Amendment 2.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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. 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)