Amendment_FA5682_13_R0005_0003_dated_17_Jun_2013.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

1. The purpose of this amendment is the following:

a. extend the date for submission of offers;

b. make changes to the solicitation as set forth in the Summary of Changes here below.

2. SF1442, Section A, Block 10:

The date for submission of offers is hereby changed to read 20 June 2013 at 17:00hrs.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 19-Jun-2013 05:00 PM to 20-Jun-2013 05:00 PM.

The offeror acceptance period has decreased by 1 from 103 to 102.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

GOVERNMENT FILL-INS:

Clause 52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984)

Insert: “30 calendar days” and “330 calendar days”

52.215-21 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA OR INFORMATION OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA--MODIFICATIONS (OCT 2010)—ALTERNATE IV (OCT 2010)

Para (b) Insert: “Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown or other forms/documents provided by the Contracting Officer”

52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR (APR 1984)

Insert: “75”

52.236-4 PHYSICAL DATA (APR 1984)

Para (b) Insert: “Average record for Aviano Air Base only, records for other work sites are not available.

% of Hr. Temp. is

Average Min.

Extreme Min.

Below 1(C from Average Relative

Month Temp. ((C) Temp. ((C) 0600 to 1700 hrs. Humidity (%)

JAN

-2 -13

FEB

-11

MAR

-12

APR

- 3

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

- 2

NOV

-10

DEC

-1 -12

% of Hr.

Humidity is

Over 70% from Average Number

1200 to 1400 of Days With

Month Hrs.

Precipitation Snow Thunderstorms

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

* = Occurs less than 1 day or 1%.

Para (c) Insert: No Government transportation vehicles or facilities are available for contractor use.

Para (d) Insert: Items identified as Government Furnished Property will be turned over to the Contractor, whenever he requests such items, at a warehouse located within the limits of Aviano Air Base.

52.246-21 WARRANTY OF CONSTRUCTION (MAR 1994)

Change all references to 1 year to read 2 years.

52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

Insert: http://farsite.hill.af.mil

252.229-7003 TAX EXEMPTIONS (ITALY) (JAN 2002)

Para (iii) Insert: 91000190933

252.236-7001 CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS (AUG 2000)

Para (e) Insert: SEE SECTION J HEREIN

OFFEROR FILL-INS

52.223-3 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA (JAN 1997)

Para (b) Material Insert : _________________ Identification No.: ___________________________

252.223-7001 HAZARD WARNING LABELS (DEC 1991)

Para (c) Material Insert: _______________________ ACT Insert: __________________________

252.229-7001 TAX RELIEF (JUN 1997)

Para (a) Name of Tax Insert: _________________ Rate Insert: _________________

The following have been deleted:

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L-01.

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. 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 - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

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 data 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 cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original only

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 19 (only if amendments are issued) and 20A through 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442 In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) using the amount resulting from the completion of the Construction Cost Estimate breakdown form. The extended amount must equal the whole Euro unit price multiplied by the number of units.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K.

(d) The entire solicitation Sections A through M as well as the form Construction Cost Estimate breakdown shall be returned in their entirety.

2.

PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than 40 pages (excluding Government released documents which are not subject to any page limitation restriction). Submit original only.

(a) Subfactor1 – Qualification Certification: Submit SOA certification for category OS07 and classification adequate to cover offeror’s proposed amount for project performance. Copy of SOA certification must be current and have a validity at the time of proposal submission that will cover the entire period of contract performance. Offeror may benefit from another firm’s SOA category as long as this is documented in the SOA certificate of each firm as required by host nation law.

(b) Subfactor 2 - Experience: Submit offeror’s experience with the same work/trades and complexity as the instant requirement. The offeror must submit evidence of at least two (2) contracts performed within the last five (5) years from the date of proposal that involved substantially the same work/trades and complexity as the instant requirement.

(c) Subfactor 3 – Legal Standing: Submit documentation that satisfies offeror capacity to comply with law requirements concerning payments and social insurance requirements: the acceptable documentation is represented by a copy of the “Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)” for personnel (direct hire and/or self employed/subcontractors). This document must not be older than 90 calendar days from the date of the offer.

(d) Subfactor 4 – Technical Data: Submit copy of the technical data/characteristics of the following materials to be used in performance of the project:

a. water proof plaster;

b. synthetic enamel;

c. anticorrosive paint;

d. latex paint and

e. acrylic water-based paint.

3.

PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Limited to no more than 2 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original only.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five 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 product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). 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) 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 any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. Provide a list of no more than two (2), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years. Relevant contracts include all projects performed for this type of work (SOA category OS07) and magnitude of work performance. The evaluation of past performance information will not 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 listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Euro Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

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 relevant contracts.

(d) 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.

D. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (CLINs & PWS) and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

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 II and III shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be no bigger than A4 size paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed A3 size paper.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 27 March 2013. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one one (1) contract for performance of Project ASHE 13-1023 Paint Exterior, Bldg’s 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427 Dormitories, Area F, Aviano AB, italy(insert project number and title).

c. Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

d. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Qualification certification

Subfactor 2: Experience

Subfactor 3: Legal standing

Subfactor 4: Technical data

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Qualification certification

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s SOA certification for category OS07 and classification adequate to cover offeror’s proposed amount for project performance.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a copy of a SOA certification (current and valid for the entire period of performance) for category OS07 and classification adequate to cover offeror’s proposed amount for project performance. Offeror may benefit from another firm’s SOA category as long as this is documented in the SOA certificate of each firm as required by host nation law.

Subfactor 2: Experience

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s experience with the same work/trades and complexity as the instant requirement.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes evidence of at least two (2) contracts performed within the last five (5) years from the date of proposal that involved substantially the same work/trades and complexity as the instant requirement.

Subfactor 3: Legal Standing

Description: This subfactor evaluates offerors capacity to comply with law requirements concerning payments and social insurance requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the “Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)” for personnel (direct hire and/or self employed/subcontractors). This document must not be older than 90 calendar days from the date of the offer.

Subfactor 4: Technical Data

Description: This subfactor evaluates offerors capacity to comply with the requirements of the Technical Specifications concerning materials to be used in performance of the project.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the technical data/characteristics of the following materials which demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt total compliance with the requirements of the project technical specifications:

a. water proof plaster;

b. synthetic enamel;

c. anticorrosive paint;

d. latex paint and

e. acrylic water-based paint.

c. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to all projects performed for this type of work (SOA category OS07) and magnitude of work performance. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

d. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices received in response to this solicitation, historical prices for performance of similar work and/or prevailing market prices, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a comparison between the total price and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)