Amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

(1) To change the Phase I evaluation, Part 2, Techincal Qualif ications, (b) Performance Surveys of sections L and M.

(2) To extend the solicitation date. All other terms/conditions/requirements have stayed the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Apr-2016

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 FA4855-16-R-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Feb-2016

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 X is extended, 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-Apr-2016

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:

FA4855-16-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Mar-2016 02:00 PM to 13-Apr-2016 02:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of qualifications and 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 Two Phases; a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Phase One and Request for Proposal (RFP) for Phase Two. All offerors qualifications will be evaluated in Phase One and no fewer than three (3) and no more than five (5) offeror’s will be selected to provide proposals in Phase Two. A proposal for Phase Two should not be provided unless the offeror has been notified and acknowledges notification. Failure to acknowledge the notification within the required time may result in losing an opportunity to provide a proposal for the award.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers in Phase Two, 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. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. THE PHASE-ONE EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTOR

a. PART I – TECHNICAL APPROACH - Limited to no more than 50 pages. Submit original plus one (1) copy.

Factor 1: Technical approach (but not detailed design or technical information);

Drawings: Provide a list of drawings that would be provided such as demo, civil, structural etc.

Specifications: Provide a list of specs to be used from Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) website (http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?c=3)

Statement of Work (SOW): Provide concept SOW using format recommended in MIL-HDBK- 245D dated 3 April 1996 Department of Defense Handbook For Preparation of Statement of Objectives.

Schedule: Provide schedule that shows logical sequence of events.

Schedule of Material Submittals: Provide construction SOMS with list of submittals from one section of the specifications proposed.

b. PART II – TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS - Limited to no more than 40 pages. Submit original plus one (1) copy.

Factor 2: Technical qualifications

SubFactor 1: Specialized experience and technical competence;

Building and replacing high/medium power distribution systems to undergroun systems.

The A&E & Construction team member shall provide their qualifications.

SubFactor 2: Capability to perform;

Offeror should list number of employees by trade currently with company, and equipment owned by the company to be utilized for the contract. Offeror should provide the following information

Current job commitments, dollar values, anticipated completion dates, and points of contact with telephone number Letter from your bank regarding financial capability or the ability to obtain financial resources.

The percentage of work this contract will represent for your business.

SubFactor 3: Past performance of the offeror’s team (including the architect-engineer and any construction subcontractors performing more than 10% of the effort)

Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original only.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). 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.

(b) Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP (Attachment 10). The government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance.

Provide a list of no more than three (3) performance surveys, of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include designing, building and replacing high/medium overhead power distribution systems to underground systems.The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

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

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

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

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

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

2. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

3. Format for Qualifications Parts I and II 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”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

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

(e) Please include contact information with each phase of the proposal. (email, phone number, POC…etc)

2. PHASE TWO - EVALUATION FACTOR AND SUBFACTORS

1. FACTOR- LPTA (Lowest Price Technically Acceptable) - Submit original and one

(1) copy

(a) SUB-FACTOR 1-PRICE- The lowest price will be evaluated on technical acceptability based on the factors below. If they do not meet the technical requiremenst, they will be be deemed unacceptable and the next lowest price will be evaluated.

(i) Complete blocks 14, thru 20, of the RFP Section A, SF1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(ii) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or Sub CLIN (SCLIN). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

(iii) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I 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.

( b) SUB-FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than __30__ pages excluding design drawings. Submit original plus one (1) copy.

The following items below will be evaluated for technical acceptability:

1. Compliance with Statement of Work (SOW): Submit 30% Design Review Submittal; Statement of Objectives, Drawings, Specifications and Design Analysis.

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

3. Requirements of the RFP (CLINs & SOO) and government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOO.

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

5. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

6. Format for proposal Parts I and II 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”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

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

(e) Please include contact information with each phase of the proposal. (email, phone number, POC…etc)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS OF AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

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 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Replace Primary & Secondary Electrical Distribution Phase 1.

c. 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.

d. 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Phase One Evaluation Factors

Factor Identification. The Phase I evaluation will select no less than three (3) and no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors from the qualifications received in response to the Replace Primary & Secondary Electrical Distribution Phase 1 Request for Qualifications using the following factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Measure of merit: Drawings: List of drawings must be complete to include detailed drawings to be provided.

Specifications: List of specifications must be complete covering every aspect of the project.

Statement of Objectives (SOO): Must include all elements of a SOW in format indicated in section L.

Schedule: Must include all elements of the project showing the critical path and any phasing required by the SOO.

Schedule of Material Submittals: Must show submittals in proper format based on Specs section and paragraph.

Factor 2 – Technical Qualifications

Sub-factor 1 - Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

Measure of merit: A&E’s experience will be evaluated based on the requirements of FAR 52.236-

25. Qualifications for all team members should show the persons to be utilized for this effort and their design build experience in both new construction and FSRM (Facilities, Sustainment, Repair, and Maintenance), and their education or experience qualifying them to design and build projects within the Electrical engineering discipline. .

Sub-factor 2 - Capability to Perform

Measure of merit: Offeror must meet the standards of responsibility as outlined in FAR Part 9.104-3. Contractors who are determined by the contractor officer not to be responsible but receive a certificate of competency from the SBA in response to the contracting officers determination will be considered acceptable under this sub-factor.

Sub-factor 3 - Past Performance of Offerors Team

Measure of merit: 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.

(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.

(i) 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 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) 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 the Contractor with proven familiarity with designing, building and replacing high/medium overhead power distribution systems to underground systems. 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

TABLE 1- 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.”

performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 2 – 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.

(iii) 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. 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 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED 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(N)/WHITE 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). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

a. Phase Two Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for lowest price. The lowest price proposal will be evaluated for techincal acceptability. If they are accepted, no further action is required. If they are deemed unacceptable, the next lowest price will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Factor 1: LPTA

Subfactor 1: Price Subfactor 2: Techinical Acceptability

1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor: Evaluation Factors are approximately equal to cost or price.

a. Price Factor Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the available funds for the base bid and any separately priced prioritized line items, to include design and New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT), that funds are available for.

b. Evaluation approach

Evaluation of offers will be conducted as follows:

(1) All offers will be evaluated for compliance with instructions in section L for responsiveness.

(2) Responsive offers will be ranked according to price.

(3) The lowest price offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability based on the subfactors below:

c. Technical Evaluation Approach The Government’s technical evaluation team 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 factors:

Sub Factor 1: Compliance with Statement of Objectives Description: Proposal should show how each of the elements of the SOO has been incorporated

(a) Measure of merit: The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure it includes all elements and components required by the 30% Design Review Submittal based on the statement of objectives.

(b) This shall demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements, limitations and present a practical and appropriate design solution necessary to show incorporation of elements of the SOO.

(c) A design narrative and code analysis by all disciplines (civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, communications, fire detection/protection, etc.)

TABLE 4 - 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.

(d) A Site Plan (or plans) depicting project location, site boundaries and access, building footprints and orientation, stand-off distances, utility types, sizes and locations, and schematic grading and drainage strategies.

(e) Include a parking plan with quantities and basic dimensions, and depicting site access.

(f) A list of proposed specification sections for the project based on the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) format.

(g) A summary of design issues and informational requirements to be resolved including surveys, geotechnical analyses and investigative reports.

(f) A summary of waivers and authorizations required.

(h) Any omissions of the above factors without an explanation will result in an unacceptable rating.

(End of Summary of Changes)