Amendment 1.pdf

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 TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

--SEE CONTINUATION SHEET--

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Oct-2010

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA5000-10-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Sep-2010

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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 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 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. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Oct-2010

CODE

FA5000 - 673RD CONTRACTING SQUADRON

10480 22ND STREET

ELMENDORF AFB AK 99506-2500

FA5000 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA5000-10-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

A. The purpose of this modification is to incorporate the following.

B. New wage rates AK100001 dated 10/08/2010.

C. Changing Sec M, Para 6.1 to read $5M vs $3M.

D. Questions are incorporated as follows:

MACC QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

FA5000-10-R-0011

1. Specification section 01400-4 #2 Conceptual Design Paragraph 2.1 States “Environmental Analysis for Initial ‘Concept’ Design: The Government shall provide each MACC Contractor a copy, if available, of a limited HAZ MAT surveys which they have on file for that particular building. These surveys identify known HAZ MAT materials previously detected. Each MACC Contractor shall incorporate anticipated abatement or special handling procedures into the development of the initial ‘Concept’ Design and associated Price Proposal without the performance of a Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Survey…” Is a survey available? If not it sounds like the above is telling us to price for abatement in our cost proposal without one. It would be very difficult to quantify and price abatement without a survey. Please clarify.

ANSWER: No survey is available – anticipate no hazardous material.

2. There does not appear to be a requirement for a construction/demolition waste management plan. Is waste diversion required? If so what percent.

ANSWER: Waste diversion is not required.

3. Per section 01020 Scope of work paragraph 1.4.0. Please clarify if actual physical drawings for seating and lighting layout are to be submitted with the model project.

ANSWER: Lighting layout is required with the 35% design. The seating layout is not.

4. Per section 01020 Scope of work paragraph 1.3.2 a says to use shotblasting to prepare floor. May a HEPA equipped planetary grinder be used in lieu of the shotblasting?

ANSWER: This is an acceptable floor preparation method.

5. Section L Paragraph 2.2.1.3 states “provide a detailed price breakdown describing design effort and construction effort. For construction, show material, labor and equipment quantities subtotaled by the fifty division specification format as developed by the Construction Specification Institute (CSI). Provide a summary page with a grand total.”

The current database attached to our estimating program is in the 16 division format. It would require a significant investment to upgrade the database to the 50 division format. Is it acceptable to submit a cost breakdown in the 16 division format?

ANSWER: Yes, this is acceptable.

6. Section L Paragraph 2.2.1.3 states “provide a detailed price breakdown describing design effort and construction effort.” Please confirm that a copy of our estimate is sufficient to meet this requirement.

ANSWER: The detailed price breakdown meets this requirement.

7. In the solicitation synopsis, work is referenced to occur under NAICS code subsections 236 and 237 but the block 10 continuation in the solicitation only references codes 236220 and 236210. Will proposals be accepted from firms having NAICS codes from subsection 237 only.

ANSWER: All proposals will be required to have a NAICS code that is listed in the solicitation which would be 236220 or 236210.

8. For Factor 2 – Past Performance evaluation criteria it states on page 72, in paragraph 6.1 that “Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $2,500.00 and $3,000,000, … but under Section L, page 63, paragraph 2.3.3 it states in past performance “Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $2,500 and $5,000,000. Please clarify which size projects we should show.

ANSWER: Project value is anticipated up to $5,000,000.

9. Under section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 2 – Past Performance, page 72, paragraph 6.1 it states “relevant past performance information must demonstrate non-complex design/build (up to 35%)..”, what is considered non-complex and what is meant by “up to 35%”?

ANSWER: What this is referring to is relevant work (non-complex design/build (up to 35%)) that relates to work that would be awarded under this type contract. Relevant work would be any construction type project that you may have performed on a MATOC contract, another MACC contract, and a design-build contract where you have had to do at least a 35% design.

10. Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 of Factor 1 states, “Provide the design proposal for the model project, as defined in the MACC Statement of Work, Attachment 3, and Statement of Work for the Model Project, Project 032-1223, Renovate Base Theater (Attachment 4). Paragraph 1.1 of Attachment 3 states, “1.1. Design Build: MACC Contractor shall develop project design documentation including drawings, Scope of Work, cost estimate broken out by CSI division and submittals representative of up to a 35% design effort (as identified within each Task Order).”

We could not find a reference to the required percent design effort in Attachment 4. Please clarify what the percent design requirement is for the Renovate Base Theater task order.

ANSWER: Requires a 35% design effort IAW solicitation requirements.

11. Section L, Paragraph 2.1.1. Is a project schedule in Microsoft Project acceptable?

ANSWER: Yes

12. Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 of Factor 1 requires a “price breakdown by CSI divisions.” And paragraph 2.2.1.3 requires, “a detailed price breakdown describing design effort and construction effort. For Construction, show material, labor and equipment quantities subtotaled by the fifty division specification format as developed by the CSI. Provide a summary page with a grand total.” Please clarify what is required. Does the price breakdown include actual pricing or just a breakdown of the quantities of material, labor, etc.? If pricing is required, does it belong in Volume I, Factor 1?

ANSWER: This is a detailed price breakdown and will describe the design effort and construction effort. It does belong in Volume 1, Factor 1.

13. Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1.1. Is the pricing breakdown included in the page count for Subfactor 1?

ANSWER: Yes

14. Section L, Paragraph 2.3.2, Past Performance Information Sheets. Is it acceptable to use master IDIQ type contracts for the 5 Past Performance Information Sheets? If it is acceptable to use a master contract, is it preferable to discuss the contract as a whole and answer the questions on Attachment 6 relative to the master contract, or is it preferable to focus on a few task orders and answer the questions on Attachment 6 relative to each task order?

ANSWER: Past performance information is covered in Section L, para 2.3.2. You may chose to use a master contract or task order.

15. Section L, Paragraph 2.3.2, states that “The offeror shall provide experience data for itself and for any proposed division, major subcontractor, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner or key personnel whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort.” Is it correct to interpret this to mean that if a person we consider to be key to performance of the MACC contract has relevant experience on a project with a different firm, it is acceptable to use that project as one of the Past Performance Information Sheets and Questionnaire?

ANSWER: Reference Sec L, para 2.3.2- you may submit 5 past performance information sheets for each prime, teaming partner and/or joint venture partner.

16. Attachment 6, Past Performance Information Sheet. Is it acceptable to modify the layout of the form so that the space available for answering the questions on the form is maximized?

ANSWER: We would prefer this sheet not be altered.

17. One corporation intends to submit experience (Past Performance Information Sheets) for key personnel from an affiliate and sister company in the proposal. Recent GAO rulings (GAO File B-401560.3; B-401560.4) state that, “An agency properly may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror's parent or affiliated companies as long as the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror. The relevant consideration in this determination is whether the resources of the parent or affiliated company—its workforce, management, facilities or other resources—will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.”

Can you please confirm that our understanding is correct and that the information we provide for will be considered and evaluated as that of the Prime Joint Venture Partner so long as it clearly demonstrates that the resources of our sister company will be provided or relied upon for successful contract performance?

ANSWER: Section L, para 2.3.2 identifies past performance information sheets. They may be submitted for each prime, teaming partner, joint venture and/or affiliates but affiliates' resources and experience data will only be considered for those key personnel who will have meaningful involvement and whose efforts on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort in accordance with Comptroller General guidance.

18. Section L, Paragraph 1.4 states that “Joint Venture Agreements must be received by the SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of a resulting contract.” We are proposing on this opportunity as a Joint Venture. Our SBA representative has stated that they will only approve the JV after notification from the Contracting Officer that we are being considered for award. Will this be acceptable to the Government?

ANSWER: Yes

19. Section L, Paragraph 2.4.3, Section 1, asks for a Forwarding letter, if any.” Please provide guidance about what is meant by a forwarding letter.

ANSWER : A forwarding letter would be any letter you would like to have as a cover letter, if any.

20. Section L, Attachment 6, Past Performance Information Sheets, Item I requires us to “specify by name any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition.” This appears to be the only requirement related to key personnel. Does the government want to see an organizational chart, resumes, and/or a discussion of key personnel in Volume I, Factor 1 or anywhere else in the proposal?

ANSWER: Section L, para 2.3.2 clearly identifies that “The offeror shall provide experience data for itself and for any proposed division, major subcontractor, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner or key personnel whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort.” Also, para 2.3.5 in Sec L describes an Organization Structure Roadmap. These items would be a part of Factor 2 Volume II.

21. Will the task orders issued be mostly design-build or fully designed constructing projects?

ANSWER: Historically we have seen mostly design-build projects.

22. How does an offeror fill in Schedule B price schedule? This is normally already filled in by the issuing office.

ANSWER: Our computer system does not allow this to be filled in. The amounts in Schedule B Bid Schedule can be left blank; however, all offerors need to be sure and complete the bid schedule for the model project.

23. The RFP states that “o All typing (including that on charts, graphs, and tables, etc.) shall be no smaller than 12 pitch.” Pitch is a unit of measure for non-proportional fonts such as courier. And is equal to 12 characters per inch width. However this is only when each letter takes up the same amount of space. In a proportional font, each letter takes up a different amount of space. Hence, unless one a nonproportional font, one would only be able to average 12 pitch. Some areas of the document would have more characters per inch and some fewer. This would be understandable except that the point of this size restriction is likely for readability. Nonproportional fonts are much more difficult to read than proportional fonts. As you may also be aware, in most standard software programs fonts are available by point size not pitch size. Could you please provide a list of the standard fonts and point sizes that the Government would consider as meeting the 12 pitch requirement and also confirm that an AVERAGE 12 pitch is acceptable?

ANSWER: The government has no preference to fonts and point sizes but does require and 12 pitch.

24. At today's pre-proposal meeting it was discussed that there was a need for additional architectural drawing information. The drawings supplied for viewing did not include enough information to determine a ceiling height or pitch of the floor. Additionally, we were advised we would not be able to make a site visit at all for the project. To allow for an adequate assessment we will need to know them both.

Please include a drawing showing a building section (long room length) so the ceiling height, and pitch of the floor can be accounted for in the project pricing.

ANSWER: See theater drawings.

25. Does the project have sustainability goals?

ANSWER: No

26. What is the required lighting level for the theater?

ANSWER: This is to be determined by the designer and meet the requirements of the model project.

27. Is the aisle lighting removable without causing it damage for storage and installation of the epoxy coating?

ANSWER: It is believed it will be damaged beyond repair.

28. Is the aisle lighting manufacturer known and is the fixture available in case portions of the fixture are damaged and/or not repairable?

ANSWER: The manufacturer is not known. It is understood that this lighting will need to be replaced

29. If the aisle lighting is not available is the USAF interested in replacing them with L.E.D. fixtures?

ANSWER: This can be determined by the designer within the project magnitude.

30. Has Elmendorf AFB selected a replacement light fixture?

ANSWER: This is to be determined by the designer and will be approved by the Government.

31. Is emergency power available for lighting or does Elmendorf AFB prefer fixtures on battery backup?

ANSWER: Battery backup

32. Does the space have appropriate exit signage lighting, are they functional and is emergency power available for them?

ANSWER: Yes

33. Do the restrooms facilities in the building meet the current code minimums?

ANSWER: This portion of work is not included within the model project.

34. Are they any requirements for exterior access to the building?

ANSWER: This portion of work is not included within the model project.

35. Is the existing floor slope acceptable for accessible access and seating?

ANSWER: Yes

36. If the theater has a concession stand does it meet the accessibility height code?

ANSWER: There is no concession stand in SOW.

37. Does the Theater meet current code exiting requirements? Number of exits, exit door width, direction of door swing and panic hardware requirements.

ANSWER: This portion of work is not included within the model project.

38. Does the room have Assisted Listening Devices available?

ANSWER: This portion of work is not included within the model project.

39. Does the Elmendorf AFB have a Construction Waste Disposal plan?

ANSWER: Waste goes to Municipal Landfill.

40. Clause 52.236-27 (b) states :Site Visits may be arranged during normal duty hours by contacting 1Lt Lana Blomberg, 10480 22nd St, Suite 254, JBER AK 99506-2500 Telphone No. (907)552-5637. However, at the prebid/pre-proposal conference, it was stated that it is the owners desire that for purposes of this model project, that bidders should rely on the as-built drawings which are going to possibly be made available by this Friday (10/15/10) Should Proposers refrain from arranging site visits?

ANSWER: There will be no site visits available.

E. All Drawings from A-1 to A-2, E-1 to E-8, G-1, M-1, Elmendorf base theater and Theater slide show are incorporated.

F. Extension has been made for all bids, bids will be accepted until 2 Nov 2010 by 2pm.

G. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Oct-2010 02:00 PM to 02-Nov-2010 02:00 PM.

The Issued By organization has changed from

FA5000 - 3RD CONTRACTING SQUADRON

10480 22ND STREET

ELMENDORF AFB AK 99506-2500

to

FA5000 - 673RD CONTRACTING SQUADRON

10480 22ND STREET

ELMENDORF AFB AK 99506-2500

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

1.0 Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) contract. The Government will compare each offeror's capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

2.0 General Basis for Award: This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Part 15.3), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS 5315.3), and Mandatory Procedures 5315. In using this best value approach, the Government seeks to award up to six (6) contracts to those Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet our requirements affordably. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The government anticipates an award of up to six (6) contracts. In no way is the Government required to award a minimum number of contracts.

3.0 Evaluation: Each offeror's proposal will be evaluated against the following four Factors: Mission Capability, Mission Capability Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Mission Capability, Mission Capability Risk, and Past Performance Factors will be afforded primary emphasis in the evaluation, are considered equal in importance, and, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Cost/Price, however, will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The subfactors within each factor are considered equal in importance. The offeror's proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses sufficient technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion such that the technical requirements shall be achieved and costs shall be controlled.

Mission Capability Factor 1 Mission Capability Risk Factor 1A Past Performance Factor 2 Price and Contract Forms Factor 3

3.1 Mission Capability – Factor 1: Rating of this factor at the subfactor level will focus on the proposal strengths & weaknesses with regard to performance and capability requirements and will be evaluated using the following color ratings. Note, if an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal.

MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS

Color Rating Definition

Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths.

Yellow Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

3.2 Mission Capability Risk – Factor 1A: (The offeror does not specifically address this subfactor, it will be used in the evaluation process). The mission capability risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the mission capability subfactor level, and assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for the requirement of this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Mission Capability Risk shall be evaluated using the following ratings:

MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

Rating Definition

Low * Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate * Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High * Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or severely degraded performance.

Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

* A plus “+” rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries of a Mission Capabiity Risk Rating, but is not high enough to merit the next inferior rating. When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate, or Hight Risk ratings is desired, ealuators/teams may annotate this by adding a plus “+” to the risk rating. For example, where in the judgment of the evaluator, an offeror has risk that approaches or is nearly rated as a Moderate risk, a Mission Capability Risk Rating of “Low +” could be assigned.

3.3 Past Performance – Factor 2: Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract and support agreements. Both a recency/relevancy rating and a confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each offeror.

Past performance information may be obtained through the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) and Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition, through interviews with program managers and contracting officers, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments will be used if the data is recent and relevant. To assist the Government’s evaluation, each offeror’s proposal will contain the supporting past performance documentation, which demonstrates multi-project/multi-discipline construction and non-complex design-build (up to 35% design) experience. In performing the past performance evaluation each offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

3.4 Cost/Price– Factor 3: Although the Cost/Price Factor is not considered as important as the other factors, it will contribute substantially to the selection decision, and will be evaluated for cost realism and reasonableness.

Cost/Price will not be rated or color-coded, as are other evaluation factors. After an evaluation of the Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, and Past Performance Factors have been completed and rankings have been established, the price to the Government for the model project will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government. Submission of unrealistically low or high price or cost estimates on the model project, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The cost elements of the price breakdown submitted for Volume I may be considered as necessary to determine cost realism and reasonableness. Offerors must include a price for the model project listed in Attachment 4.

4.0 Competitive Range: The Government reserves the right to limit for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.253b(d)). If the contracting officer, decides that an offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

4.1 Discussions: To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If discussions are necessary due to perceived weaknesses or other issues, which must be addressed before award, they will be conducted with only those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals which are fully and clearly acceptable and without the need for additional information. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (i.e., 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer during any discussion period.

4.2 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of a contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors may be required to respond with their final proposal revision within 24 to 48 hours. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required.

Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

4.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

4.4. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. For a proposal to result in an awardable contract, the proposal must at least meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all required certifications. Offerors are required to meet RFP requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation criteria to be eligible for award.

4.5. Award: The Government anticipates awarding up to six (6) MACC contracts. The Government may award additional MACC contracts under separate solicitations in an effort to establish a pool of potential competitors for future task orders. The Government is under no obligation to mirror the scope of the design/build model project described in this RFP for any future RFP requirement.

SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA AND MEASURES OF MERIT

5.0 FACTOR 1 – MISSION CAPABILITY

Measures of Merit. The following measures of merit will be used to rate the subfactors under the mission capability factor:

5.1. SUBFACTOR 1 Technical Capability/Execution and Completeness of the Model Project

5.1.1 Submit design/build process(es) that adequately describe a quality project is both designed and constructed within the construction schedule. Performance time is reasonable and consistent with the design and construction requirements and the construction season. Design/build team composition is identified and is appropriate for the effort described and proposal clearly conveys a commitment to acceptable quality standards, timeliness, and cost control. Proposal demonstrates the design/build model project was adequately reviewed for architectural compatibility, system capability, operability, maintainability and sustainable features. Proposal demonstrates design team and build team involvement through both phases. The bar chart schedule demonstrates how the Design/Build project was planned, organized, coordinated, and controlled.

5.1.2 The price breakdown clearly identifies design, construction material, labor and equipment quantities to be provided and a totals page is included with a grand total. The price breakdown clearly demonstrates a complete understanding of the tasks necessary to design and construct the model project.

5.2 SUBFACTOR 2 Change and Cost Control Management

5.2.1 Identifies and describes the process(es) that ensure offeror reviews changes and associated costs for necessity, cost effectiveness and best solution for the Government; process(es) for cost review prior to change proposal submission to Government that ensure offeror has performed technical evaluation of the change and price or cost analysis for reasonableness and adequacy of proposed cost of change; process(es) that ensures reasonableness of cost and solution of a change or changes and offeror actions taken when change solution or cost change is inappropriate.

6.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 Relevant past performance information must demonstrate non-complex design/build (up to 35% ) and build experience with multiple projects, such as construction, renovation, alteration and repair, with multiple disciplines. Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $2,500.00 and $5,000,000.00, and include projects with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The recency and relevancy of past performance information is critical to the Government’s evaluation. Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. In determining relevancy, consideration will be given but not limited to such things as project similarity, project complexity, contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. The evaluation will be constrained to a few most recent and most relevant contracts for a comprehensive review.

6.1.1 For the purpose of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes the prime contractor’s organization as complemented by the prime’s team (i.e. subcontractors and other operating units of the prime). The Government reserves the right to visit/revisit any or all offerors and to contact any and all references. The assessment will be accomplished using both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. The assessment of past performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9.

7.0 FACTOR 3 – PRICE/COST

7.1 The Price Schedule for the model project will be evaluated using one or more methods described below. Price will not be rated or color-coded, as are other evaluation factors. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

• Price analysis: The process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness.

• Comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar effort.

8.0. Basis for Award: Additional elements to be eligible for award are elements of evaluation in the source selection that relate to proposed terms and conditions, results of pre-award surveys and other reviews. Since they are not directly tied to the specific evaluation areas, these additional elements do not receive a color/adjectival rating, proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment. The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

• Responsibility. The offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR subpart 9.1.

• Acceptability of Offers. The offeror’s proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements of the contract. The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal.

• Pre-award Survey. A Pre-Award Survey (PAS) may be conducted as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

• Acceptability of other information. Other information submitted by the offeror must comply with the conditions set forth in the solicitation. The government reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether the other information complies with the conditions set forth in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)