for 09 Jun 15 at 09:00 am (EST). Only one pre-proposal conference will be held. Site Visit(s) for each task order (TO) after contract award will be scheduled as required. 1. Please enter your CAGE code, Tax

Identification Number (TIN) and DUNS number in Block 14.2. A seperate Notice to Proceed will issued for each task order.3. This requirement is an 8(a) Competitive Set-Aside with competition limited to 8(a) firms located within the geographical area serviced by the North Carolina District Office and other 8(a) construction firms with a bona fide place of business within the geographical competitive area and the assigned NAICS code. All other 8(a)

BD Participants are deemed ineligible to submit offers.4. The SBA requirements number is 0460/14/402387/01.

The designated NAICS code is 236220.5. The DFAS office responsible for payment will be identified in each task order.6. The guaranteed minimum for the life of the contract is $2,000.00. The maximum contract value is

$49,000,000.00. to Simplified Acquistion of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER IX) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. A pre-proposal conference/site visit is scheduled for 09 Jun 15 at 10:00 am

(EST). Only one pre-proposal conference will be held. Site Visit(s) for each task order (TO) after contract award will be scheduled as required. 1. Please enter your CAGE code, Tax Identification Number (TIN) and DUNS number in Block 14.2. A seperate Notice to Proceed will issued for each task order.3. This requirement is an 8(a)

Competitive Set-Aside with competition limited to 8(a) firms located within the geographical area serviced by the

North Carolina District Office and other 8(a) construction firms with a bona fide place of business within the geographical competitive area and the assigned NAICS code. All other 8(a) BD Participants are deemed ineligible to submit offers.4. The SBA requirements number is 0460/14/402387/01. The designated NAICS code is 236220.5.

The DFAS office responsible for payment will be identified in each task order.6. The guaranteed minimum for the life of the contract is $2,000.00. The maximum contract value is $49,000,000.00..

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders.

Offerors are cautioned to completely read this entire solicitation and submit sufficient and correct information, and in the format specified. Offerors not submitting the required information, initially with their proposals, may be rejected as non-responsive.

Clauses and Provisions

Clauses and provisions in this document will be numbered in sequence, but will not necessarily appear in consecutive order.

Sections K, L, and M will be physically removed from any resultant award, but will be deemed to be incorporated, by reference in that award.

Maximum Contract Amount

Maximum: The maximum ordering limitation/program value for the resultant contract is $49 Million.

Regarding Guaranteed Minimum Amount

Upon award, the Government will issue the awardee a task order in the amount of $2,000.00 (project estimating fee) for the development of the sample project proposal.

I. 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.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II -

Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

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 data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required.

C. Specific Instructions for Preparation of Proposals:

The offer/proposal and other information consist of three (3) separately bound volumes in three ring binders.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information to enable the evaluator 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.

Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (statement of work, TOPR and CLINs) and government standards and regulations.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Format for proposal of all parts shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”. Reference Section M Part II paragraph C.2.a.2 for drawings size requirements.

(b) Typing shall not be less than 12 point font.

(c) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

4. Proposals in response to Solicitation No. FA4809-14-R-0001 shall be forwarded to:

4 CONS/LGCA

ATTN: DO NOT OPEN - RFP FA4809-14-R-0001

1600 WRIGHT BROTHERS AVENUE, Building 3010

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB NC 27531

5. Formal communications such as requests for clarifications and/or information concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing to the above address or e-mail the following individuals: devin.powner@us.af.mil and kathryn.harshberger.1@us.af.mil.

Telegraphic/Telefax Modification

Telegraphic/electronic proposals are not acceptable. Telefax proposal modifications/revisions are authorized prior to the date/time proposals are required and shall be sent to (919) 722-5424. However, the Government will not accept electronic transmissions of the basic proposal as it must contain original signatures and must be sealed.

PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and two (2) copies

A. This volume must be clearly marked “Volume I”. The pricing volume must set forth all pricing information necessary to provide a meaningful basis for the Government's analysis and evaluation of price as set forth in Section

M of this solicitation. The Government is not requesting certified cost or pricing information. While price will not be rated and color-coded, price will be evaluated in terms of completeness and reasonableness.

B. SF 1442 - Complete Blocks 14-20. Block 20B must be signed by an official authorized to contractually bind the

Offeror. By completing the SF 1442 in this manner, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

C. Any amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged in Block 19 of the SF 1442 or by returning a signed copy of the amendment(s) - SF 30, with the proposal.

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR15.DOC#b154062 mailto:devin.powner@us.af.mil mailto:kathryn.harshberger.1@us.af.mil

D. Complete and return Section B, Schedule. Include these documents in the Price Proposal Volume I. See

Technical Proposal Volume II for detailed instructions to complete project estimate for sample project.

E. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections C through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

F. Provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration (SBA) showing proof of Section 8(a) status.

G. Complete and return the Determination of Contractor Responsibility (Solicitation Attachment 11). A

Determination of Contractor Responsibility may be accomplished on the offeror. Please ensure that banking institutions and suppliers have been contacted to verbally release information, over the telephone, regarding the offeror’s accounts.

H. Provide a Certificate of Existence or Certificate of Authority on file with the State of North Carolina – Secretary of State. Only North Carolina District Office participants or 8(a) firms that have been reviewed by the North

Carolina District Office and approved as having a bona fide office in the State of North Carolina are eligible to respond to this solicitation.

NOTE: All 8(a) firms that bid as a bona fide office in North Carolina must maintain their bona fide office eligibility for the life of the contract.

PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Submit original plus two (2) copies.

This volume must be clearly marked “Volume II” and be clearly identified as Technical Proposal/Seed Project, Volume II. Offerors shall submit a project management narrative, as well as a proposal for the Seed Project

(Attachment 5 to the RFP) as set forth below. The Technical Proposal/Seed Project will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. Note: Project Magnitude of the Seed Project is between $150,001 and $500,000.

SUB-FACTOR 1: Program Management

Element 1 – 1: Overall Approach

Contractor will be required to provide information on their approach to the management of the overall contract. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in

Section M of the solicitation.

Element 1 – 2: Management Organization

Contractor will be required to identify key project management and dedicated support staff. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in Section M of the solicitation.

Element 1 – 3: Quality Control

Contractor will be required to describe adequate policies and procedures for program management quality control. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in

Section M of the solicitation.

Element 1 – 4: Initial Contract Startup

Contractor will be required to describe startup strategy and staffing plans. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in Section M of the solicitation.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Project Planning and Execution

Element 2 – 1: Workload Management

Contractor will be required to demonstrate capacity to accomplish work in the required time. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in Section M of the solicitation.

Element 2 – 2: Subcontract Management

Contractor will be required to identify the proposed level of subcontracting and in-house work accomplishment and describe the availability of subcontractor support for disciplines not provided by in-house resources. The proposal, at a minimum, shall address the technical standards for this element identified in Section M of the solicitation.

Subfactor 3: Seed Project Proposal

Provide design submittal – drawings and cost estimate per definition in Section C for seed project VKAG

14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300. The minimum requirements for evaluation of the seed project are identified in Section M of the solicitation.

PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Only references for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts will be evaluated. Submit original plus two (2) copies.

A. This volume must be clearly marked “Volume III” and be clearly identified as Past Performance Information.

Provide a brief prospectus of no more than ten (10) contracts, ongoing or being performed during the period of three years preceding the solicitation issuance (recent) that are similar in size and scope of work contained in this project

(relevant). Include the contract performance dates. Failure to provide POCs for any of the above contracts may eliminate the reference from further consideration. Recency and relevancy determination will be made on the projects listed in the prospectus during the past performance evaluation. To be considered relevant the projects in the prospectus need to demonstrate multi-discipline (civil, architectural, structural, fire protection, mechanical, and electrical) design and construction projects of varying complexity ($250,000 and above utilizing at least 3 of the disciplines above ranging from new facility construction to site/utility work to facility renovation) within the recency timeframe shown above. Offeror shall provide a modification synopsis for the projects listed in the prospectus if the project incurred a total increase of 10% or more to the original award amount. Synopsis shall include a brief explanation why, if any, there are deviations in cost and scope and how the change/modification was initiated. Submit comments/clarifications regarding any known performance record deemed less than satisfactory or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

1) 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 product for the projects listed in the prospectus referenced in paragraph A, above. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

2) Performance Surveys: 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 any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance including but not limited to the projects listed in the prospectus referenced in paragraph A, above. 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.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of recent and relevant contracts.

The Offeror shall email Attachment #3, Past Performance Questionnaire, to those agencies/firms responsible for the solicitation and administration of those identified projects listed in the prospectus. Prior to forwarding the questionnaire to each reference, the Offeror shall type the name and address of the reference in Item #3 of the questionnaire, and complete Item 3, General Information (offeror Information), on the questionnaire. Your references shall complete the questionnaire and email it to SrA Devin Powner at devin.powner@us.af.mil and

Kathryn Harshberger at kathryn.harshberger.1@us.af.mil. Offerors are responsible to ensure that their reference sources receive, complete, and return the questionnaires not later than the time specified for the receipt of proposals. The evaluation may take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontract work where your firm performed major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. However, the mailto:jason.endicott@us.af.mil mailto:kathryn.harshberger.1@us.af.mil questionnaire should clearly define who accomplished the work if performed by other than the prospective offeror

(e.g., a key personnel) and define the role (e.g., prime offeror, subofferor, subtier subofferor, etc.), performed by the

Offeror.

Subofferor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subofferor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subofferor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subofferors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime offeror.

NOTE: Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures will be accepted in the Past Performance Evaluation.

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for--

09 Jun 15 at 10:00 AM (EST)

(c) Participants will meet at--

The K-Mart parking lot at 201 N Berkeley Blvd, Goldsboro, NC on 09 June 2015 at 9:00 AM EST to load on an AF bus and be transported to 1600 Wright Brothers Avenue.

*NOTE: Attachment 12 is a Seymour Johnson AFB Special Event Pass Request form. This completed form allows the Government to coordinate contractor access to the installation prior to the site visit. The contractor shall complete and return this form no later than 4:00 PM EST on 1 June 2015. Multiple attendees from one company can be included on the same form. Failure to comply with this requirement will affect an individual’s ability to gain access to the base, and consequently, the site visit. The completed forms shall be returned to SrA Devin Powner by e-mail at devin.powner@us.af.mil, and Kathryn Harshberger at kathryn.harshberger.1@us.af.mil.

(End of provision)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. SOURCE SELECTION

Offerors are cautioned to completely read this entire solicitation and submit sufficient and correct information, and in the format specified. Offerors not submitting the required information, initially with their proposals, may be rejected as non-responsive.

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 21 Apr

2014. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. 8(a) firms will compete for awards that have a Certificate of Existence or Certificate of Authority on file with the State of

North Carolina. Only North Carolina District Office participants or 8(a) firms that have been reviewed by the North

Carolina District Office and approved as having a bona fide office in the State of North Carolina are eligible to respond to this solicitation. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable (LPTA) offeror with an acceptable past performance assessment. The Government intends to make one award without discussions with respective Offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Contracts may be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part

9.1, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal having an acceptable past performance rating. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

C. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable through discussions, the offeror may be excluded/eliminated from the competitive range, if established.

The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Offerors may be asked to clarify aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond. This type of communication or that which is conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

D. Discussions

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.

E. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions, and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

F. Debriefing of Offerors

Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying where changes can be made to improve in future source selection participation with an unsuccessful Offeror. Successful or unsuccessful Offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.505 and 15.506.

G. Disposition of Unsuccessful Proposals

In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The

Government shall destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

II. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors, subfactors or elements.

Factor 1: Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Element 1-1: Overall Approach

Element 1-2: Management Organization

Element 1-3: Quality Control

Element 1-4: Initial Contract Startup

Subfactor 2: Project Planning & Execution

Element 2-1: Workload Management

Element 2-2: Subcontract Management

Subfactor 3: Seed Project Proposal

Factor 2: Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor 3: Price

B. Proposal Evaluation Approach

The proposal evaluation approach is:

1) Order all proposals by total evaluated price from lowest to highest.

2) It is the government’s intent to evaluate a minimum of four (4) lowest priced offerors for technical and past performance acceptability. Evaluations will continue until a total of four (4) proposals are rated as acceptable in technical and past performance or until all offerors are evaluated. However if there are less than 4 offerors, then the lesser number of offerors will be evaluated.

3) Evaluate price of the proposals rated acceptable in technical and past performance. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal that is determined to have an acceptable past performance rating.

C.Technical Factor (Volume II)

The Government’s SSEB shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

SUB-FACTOR 1: Program Management

Element 1 – 1: Overall Approach

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s approach to the management of the overall contract and resultant task orders on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable contract specification. The standard is met when the proposal:

identifies the contractor’s overall approach to the management of the overall contract and resultant task orders and provides an organizational diagram showing clear, logical lines of authority from Program Manager to subcontracting management, including site investigation, design, site superintendence, and quality control.

Element 1-2: Management Organization

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s key project management and support staff on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically specification. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to hiring qualified key project and support staff. The standard is met when the proposal:

(a) identifies the logical lines and level of decision-making authority delegated to management and staff members (as a minimum, program manager shall have on-site decision making authority);

(b) identifies the key project management and dedicated support staff by job title, provides a brief job description and the qualifications required of each staff member (e.g., education, training, professional qualifications, licenses, and experience relative to the tasks he/she will perform if awarded the contract);

Element 1 – 3: Quality Control

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s quality control procedures on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable contract specification. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to ensuring minimum quality standards are met and adequate quality control procedures are in place. The standard is met when the proposal:

(a) identifies individual assignment controls to ensure appropriate personnel are assigned to appropriate work disciplines;

(b) identifies the number of projects that will be assigned to each individual (superintendent) and adequately explains how the requirements of FAR 52.236-6 entitled Superintendence by the Contractor will be met;

Element 1 – 4: Initial Contract Startup

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s startup strategy and staffing plans on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically specification. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to initial contract startup. The standard is met when the proposal:

(a) identifies startup strategy and staffing plans required to locate the staff and support equipment necessary to be functional in the required time period as identified in Section C of solicitation.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Project Planning and Execution

Element 2 – 1: Workload Management

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s ability to manage contract and resultant task order workload on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable contract specification. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to managing contract workload. The standard is met when the proposal:

(a) demonstrates capacity to accomplish the work in the required time, complete projects within the established time limits, meeting project dollar thresholds and current workload;

(b) identifies the process to execute a large number of multi-discipline task orders in a highly compressed time frame as a result of cyclical funding;

(c) demonstrates capability of preparing drawings on Computer Assisted Design Drawings (CADD) in

AutoCad 2010 format (refer to SOW C-131)

Element 2 – 2: Subcontract Management

Description: This element evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s ability to manage resultant subcontracts on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This element will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable contract specification. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to awarding and managing any required subcontracts. The standard is met when the proposal:

(a) identifies the proposed level of subcontracting and in-house work accomplishment. Address how the offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-14 entitled “Limitations on Subcontracting”, paragraph (b)(3) in that the concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials with its own employees;

(b) identifies adequate policies and procedures for subofferor management, including surveillance, recruitment and termination, quality control, and scheduling;

(c) identifies the availability of subcontractor support for disciplines not provided by in-house resources.

SUB-FACTOR 3: Seed Project Proposal

Description: This subfactor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in response to the requirements indicated in the sample project/TOPR on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the project from a technical and pricing standpoint. The price evaluation of the Seed project, VKAG 14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300, will be conducted during the evaluation of the technical proposal. The standard is met when the proposal meets the requirements as stated in Part I-The Schedule, Section C, Description/Specifications/Work Statement , paragraph C-106.(f) and (g).(2) and C-102.d.(2).(b), and includes the original and two (2) copies of the following:

a) Drawings

1. For Construction Drawings per paragraph C-102.d.(2).(b) showing all disciplines, which include main elements of work in the Seed Project VKAG 14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300.

2. Submits graphical representations generated from AutoCAD in compliance with Part I-

The Schedule, Section C, Description/Specifications/Work Statement, paragraph C-

102(d) and C-131.

3. Submits one full size D (24” X 36”) with the original and two half size B (12” x 18”) drawings with the copies.

4. Drawings document the work required by the Government Statement of Work for the

Seed Project.

b) Cost Estimate

1. Provides the completed Offer Schedule at Attachment (5) for the seed project VKAG

14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300.

2. Completed estimate in an electronic estimating software that utilizes current Means construction cost data showing the Means line item number in Construction Specification

Institute (CSI) format, description of the item, unit of measure, quantity of units required, cost per unit and total costs for all units per line item and reflects offeror’s understanding of the cost estimating process. The total price of each division of work/major element of work shall indicate the total price after the coefficient and city cost index is applied. For any non-priced items, refer back to Section C-106.f.(2).

3. Clearly demonstrates and describes the investigative services, design and construction costs associated with the seed project, VKAG 14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300.

4. Cost proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to obtain fair and reasonable pricing for those items not listed in the Means.

c) Assumptions

1. Submits all relevant engineering assumptions for all disciplines, which include main elements of work in the Seed Project VKAG 14-1201 Repair Restrooms and Offices, Bldg 3300.

Note: Magnitude for the Seed Project is between $250,000 and $500,000.

Notice to Offerors: The Seed Project is for evaluation purposes only--this project is for the purpose of evaluating the offeror's technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis; the estimating fee will be awarded to the successful offeror and the seed project may or may not be awarded.

D. Past Performance Factor (Volume III)

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2) Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. 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 available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

a) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor

(however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of multi-discipline (civil, architectural, structural, fire protection, mechanical, and electrical) design and construction projects of varying complexity ($250,000 and above utilizing at least 3 of the disciplines above ranging from new facility construction to site/utility work to facility renovation) within the recency timeframe shown above. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subofferor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subofferor or teaming partner.

The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c) Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the

Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions

Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment.

Take, for example, an RFP for a contact to manufacture, provide logistical support, and provide user training for “System X.” If an offeror submits recent past performance contracts involving manufacturing effort which is “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires,” file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23P123_5649 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522198 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23b522199 that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, offeror performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, offeror took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, offeror performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE (N) Quality and/or performance information is not available.

3) Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

NOTE: Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures will be accepted in the Past Performance Evaluation.

E. Price Factor (Volume I)

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

1) The offeror’s proposed price as provided in Section B, Schedule will be the evaluated factor. Offeror’s proposed prices on the Line Items (0001AA – 0005AK) will be determined by multiplying the estimated dollar amount by the proposed coefficient for each line item to confirm the estimated price for each. The extended amounts will be added together to determine the estimated total for each year. These estimated totals for each year will be added together to arrive at an estimated grand total. This will be used for evaluation purposes only.

2) Proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if prices are unreasonably high or low in relation to the

Government’s independent cost estimate, and proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

3) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

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

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

5) Affordability: The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#b312013