Solicitation Amendment FA489726R00020001 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to correct and change the solicitation in response to RFIs submitted. Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

Items corrected:

- POC contact information

- Construction start no earlier than date, included

- Site visit details

Items changed:

- Evaluation criteria

- Idaho Contractor Registration requirement removed

All other terms and conditions to remain the same.

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Header Miscellaneous Text (Modified):

Part I General Information

Description: NAF Sagebrush Inn Fire Alarm

Project Scope: The Government is seeking a qualified, experienced construction company to replace the existing fire alarm system the Sagebrush inn at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.

Project Duration: 407 calendar days after NTP

Magnitude of Construction: Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

Set-Aside Type: None

NAICS: 236220

Small Business Size Standard: $45M

Site Visit Date: November 3rd, 2025, at 2:00 PM local(Mountain)

Questions Due to Points of Contact: November 17th, 2025 at 3:00PM local (Mountain)

Primary Point of Contact: Cameron A. Smith, SSgt, USAF Contracting Officer, 366th Contracting Squadron Mountain Home AFB, Idaho cameron.smith.16@us.af.mil

Secondary Point of Contact: Konrad C. Zirkle, DAF Contracting Officer, 366th Contracting Squadron Mountain Home AFB, Idaho Konrad.Zirkle.1@us.af.mil

Part II Evaluation Criteria

Award will be made to the responsible contractor whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal and is most advantageous to the Government considering price and the evaluation criteria listed in section M.

Part III Proposal Submission

Complete Proposals shall include:

(1) Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442

1a.Blocks 14 through 20c completed.

1b. All acknowledged amendments in block 19 must have all SF 30s signed and included with the offer.

(2) Section B Pricing - Line item 0001 must be priced in addition to SF1442 block 17. The price must be represented in U.S. dollar figure and written. Example:

$100,000.00/One Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents.

(3) Applicable provisions or clauses (section I) requiring fill-in information required to be submitted with the offer.

(4) Submission of all requisite documents listed in the evaluation criteria (section M) and SOW.

FA489726R00020001

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Submit one (1) electronic copy of your submission via e-mail to both government POCs before the time and date specified in Block 13 of this SF 1442.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Header Miscellaneous Text (Modified):

NAF Fire Alarm Design-Build

Evaluation Criteria

FA4897-25-R0008

EVALUATION

1.Self-Evaluation

2. Evaluation Criteria

Each firm's proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria below, which are based on the procedures found in FAR subpart36.6.

The evaluation criteria and points of each criterion is as follows:

a) Past Performance - 100 Points

b) Delivery Timeline - 10 Points

c) Specialized/Technical Competence - Pass/Fail

3. Award Selection

Total possible points - 110

1.Self-Evaluation

This evaluation will be self-graded by each offeror. Each evaluation must adequately show reasoning for the apparent scores, including CPARS reports, and any documentation for relevancy. Additional documentation related to the scored components of the evaluation will be accepted, but may not be evaluated if it is not deemed relevant. This documentation will not grant any offeror a competitive advantage or grant any additional points to the evaluation criteria.

2.Selection Criteria Descriptions

The evaluation criteria descriptions and the points described in 2.a are provided below:

[a.] (Maximum 100 points) Past performance on relevant contracts with government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The Government will evaluate the past performance of the firm on its three most recent and relevant DoD or other contracts using Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) categories: Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory (see provided table below for definitions). Each company may submit 3 projects for review. The government reserves the right to review additional CPARS to ensure recent and relevant contracts with poor ratings were not excluded in an attempt to buffer a companies score more than 1 full point. If this is found to be the case, the government may choose to disqualify that company. Each category will be rated with one of the following: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory (see provided table below for definitions and scores). Relevancy will also be rated on the same point scale as noted below.

Based on the ratings that have been assigned to each category, scores will be averaged, providing an average score between 0and 4. Points will then be assigned based on this average score. Any criteria not scored will not be included in the factoring a score.

Category: Definition:

Quality

Quality reflects the Contractor's management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. Questions which should be addressed are as follows: Has a quality product been provided? For example:

- Ability to maintain quality control

- Ability to address and review comments

- Independent Technical Review

- Whether plans are coordinated with specifications

- Coordination between disciplines

- Compliance with design criteria

Schedule The timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

Cost Control

The Contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract or order cost.

For contracts or orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the Contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources, in each work effort should be assessed.

Management

The integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract or order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

Regulatory Compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Considering aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental (example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract terms and conditions.

Relevancy Firms have completed projects of similar magnitude with related aspects to this RFP's SOW.

Same-type projects with similar magnitude or similar projects are considered relevant.

Rating: Definition: Point Value:

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Relevancy: Point Value:

Design-Build Fire Alarm with similar magnitude 4

Design-Build Construction of Similar Magnitude 3

Fire Alarm Construction only of Similar Magnitude 2

Construction of Similar Magnitude 1

Non relevant or no CPARS 0

Example Calculation

Project #1 Project #2 Project #3

Quality Exceptional (4) Exceptional (4) Satisfactory (2)

Schedule Very Good (3) Very Good (3) Marginal (1)

Cost Control Satisfactory (2) Very Good (3) Satisfactory (2)

Management Marginal (1) Exceptional (4) Marginal (1)

Regulatory Unsatisfactory (0) Very Good (3) Satisfactory (2)

Relevancy (2) (4) (1)

Project Average 2 3.5 1.5

Past Performance Score = 2.33 (20pts)

0points - 0.0 < Past Performance Score < 2.0

5points - 2.0 Past Performance Score 2.1< <

10points - 2.1 < Past Performance Score 2.2<

15points - 2.2 < Past Performance Score 2.3<

20points - 2.3 < Past Performance Score 2.4<

25points - 2.4 < Past Performance Score 2.5<

30points - 2.5 < Past Performance Score 2.6<

35points - 2.6 < Past Performance Score 2.7<

40points - 2.7 < Past Performance Score 2.8<

45points - 2.8 < Past Performance Score 2.9<

50points - 2.9 < Past Performance Score 3.0<

55points - 3.0 < Past Performance Score 3.1<

60points - 3.1 < Past Performance Score 3.2<

65points - 3.2 < Past Performance Score 3.3<

70points - 3.3 < Past Performance Score 3.4<

75points - 3.4 < Past Performance Score 3.5<

80points - 3.5 < Past Performance Score 3.6<

85points - 3.6 < Past Performance Score 3.7<

90points - 3.7 < Past Performance Score 3.8<

95points - 3.8 < Past Performance Score 3.9<

100points - 3.9 < Past Performance Score 4.0<

TOTAL POINTS AWARDED:_______________________

[b.] (Maximum 10 points) Delivery Timeline. The proposed period of performance for the design-build project is faster than the government's estimated timeline.

Points will be assigned, per the below metric, for a proposed completion time that exceeds the governments estimated timeline.

For every day below the estimated period of performance (PoP), .05 points will be awarded, 20 days will net 1 point. (Ex. a proposed PoP of 270 days would result in 6.85 points. The maximum points would result in a PoP of 207 days.)

TOTAL POINTS AWARDED:_______________________

[c.] (Pass/Fail) Specialized experience and technical competence. The contractor has in-house capability or an established relationship with an architect & engineering (A&E) firm with experience in Fire Alarm System design. The firm must have at least- (one) Fire Protection Engineer with working knowledge of Honeywell Fire Alarm systems, (one) senior electrical engineer, and (one) architectural engineer. The A&E firm must also show that they have completed at least 2 fire alarm system designs within the past 5 years, on either DoD installations or in the private sector. Sub-contracted/consulted personnel by the prime or A&E firm will not count towards this evaluation factor. (Ex. Offeror A has a Fire Protection Engineer and one Senior Electrical Engineer and the A&E firm they work with has an Architectural Engineer. This would be acceptable. Offeror B has most of the required Engineers but has sub-contracted a lone Architectural Engineer to fill all requirements. This would not be acceptable.)

The A&E firm's qualifications must be submitted along with the proposal. Qualifications must include the firm's name and the names/qualifications of the members that will be working on the design, at a minimum. If the firm's capability cannot be reasonably established, the proposal will be considered non-responsive, and discussions will not be held to rectify the issue.

PASS / FAIL

3. Award Selection

The Award will be made to the lowest offeror with acceptable (pass) technical capability, and acceptable (minimum score of 20) past performance. The government reserves the right to award to a higher priced, acceptable technical capability offeror with higher scored past performance or shorter PoP if within10% of the lowest priced offer.

An offer with a shorter PoP and higher price will not be considered if past performance shows that timeliness is not highly rated.

--- END OF EVALUATION CRITERIA---

Instructions.

Proposal files shall be submitted by e-mail. DoD SAFE may be used for sensitive documents, if applicable, if coordinated with the Contracting Officer sufficiently in advance of the due date and time for submission. No other method will be used for submission. Upon submission, notify the points of contact under the General Information section below in a separate e-mail. A response from a POC will be provided to inform you of receipt of the proposal.

Submit a complete proposal and the support documentation for the evaluation criteria (Ex. -Resumes, CPARS/PPQs, A&E Firm qualifications) . Firms shall also use section M of this Request for Proposal document to self-evaluate under each selection criteria and total of points. Include the self-evaluation with the other support documentation or as part of the submitted 1442.

The entire proposal is limited to 100 pages.

General Information.

Questions regarding this RFP must be submitted via email to:

Procuring Contracting Officer: cameron.smith.16@us.af.mil

Administrative Contracting Officer: konrad.zirkle.1@us.af.mil

Reference the solicitation number and title in the email subject line.

A site visit will be held at 2:00 PM local (Mountain), Nov 3rd, 2025

Questions must be submitted no later than 3:00 PM local (Mountain), Nov 17, 2025.

Proposals must be submitted no later than 3:00 PM local (Mountain), Dec 1, 2025.

Construction for this project will begin no earlier than 1 June, 2026

Attachments:

(02) Scope of Work plus attachments

(03) Justification and Approval for Brand Name purchase

(04) AEC Graphics Standard 2019

(05) USACE AECCAD Standard 2019

(06) USACE Advanced Modeling BIM/CIM Object Standard 2019

(07) SDSFIE-V Specification Document 2016

(08) USACE Design Submission Requirements Manual 2009

366 GUNFIGHTER ST STE 498, ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY NO REQUISITIONS

MOUNTAIN HOME AFB, ID 83648-5296

UNITED STATES

KONRAD ZIRKLE, Email: konrad.zirkle.1@us.af.mil Telephone: 2088286478 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: