Amendment 1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been added by full text:

252.219-7010 ALTERNATE A (JUN 1998)

(a) Offers are solicited only from small business concerns expressly certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA's 8(a) Program and which meet the following criteria at the time of submission of offer--

(1) The Offeror is in conformance with the 8(a) limitation set forth in its approved business plan; and

(2) The Offeror is in conformance with the Business Activity Targets set forth in its approved business plan or any remedial action directed by the SBA.

(b) By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents that it meets all of the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this clause.

(c) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made directly by the Contracting Officer to the successful 8(a) offeror selected through the evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation.

(d)(1) Agreement. A small business concern submitting an offer in its own name agrees to furnish, in performing the contract, only end items manufactured or produced by small business concerns in the United States. The term "United States" includes its territories and possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the trust territory of the Pacific Islands, and the District of Columbia. If this procurement is processed under simplified acquisition procedures and the total amount of this contract does not exceed $25,000, a small business concern may furnish the product of any domestic firm. This subparagraph does not apply in connection with construction or service contracts.

(2) The [insert name of SBA's contractor] will notify the [insert name of contracting agency] . Contracting Officer in writing immediately upon entering an agreement (either oral or written) to transfer all or part of its stock or other ownership interest to any other party.

(End of clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(a) To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Management Plan, Part II - Price Proposal and Part III – Past Performance.

(b) The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

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

1. Requirements of the RFP (Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINS) & Specifications, and government standards and regulations pertaining to the Specifications).

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

3. 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.

4. Format for proposal Parts I and III shall be as follows:

i. 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”. Printed on front/back if possible.

ii. Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

iii. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

(d) Specific Instructions:

(1) PART I – MANAGEMENT PLAN – Offeror shall submit the proposed management plan on a CD AND provide one (1) hard copy.

a. The offeror is required to provide a management plan addressing the offeror’s ability to accomplish the requirements of this contract, to include the offerors Ability to obtain resources and the contractor’s management organization. The Management plan will be evaluated on the ability of the offeror to accomplish the required in-house work performance and the functions, authorities and credentials of key management personnel. Manpower resources and utilization should show distinct evidence of quality of executive and top supervisory personnel as verified by experience, education, background, and proven ability in a managerial capacity.

b. The offeror shall include in the plan a proposal for meeting the required in-house performance percentage for work on this contract which has been set at 25%; Provide resumes of each key management personnel showing extent of previous experience applicable to support this contract, including current and previous Airfield work performed and documentation that the construction superintendent has a minimum of two to three (2-3) year’s experience in Airfield Construction and Repairs; and Provide a brief resume of each proposed subcontractors including construction experience, and type of work they will perform.

(2) PART II – PRICE PROPOSAL – Offeror shall submit the price schedule on a Compact Disk (CD) AND provide one (1) hard copy.

a. The offeror is required to complete blocks 14,15,16,17, 19, 20A, 20B, and 20C of the RFP, Section A, Standard Form 1442. By completion of the SF 1442 in this manner, the offeror accedes to the contracts terms and conditions as written in the RFP sections A through K.

b. The offeror shall insert its lump sum price in Section B and its proposed unit and extended prices in the Attached Price Schedule as referenced in Section J; for each item number in the spaces provided.

c. 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.

d. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX. There are certain Arizona taxes that are applicable to any contract resulting from this solicitation. The offeror may contact the State of Arizona, Revenue Department, Sales Tax Audit Section, 1160 W. Monroe, Phoenix, AZ 85007, to determine the taxes and the base upon which such taxes must be paid. Such taxes, if any, shall be considered as being included in the offeror’s price as stated in the proposal schedule. The taxes are applicable to out-of-state as well as in-state firms.

(3) PART III – Past Performance Information - Limited to no more than 5 pages per contract listed. Only references for contracts that are the same or similar in size, scope, cost and complexity to subject solicitation are desired. Submit original plus three (3) copies. IT IS THE GOVERNMENTS DESIRE TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO SOLICITATION CLOSING DATE.

a. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed work relating to airfield paving construction/repair/maintenance. 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. Past Performance Surveys: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of at least three (3), but no more than five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include contracts for work related to airfield paving construction/repair/maintenance. 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 referenced:

(A) Company/Division name

(B) Point of Contact

(C) Phone Number

(D) Description of Work

(E) Contract Type

(F) Contract Number

(G) Project Award Date, Scheduled Completion Date, Current/Final Completion Date

(H) Project Award Amount, Current Final Project Amount

(I) Contractor being evaluated performed as: Prime Contractor Subcontractor Supplier on contract/order

(J) Authorization Granted to Provide Information in Section B of Questionnaire

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

c. The offeror shall fully complete Past Performance Information Form (see Attachment #7 to this solicitation). If another evaluation form has been used by a government office, the offeror may submit that existing form/survey; however it shall contain the same information requested by this solicitation.

d. Should offerors wish to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and their corrective action in accordance with FAR 15.305(2), please submit such information with proposals as well.

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

e. 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.

1. Questionnaires. The offeror shall send out the Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 4 ) to each of the offeror’s reference points of contacts (POC). The responsibility to send out the Past Performance questionnaires rests solely with the offeror-i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Once the Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Questionnaires shall be sent directly back to the Government from their references by the offeror due date of 20 Aug 07. Address to send past performance questionnaires:

56 CONS/LGCB

ATTN: TSgt Alvina Andrews

14100 W Eagle Street

Luke Air Force Base, AZ 85309-1217

Or via email to: alvina.andrews@luke.af.mil AND mary.peetz@luke.af.mil

2. Offerors are encouraged to have the questionnaires submitted early to the Contracting Office. Any past performance questionnaires sent directly from a proposing offeror will not be accepted or evaluated. For the purpose of expediency of evaluation, please instruct references to respond to the Past Performance survey as soon as possible. The questionnaire need not be sent to customers on projects where past performance records exist in the government’s Construction Contractor Assessment Systems (CCASS). The contractors are encouraged to follow-up with respondents for completed questionnaires, but are not required to.

(e) Offerors are cautioned that Luke AFB has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to report to the main entrance to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Some delay should be anticipated if hand-carrying proposals. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the Contracting Office prior to the set closing time. It is recommended that proposals be mailed rather than hand carried due to extensive and rapidly changing base security measures. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the provision “Late Submissions, Modifications and Withdrawals of Proposals”. Proposals will not be considered “received” until physically delivered to the 56th Contracting Squadron, 14100 W. Eagle Street, Luke AFB, AZ 85309-1217.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

L-718

BASIS FOR AWARD (JUL 1993)

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

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

Management Plan Criteria:

(1) The Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness and sufficiency in addressing the offeror’s ability to accomplish the requirements of this contract, to include the offerors Ability to obtain resources and the contractor’s management organization. Except to the extent that a prospective contractor has sufficient resources or proposes to perform portions of the contract by subcontracting, the offeror shall submit acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s ability to obtain required resources (see FAR 9.104-1(a), (e), and (f)). Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement, that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel.

(2) Additional information provided in the Management Plan (outside of the afore mentioned evaluation criteria) will be viewed as information only and will not be used in the technical acceptability evaluation.

(3) If any required Management Plan information is not provided by the offeror or the offeror fails to substantiate the ability to accomplish the requirements of this contract or the required in-house work the proposal will be deemed technically unacceptable.

(B) Price Evaluation. Next, the Government shall rank all technically acceptable and reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable offers by price, including any option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B and Section J, Attachment 1 by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each.

Price Proposal Criteria:

(1) SF 1442 will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy. Proposals with incomplete SF 1442 will be deemed technically unacceptable.

(2) Each offeror's price schedule proposal, and total base and option period proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness.

(3) Reasonableness will be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate, if applicable.

(4) Realism will be based on an evaluation of prices to determine if they are compatible with the scope of effort, are not unbalanced, and are neither excessive nor insufficient for the effort to be accomplished.

(C) Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

(D) Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving airfield paving construction/ repair/maintenance that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Unknown Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in AFFARS MP5315.3, see Table 2 below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

(1) Recency – Past performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Among those performance efforts qualifying as recent more weight will be given to those efforts occurring later in the period than those occurring earlier in the period. More recent efforts will be given greater weight than less recent efforts. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration.

(2) Relevancy – The Government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. Relevant performance involves airfield paving and will be categorized as Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant, see Table 1 below. More relevant performance will be given more weight than less relevant performance. Performance that is not relevant will not be further evaluated or considered. In addition to Table 1, the following considerations apply to the relevancy evaluation:

(a) Very Relevant - performance carries more weight than relevant or somewhat relevant. To qualify as very relevant, the past/present performance effort must involve airfield paving at a military installation with a dollar amount equal to or greater than $1M. Moreover, the scope of the effort must include at least four (4) of the following elements: (1) runway paving, (2) taxiway paving, (3) apron paving, (4) airfield paint markings and airfield sweeping, (5) airfield maintenance / repair.

(b) Relevant – Relevant performance fails to meet all requirements for very relevant. To qualify as relevant, the past/present performance effort must involve airfield paving at a military installation or major commercial airport (ex. Phoenix International) with a dollar amount equal to or greater than $500K. Moreover, the scope of the effort must include at least three (3) of the following elements: (1) runway paving, (2) taxiway paving, (3) apron paving, (4) airfield paint markings and airfield sweeping, (5) airfield maintenance / repair.

(c) Somewhat Relevant – Somewhat Relevant performance fails to meet requirements for very relevant or relevant. To qualify as somewhat relevant, the past/present performance effort must involve airfield paving at a military installation, a major commercial airport (ex. Phoenix International), or a minor airfield (ex. Glendale Municipal Airport) with a dollar amount equal to or greater than $100K. Moreover, the scope of the effort must include at least two (2) of the following elements: (1) runway paving, (2) taxiway paving, (3) apron paving, (4) airfield paint markings and airfield sweeping, (5) airfield maintenance / repair.

(d)Not Relevant – Not relevant performance is all performance that fails to meet one of the three relevancy categories above.

Table 1. Relevancy of Performance

(3) Quality of Performance Rating - Performance efforts that qualify as recent and meet one of the three relevancy criteria (very relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant) will be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance ratings:

Neutral

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

(4) Performance Confidence Assessment - Based on the evaluation of past and present performance the government will develop one of the following performance confidence assessments for all offeror’s whose past performance was evaluated.

Table 2. Confidence Ratings

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

(F) If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a High Confidence performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

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

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

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

(End of Summary of Changes)