FA4855-13-R-0011-0004.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:

A. Correct Attachment numbers in Sections L and M.

B. Add Attachment 1A - Revised Specifications Sections, w hich only includes sections of Attachment 1- Specifications Manual that have changed.

C. Incorporate revised Attachments 3 - Bid Schedule, 4 - Joint Estimate (JE) Form, and 14 - Seed Project Draw ings.

D. Add new Attachments 18 - Base Map, 19 - Solid Waste Diversion Spreadsheet Example, and 20 - Solicitation Questions and Answ ers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jul-2013

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 FA4855-13-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Jun-2013

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

26-Jul-2013

CODE

27 SOCONS/CC

110 E ALISON AVE, BLDG 600

CANNON AFB NM 88103-5321

FA4855 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4855-13-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

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

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment No. Title Pages Date 1 Specifications Manual 239 7-Jun-2013

1A Revised Specifications Sections 23 24-Jul-2013 2 IDIQ Schedule of Material Submittals 7 7-Jun-2013 3 Roofing IDIQ Bid Schedule 3 26-Jul-2013

4 Joint Estimate (JE) Form 1 26-Jul-2013 5 OPSEC Contract Addendum 1 10-May-2013 6 CAFB Electrical Standards 13 13-Mar-2012 7 CAFB Sustainable Landscape Development Plan 39 3-Feb-2012 8 CAFB and MAFR Environmental Guide 28 18-Aug-2011 9 MAFR Contractor Standard Operating Procedures 4 18-Mar-2013

10 Climatic Data Summary 5 30-Nov-2012 11 Wage Determination NM23 (CAFB) 4 26-Apr-2013 12 Wage Determination NM34 (MAFR) 4 26-Apr-2013 13 Seed Project SOW 2 12-Mar-2013 14 Seed Project Drawings 6 25-Jul-2013 15 Seed Project Schedule of Material Submittals 5 12-Mar-2013 16 Past Performance Information 2 12-Mar-2013 17 Past Performance Questionnaire 6 10-Jul-2013 18 Base Map 1 1-Jun-2013

19 Solid Waste Diversion Spreadsheet Example 1 25-Jul-2013

20 Solicitation Questions and Answers 6 26-Jul-2013

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

L.1. INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) and INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

L.1.1. General Requirements

This section of the 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 The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the RFP, all specifications, and all drawings. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements of the RFP. 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. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date. 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.

L.1.2. General Information

L.1.2.1. Point of Contact

The Team Lead or her designated representative(s) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns to the Team Lead. Written requests may be sent to the Team Lead or alternate as follows:

TSgt Kendra Strnad (Team Lead) SrA Matthew Marshall (CA) 27th SOCONS/BFLT 27th SOCONS/BFLT Tel: 575-784-1326 Tel: 575-784-2948 Email: kendra.strnad@cannon.af.mil Email: matthew.marshall@cannon.af.mil

L.1.2.2. Debriefings

The Team Lead or the CA will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from evaluation;

whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from evaluation may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from evaluation are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The Team Lead will notify unsuccessful offerors of the award decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. 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.

L.1.2.3. 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 Team Lead in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Team Lead to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

L.1.2.4. Electronic Reference Documents

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

L.1.2.5. Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CA.

Email shall be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

L.1.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). The titles and contents of the proposals shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1. The contents of each proposal are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below. Two electronic copies of the entire proposal organized per Table 1 shall be submitted on CD or DVD in addition to the hard copies described below.

Table L.1 – Proposal Organization

FACTOR FACTOR TITLE COPIES

(Hardcopy / Electronic)

PAGE LIMIT

1 Technical 4 / 2 50 2 Past Performance 4 / 2 50 3 Cost / Price

(includes Solicitation and Amendment) 4 / 2 Unlimited

L.1.3.1. Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable.

L.1.3.2. Original Copy and Two (2) Copies

The “original” proposal shall be clearly identified. Also, the original and two hard copies shall conform to paragraphs (a) through (d) below:

(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 double-space typed with 1.5 line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, all text shall be Times New Roman font, exactly 12 point. 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 apply to responses to ENs.

(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, legible and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the proposal. 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.

(c) Each proposal shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that proposal. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

(d) Each copy of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder permitting the proposal to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

L.1.3.3. Redacted Copy

One copy shall conform to paragraphs (a) through (f) below:

(a) Offerors shall remove all company-identifiable information, to include but not limited to names (offeror name, individual names, current and past employers, joint-venture/partner names, design firm names, etc.), logos and other artwork.

(b) 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 double-space typed with 1.5 line spacing. All sections of the redacted copy are to be reproduced in black and white. No color shall be permitted. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, all text shall be Times New Roman, black, and exactly 12 point font. 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 apply to responses to ENs.

(c) Headers and footers shall have black, 12-point, Times New Roman font and contain only the solicitation number, volume number, offeror name, and page numbers. Logos and other separators or shapes are not permitted.

(d) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the proposal. 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.

(e) Each proposal shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that proposal. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

(f) Each copy of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the proposal to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. No information shall be placed on the spine of each binder

L.1.3.4. Electronic Copies

Offerors shall submit two electronic copies:

a. One (1) complete electronic copy that conforms to the requirements set forth in Table L.1 and paragraphs L.1.3.1. and L.1.3.3. of this section.

b. One (1) redacted electronic copy that conforms to the requirements set forth in Table L.1 and paragraphs L.1.3.1 and L.1.3.3 of this section.

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit all proposals in electronic format, using recordable CDs. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included.

The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007, as applicable. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

L.1.3.5. Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal.

L.1.3.6. Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each factor / volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

L.1.3.7. Distribution

The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the Team Lead and mailed or hand-carried to:

27th SOCONS/BFLT Attn: TSgt Kendra Strnad 110 E. Alison Ave, Bldg. 600 Cannon AFB, NM 88103-5214 575-784-1326

Be sure to advise the Team Lead for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information--See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104".

L.2. Format and Specific Content

L.2.1. Proposal Organization

Proposals shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) List of Tables and Drawings

(3) Glossary

(4) Factor 1 – Quality of Product or Service (Technical)

(a) Subfactor 1 – Staffing/Team Composition for the Roofing IDIQ

(b) Subfactor 2 – Schedule for Seed Project

(5) Factor 2 – Past Performance

(6) Factor 3 – Cost / Price

(a) Subfactor 1 – Seed Project Price

(b) Subfactor 2 – Bid Schedule

(7) Solicitation Documents – This section is not an evaluation factor.

(a) Solicitation

(b) Amendments

(c) Financial Resources

(d) Bonds (Proposal Guarantee)

Refer to Section M of this solicitation for specific content for each factor and subfactor listed above.

L.2.2. General

Quality of Product or Service factor should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Acceptability of Product or Service subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. 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 not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not copy and paste from documents within the RFP, reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. In the Quality of Product or Service factor, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each Quality of Product or Service subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of capability/performance, cost, and/or schedule.

L.2.3. Factor 1 – Technical

L.2.3.1. Subfactor 1 – Staffing/Team Composition for the Roofing IDIQ

Offeror shall submit resumés for key team members that clearly demonstrates qualifications and experience in roofing as specified in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.2.2.1.

L.2.3.2. Subfactor 2 – Schedule for the Seed Project

Offeror shall submit a preliminary schedule for the Seed Project that clearly indicate key dates and conformance with the requirements in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.2.2.2.

L.2.4. Factor 2 – Past Performance

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal containing past performance information in accordance with Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.2.3 and the format contained in Attachment 15 – Past Performance Information, to the solicitation. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform fifteen percent (15%) or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. 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.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror as the offeror can respond to such information.

L.2.5. Factor 3 – Cost or Price

L.2.5.1. Subfactor 1 – Seed Project Price

The offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 4 – Joint Estimate (JE) Form for the Seed project of the solicitation as required by Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.2.4.1.

L.2.5.2. Subfactor 2 – Bid Schedule

The offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 3 – CAFB Roof IDIQ Bid Schedule of the solicitation and submit a narrative of the offeror’s proposed percentage for Melrose Air Force Range (MAFR) Work Factor as required by Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.2.4.2.

L.2.6. Solicitation Documents

L.2.6.1. Solicitation

Insert a signed copy of the solicitation with all fill-in provisions and clauses completed.

L.2.6.2. Amendments

Insert a signed copy of each amendment to the solicitation.

L.2.6.3. Bonds (Proposal Guarantee)

A bid bond (proposal guarantee) in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the price of the Seed Project is required.

L.2.6.4. Financial Resources

This information will be used to determine the offeror’s responsibility. Submit a financial capability letter from the offeror’s financial institution and bonding capacity letter from the bonding company or Certificate of Competency (COC) issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

L.2.7. Incurred Expenses

The Government is not responsible and will not reimburse for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

L.3. Other Information Required

L.3.1. Authorized Offeror Personnel

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

L.3.2. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

L.3.3. Joint Venture Offerors

If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the signed joint venture agreement with proposal. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture. If the joint venture is comprised of 8(a) firms, the Small Business Administration (SBA), prior to award, must approve the Joint venture agreement.

L.3.4. Teaming/Partnering Offerors

If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. 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, dated 27 March 2013. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

M.1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Roofing Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ).

M.1.2. 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 cost 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 this requirement.

M.1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. 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, the offeror may be eliminated from competition.

M.1.4. 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.

M.1.5. Reviews and Visits

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

M.1.6. 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 unacceptable.

M.1.7. Proposal Evaluation Approach

M.1.7.1. Phase 1: Rank by Price

The Government will rank all proposals by Seed Project price. The Government will evaluate Seed Project and Bid Schedule prices but the Seed Project price will be final determining price factor. The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated prices. See Section M.2.4.

M.1.7.2. Phase 2: Evaluate Technical

The lowest-priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The Government may request clarifications for proposals categorized as “Susceptible to Being Made Technically Acceptable” through Evaluation Notice(s). If the lowest-priced proposal is not rated technically “Acceptable”, the next lowest-priced proposal will be evaluated for technically acceptability. The technical evaluation team will continue evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal until a proposal receives a technical rating of “Acceptable.” See Section M.2.2.

M.1.7.3. Phase 3: Assess Performance

Past performance will be evaluated for the lowest-priced, technically acceptable Offeror. If past performance rating is “Acceptable,” then the evaluation is complete. If the past performance of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal is not “Acceptable,” the next lowest priced Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will continue evaluating next lowest priced Offeror’s past performance until an Offeror is rated “Satisfactory” or until all Offerors are evaluated. See Section M.2.3.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1. 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 or subfactors. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with the Technical Factor being the most important, Factor 2 – Past Performance is next in importance, and Factor 3 – Cost or Price is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor and Cost or Price Factors, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1 – Staffing/Team Composition for the Roofing IDIQ Subfactor 2 – Schedule for the Seed Project

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost / Price

Subfactor 1 – Seed Project Price Subfactor 2 – Bid Schedule

M.2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals for feasibility on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements, may receive an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Proposals must receive an ‘Acceptable” rating for all subfactors to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating for Factor 1:

Technical. 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.

Table M.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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.2.2.1. Subfactor 1 – Staffing/Team Composition for the Roofing IDIQ This subfactor will receive a separate rating from the Past Performance Factor in paragraph M.2.4.1. Proposals shall include resumes for all key team members committed to working on this project including:

a. Project Manager

b. Quality Control Officer

c. Construction General Foreman

Each individual listed above must clearly demonstrate experience in at least one of the types of work listed in subfactor, subparagraphs (a) through (h) below, however, the team as a whole, must demonstrate experience in all eight types of work. The projects demonstrated by each individual shall include (1) project name; (2) description of work; (3) location; (4) client name, telephone number, and email address; (5) project cost; and (6) year in which the project was completed. The minimum experience requirements to be demonstrated by the team are:

(a) Lightning protection

(b) Standing Seam Metal Roofing

(c) Shingles

(d) TPO

(e) EPDM

(f) Single-Ply Roofing

(g) Built-Up Roof (BUR)

(h) Roofing asbestos abatement

Offerors may include resumés for individuals other than those listed in this subfactor, however, the experience of other individuals shall not compensate or act as replacement for any individual listed above that does not fulfill the requirements of this subfactor.

M.2.2.2. Subfactor 2 – Schedule for the Seed Project

Offerors must submit a preliminary schedule in a Gantt or Bar Chart graphical format for the Seed project indicating all start and end dates for each significant portions of the Seed project. The schedule shall clearly indicate important progress milestones, interruption to area operations, and other relevant construction phases.

The schedule will be evaluated for feasibility and completeness. The schedule must clearly show the span of time from contract and Seed project award to construction start. The schedule must clearly indicate project completion within the period of performance, however, deviations from the period of performance, whether the schedule is extended or shortened, must be explained in detail to be considered for reasonableness and acceptability.

M.2.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

Proposals that receive an “Acceptable” rating for the Technical Factor and all technical subfactors will then be evaluated for Past Performance.

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

M.2.3.1. Ratings The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table M.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.”

M.2.3.2. 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.

M.2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M.2.3.2.2. 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). Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has relevant past performance (see above for requirements of relevant work) and whether the performance feedback was deemed positive or negative for areas such as the quality of past performance work, the timeliness of completion, the cost history and recency of past projects, professionalism of the offeror’s staff, and initiative displayed solving unexpected problems. The offeror must prove the capacity as to how the offeror actually performed in each of the functions to accomplish related requirements of the Seed Project SOO. To exceed this requirement, the offeror must indicate how the offeror achieved or exceeded timeliness expectations of completion while minimizing cost and receiving positive feedback for recent past projects. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, experience in each of the types of projects listed below must be demonstrated in each Offeror’s proposal to be considered for acceptability. Submit one (1) of each type of project listed below. Each project must have an individual value above $100,000.

a. Lightning protection

b. Standing Seam Metal Roofing

c. Shingles

d. TPO

e. EPDM

f. Single-Ply Roofing

g. Built-Up Roof (BUR)

h. Roofing asbestos abatement

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 subcontractor(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, subcontractor or teaming partner.

The past performance information forms (PIFs) 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 M.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.

M.2.3.3. Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor 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). 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 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 M.4. Past Performance Quality Assessment Quality Assessment Description

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

Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor 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 Quality and/or performance information is not available.

M.2.3.4. 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 M.2). More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent or relevant effort.

M.2.4. Factor 3 – Cost or Price Factor

The Government will evaluate proposed Seed Project and Bid Schedule prices. The Seed project price will be used to rank proposals by price and will be the final determining price factor. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award. 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.

The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate competition for this acquisition, therefore, certified cost or pricing data will not be required. However, the Offeror may have to provide certified cost or pricing data if requested by the Contracting Officer. The Offeror will be required to submit pricing data other than certified cost or pricing data should the Contracting Officer request it.

Base and option years of the bid schedule shall be evaluated. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M.2.4.1. Subfactor 1 – Seed Project Price Offerors shall complete Attachment 4 – Joint Estimate (JE) Form for the Seed Project, using proposed line items from their Bid Schedule. A price technical analysis will be performed on each JE Form to evaluate line items chosen for the Seed Project, unit prices, balanced pricing, and completeness, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, when compared to other offerors and the Seed Project IGE/JE Form.

M.2.4.2. Subfactor 2 – Bid Schedule Offerors shall complete each line for each year of Attachment 3 – Bid Schedule. Each line item (LI) shall include all materials, labor, equipment, facilities, transportation, supervision, and other incidentals;

administrative support; overhead; and profit necessary to accomplish the work identified in that LI. Each LI should also include all submittals and support required to produce those submittals, as specified in Attachment 1 – Specifications Manual, and Attachment 2 – Schedule of Material Submittals IDIQ, associated with that work unless submittal is specifically listed as a separate LI in the bid schedule.

Offerors may propose LIs that are not currently in the bid schedule they deem necessary to the IDIQ. Proposed LIs must be submitted separate from Attachment 7 with a narrative supporting the addition of that LI.

A price and technical analysis will be performed to evaluate line items, unit prices, and unbalanced pricing, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, comparing each offeror’s line items and the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) Bid Schedule for the base and all option years. The Government reserves the right to obtain clarifications, in accordance with FAR 15.306(a), regarding the rationale of proposed prices for individual line items, which may affect the outcome of the Government’s decision.

Do not include Payment and Performance Bonds and New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) in your bid schedule. NMGRT and Payment and Performance Bonds will be added in the designated line items within the JE Form for each task order.

M.2.4.2.1. MAFR Work Factor The MAFR Work Factor line item for each year in the Bid Schedule applies only to task orders for work at Melrose AFR and will be a proposed percentage to compensate the Offeror for costs associated with travel to and from Melrose AFR. Offerors shall justify their proposed percentage by including a narrative for this subfactor of all costs anticipated for travel to and from MAFR.

(End of Summary of Changes)