amendment II.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L-717

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTUCTIONS

(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 – Mission Capability, 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 – MISSION CAPABILITY – Offeror shall submit this information on a Compact Disk (CD) AND provide one (1) hard copy.

a. Qualified Personnel. The offeror shall detail its management organization, to include a description of functions, authorities and credentials of key management personnel showing extent of previous experience applicable to support this contract, including current and previous paving construction/repair/maintenance work performed. The offeror shall provide resumes for all key management personnel, to include top supervisory personnel and quality control personnel, detailing their experience, training, certifications and extent of supervision. The offeror shall provide documentation indicating that its proposed construction superintendent has a minimum of five (5) year’s experience in the paving construction/repair/maintenance field.

(2) PART II – PRICE PROPOSAL – Offeror shall submit the price proposal on a (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 proposed unit and extended prices for each contract line item to include option years 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 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 five (5) years, using Attachment #14, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire. Relevant contracts include contracts for work related to 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 #15 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.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. Questionnaires. The offeror shall send out the Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment #14) 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 April 2009 10:00 am. Address to send past performance questionnaires:

56th Contracting Squadron/LGCB

ATTN: Ms Lissette Fernandez

14100 W Eagle Street

Luke Air Force Base, AZ 85309-1217

Or via email to: lissette.fernandez@luke.af.mil AND carol.cherapan@luke.af.mil

h. 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.

(f)Offerors are encouraged to submit all questions and requests for clarifications no less than ten (10) days prior to RFP closing date. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification made less than ten (10) days prior to RFP closing shall be at the sole discretion of the contracting officer.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-718

BASIS FOR AWARD (JUL 1993)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(a) This competitive best value source selection will utilize Performance Price Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined not technically acceptable. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Mission Capability-- Qualified Personnel

(2) Price

(3) Past Performance

For the purpose of conducting the performance price tradeoff, past performance is approximately equal in importance to price.

(b) The Government intends to award one contract in response to this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts for reduced quantities or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

(c) Factor 1, Mission Capability, will be evaluated on a technically acceptable/not technically acceptable basis. A determination of “not technically acceptable” for Mission Capability elimininates the offeror’s proposal from further consideration for award.

Mission Capability -- Qualified Personnel The offeror shall detail its management organization, to include a description of functions, authorities and credentials of key management personnel showing extent of previous experience applicable to support this contract, including current and previous paving construction/repair/maintenance work performed. The offeror shall provide resumes for all key management personnel, to include top supervisory personnel and quality control personnel, detailing their experience, training, certifications and extent of supervision. The offeror shall provide documentation indicating that its proposed construction superintendent has a minimum of five (5) year’s experience in paving construction/repair/maintenance.

To be determined technically acceptable, the offeror’s management organization must demonstrate sufficient qualified personnel to satisfactorily execute contract requirements contained in the SOW.

(d) Factor 2, Price. Total evaluated price shall be calculated as follows. The evaluation team will multiply the quantities identified in Section B and Section J, Price Schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to achieve an extended line item price. The extended line item prices for all CLINs, to include all option CLINs, shall be summed to equal the total evaluated price. Price reasonableness will be determined based on prices submitted in response to this solicitation, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate. 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. Unrealistically low proposed cost/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

(e) Factor 3 Past Performance

The evaluation team shall consider Past Performance Questionnaire responses and all other information available to the contracting officer when evaluating past performance. 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 solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in AFFARS Mandatory Procedure 5315.3, Table 3. 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 not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Recency:

Past performance information will be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the effort must have occurred within the past five years prior to the issue date of this solicitation. More recent effort will be given greater weight than less recent efforts. Performance not qualifying as recent will not be evaluated further.

Relevancy:

All past performance information determined to be “Recent” will be evaluated for relevancy. Relevant performance involves pavement construction/repair/maintenance accomplished within the past five years. Recent past performance will be rated as Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant (see table 1 below). More relevant past performance will be given greater weight than less relevant past performance. Performance determined Not Relevant will not be further evaluated or considered. In addition to Table 1, the following Relevancy definitions apply:

Very Relevant: performance carries greater weight than relevant or somewhat relevant past performance. To qualify as Very Relevant, the effort must involve paving construction/repair/maintenance in accordance with the attached Specification Project NO. Nuex 08-0501document and include all three of the following elements: (1) accomplished on a DoD installation; (2) accomplished on both asphalt and concrete projects; and (3) individual effort valued at greater than $30K.

Relevant: performance carries greater weight than somewhat Relevant past performance. To qualify as Relevant, the effort must involve paving construction/repair/maintenance in accordance with the attached Specification Project NO. Nuex 08-0501document and include two of the three following elements: (1) accomplished on a DoD installation; (2) accomplished on both asphalt and concrete projects; or (3) individual effort valued at greater than $30K.

Somewhat Relevant: To qualify as Somewhat Relevant, the effort must involve paving construction/ repair/ maintenance in accordance with the attached Specification Project NO. Nuex 08-0501document and include one of the three following elements: (1) accomplished on a DoD installation; (2) accomplished on both asphalt and concrete projects; or (3) individual effort valued at greater than $30K.

Not Relevant: performance that fails to meet the relevancy definitions described above.

Table 1. Relevancy of Performance

Quality of Performance Rating:

Performance efforts determined to be recent and that meet the Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant criteria will be evaluated for quality of performance. Each effort will be evaluated and be assigned one of the following performance ratings:

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Neutral

Performance Confidence Assessment:

Based on the evaluation of past and present performance, the Government will assign one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings for each offeror:

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(f) Evaluation Methodology. Initially the evaluation team will determine if the offeror’s submission in response to the Mission Capability Factor is technically acceptable or not technically acceptable. Only those offers determined technically acceptable shall be considered for contract award. All technically acceptable offers shall be rank ordered from lowest price to highest price. The evaluation team will evaluate the past performance of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. If that offeror’s past performance is rated “Substantial Confidence”, the evaluation is over and the award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror with Substantial Confidence represents the best value to the Government. If the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror’s past performance is rated other than “Substantial Confidence”, the evaluation team evaluates the next lowest-priced offeror’s past performance. The evaluation team will continue to evaluate the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance until an offeror’s past performance is rated “Substantial Confidence”. At this point, an integrated assessment will be conducted amongst all offerors whose past performance has been evaluated. If none of the technically acceptable offerors’ past performance is rated “Substantial Confidence”, an integrated assessment of all technically acceptable offerors shall be conducted. When conducting the performance price tradeoff, past performance is approximately equal in importance to price.

(g) The Government intends to award a Contract without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(h) If applicable under FAR 19.702, the apparently successful offeror must submit a subcontracting plan to the contracting officer. The contracting officer must approve the subcontracting plan prior to contract award.

(End of Summary of Changes)