Solicitation_Amendment.pdf

LKTC 12-1068

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 T IT LE OF SIGNER (T ype or print)

30-105-04EXCEPT ION T O SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. Is to change the Women Ow ned Small Business (WOSB) set-aside to a Small Business set-aside. Per the Small Business Administration, the NAICS for this solicitation (236220) is not an authorized NAICS to set-aside this procurement for WOSBs.

2. To add DFARS Provision 252.236-700, Additive and Deductive Items.

3. To add CLIN 0003, option to add 600 additional sq f t to increase the total sq f t of CLINs 0001 & 0002 from 2,400 sq f t to 3,000 sq f t.

4. To extend the proposal due date from 09 Sep 2013 to 16 Sep 2013 12:00pm PST.

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged

6. Point of Contact: TSgt Paul Christiason / (702) 652-9090

1. CONTRACT ID CODE P AGE OF P AGES

J 1 4

16A. NAME AND T IT LE OF CONT RACT ING OFFICER (T ype or print)

16C. DAT E SIGNED

BY

16B. UNIT ED ST AT ES OF AMERICA15C. DAT E SIGNED15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contract ing Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X FA4861-13-R-A012

X 9B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 11)

10-Jul-2013

10B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT AT ION NO.

11. T HIS IT EM ONLY APPLIES T O AMENDMENT S OF SOLICIT AT IONS

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 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 P LACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIP T OF OFFERS P RIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED 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. ACCOUNT ING AND APPROPRIAT ION DAT A (If required)

13. T HIS IT EM APPLIES ONLY T O MODIFICAT IONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONT RACT /ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN IT EM 14.

A. T HIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT T O: (Specify authority) T HE CHANGES SET FORT H IN IT EM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN IT EM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED T O REFLECT T HE ADMINIST RAT IVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriat ion date, etc.) SET FORT H IN IT EM 14, PURSUANT T O T HE AUT HORIT Y OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INT O PURSUANT T O AUT HORIT Y OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modificat ion and authority)

E. IMPORT ANT : Contractor is not , is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPT ION OF AMENDMENT /MODIFICAT ION (Organized by UCF sect ion headings, including solicitat ion/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONT RACT /ORDER NO.

U0001

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. P ROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Aug-2013

CODE

99 CONS/LGCA

5865 SWAAB BLVD, BLDG 588

NELLIS AFB NV 89191-7063

FA4861 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/P URCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILIT Y CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4861-13-R-A012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 09-Sep-2013 12:00 AM to 16-Sep-2013 12:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0003 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0003 1 Lot OPTION LKTC 12-1068, Incorporate Add'l 600 sqft

FFP

Design and Construct Additional 600 sqft for 799 ABS Communications Flight

Storage Facility.

Furnish all plant, labor, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to perform all work to Design and Construct and additional 600 sqft for Project: LKTC 12-

1068 Construct 799 ABS Communications Flight Storage Facility at Creech AFB, Nevada, as ordered by the Contracting Officer. All work is to be performed in strict accordance with the specifications, terms, and condition specified herein.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Technical Office was added for CLIN 0001:

99 CES/CEPM - F3GHFA

ERIKA L. PATALON

6020 BEALE AVE, BLDG 812

NELLIS AFB NV 89191-7260

The following Technical Office was added for CLIN 0002:

ERIKA L. PATALON

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0003:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

Destination Government Destination Government

The following Technical Office was added for CLIN 0003:

ERIKA L. PATALON

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

120 dys. ADC 1 N/A

To:

120 dys. ADC 1 99 CES/CEPM - F3GHFA

ERIKA L. PATALON

6020 BEALE AVE, BLDG 812

NELLIS AFB NV 89191-7260

702-652-7917

F3GHFA

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

180 dys. ADC 1 N/A

To:

180 dys. ADC 1 99 CES/CEPM - F3GHFA

6020 BEALE AVE, BLDG 812

NELLIS AFB NV 89191-7260

702-652-7917

The following Delivery Schedule item has been added to CLIN 0003:

120 dys. ADC 1 99 CES/CEPM - F3GHFA

6020 BEALE AVE, BLDG 812

NELLIS AFB NV 89191-7260

702-652-7917

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been added by reference:

252.236-7007 Additive or Deductive Items DEC 1991

M-101

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible offeror who provides the lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

1. To determine “Lowest Price”, proposals will be assessed at the Total Aggregate Price.

2. Offerors must provide pricing for all CLINs, 0001, 0002, and 0003, along with a Total Aggregate Price which will be the basis for evaluation and award.

3. Based on available funding and at the discretion of the Government, award will be made for Base CLINs

0001 and 0002, or a combination of Base CLINs 0001, 0002, and Additive CLIN 0003.

4. Offerors are cautioned that the government intends to elect to award the contract without discussions. To make a determination, the Government shall evaluate each offer on the following criteria:

A. EVALUATION PROCESS

Step 1: All proposals will be ranked; beginning with lowest total aggregate price.

Step 2: Evaluate the three (3) lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3: Evaluate past performance of the three (3) lowest priced offerors for acceptability.

Step 4: Evaluate price for reasonableness and balance of proposed costs.

M-102

EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

A. (a) Evaluation Process

Step 1: All proposals will be ranked; beginning with lowest total price.

Step 2: Evaluate the three (3) lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3: Evaluate past performance of the three (3) lowest priced offerors for acceptability.

Step 4: Evaluate price for reasonableness and balance of proposed basic and option line items and sub line items.

If one of the three (3) lowest priced proposals is determined technically acceptable, based on all factors and subfactors, no further evaluations will be conducted. However, if none of the three (3) lowest priced proposals are determined technically acceptable, evaluations will continue with the next lowest priced proposal and will continue until the lowest priced technically acceptable is determined, or until all proposals have been evaluated. If no offeror is found to be technically acceptable per evaluation criteria, the solicitation will be cancelled and re-solicited as other than a woman owned small business.

B. 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 non-price factors.

1. Factor # 1: Technical

a. Subfactor: Capability to satisfactorily complete future projects

i. Capability to bond contract

ii. Commitment to provide an adequate Quality Control Program

iii. Capability to obtain supplies/materials for project(s)

iv. Capability to finance project(s)

v. 10 % Design (Needed only for CLIN 0001 & 0002)

2. Factor # 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

3. Factor # 3: PRICE

C. TECHNICAL FACTOR

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, ineligible for award. 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 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.

1. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

a. Subfactor # 1: Capability to satisfactorily complete future projects

This factor will review all proposals to determine the offeror’s ability to satisfactorily accomplish the following requirements.

i. Capability to bond the contract:

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the offeror demonstrates its capability (e.g., provides a letter from its bonding company reflecting its commitment to bond the firm up to the maximum contract amount) to provide payment and performance bonds within 10 calendar days after award of the contract and each subsequent project.

ii. Commitment to provide an adequate Quality Control Program

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the offeror descriptively outlines (in bulleted format) its approach to Quality Control and commits to providing the adequate quality control program as required by FAR

52.246-12, Inspection of Construction.

iii. Capability to obtain material for project(s)

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the offeror identifies at least two (2) of the offeror’s major suppliers who can provide materials for projects issued and with whom it has a satisfactory relationship.

iv. Capability to finance project(s)

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the offeror demonstrates its capability to finance projects that may be issued and provides data on the firm’s financial capability. This may include a letter of credit from a financial institution indicating the firm’s capability to finance projects or it may include current, audited financial statements (e.g., balance sheet, profit and loss statement and/or income statement).

v. 10% Design

See Paragraph 1.4.1.10.2 In the Statement of Work(No additional design needed for CLIN 0003)

D. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

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. Past Performance 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 by contacting Program Managers, Contracting Officers 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 be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), major and critical subcontractor(s), similar scope, magnitude and complexity to the solicitation requirements. 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 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

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 contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant Performance Information 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 unacceptable 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment Description

ACCEPTABLE

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

UNACCEPTABLE

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.

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 and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent or relevant effort.

E. PRICE FACTOR

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

1. The signed proposal (SF 1442) will be reviewed to determine the following:

a. The proposal was signed by an authorized representative of the company,

b. all solicitation amendments have been acknowledged,

c. the appropriate blocks have been fill-in and

d. completed line item max amounts and Bid Schedule amounts with unit, extended, total amounts

2. The Government will evaluate offers, for award purposes, by multiplying the offerors Bid Schedule proposed unit price by the estimated quantities to establish an extended price for each sub line item

(0001AA, 0001AB, 1001AA, 1001AB, etc…). The extended sub line item amounts will be added together to identify a total contract line item (0001, 1001, 2001, etc...) amount for each period. Each contract line item amount will then be added together to establish a total contract value. Ensure dollar amounts are only carried out the second decimal point. Bid Schedule quantities are used for evaluation purposes only and do not reflect the exact quantities to be ordered for each sub line item. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3. Reasonableness: Price reasonableness will be evaluated on the basis of whether the pricing information reflects a clear understanding of the costs and risks associated with the contract.

Ordinarily this will include a comparison of the proposed price with the Government estimate and other proposed prices. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Additionally, all separately priced line items or sub line items will also be analyzed for unbalanced pricing. 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.

4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices 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 for the basic contract and or each option period.

5. Representations and Certifications will be reviewed to determine if all Representations and

Certifications in Section “K” have been completed and returned and Online Representations and

Certifications Application (ORCA) have been satisfactorily completed.

(End of Provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)