Amendment_FA5682-17-R-0028-0004.pdf

F1F3A27044A001 ASHE 13-1061

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

The purpose of this Amendment is to make changes as indicated below and in the follow ing pages:

- Change the closing date for receipt of offers;

- Change the number of days for Government acceptance of offers;

- Incorporate Addendum #1, and

- Change the information in Section M, M-001 SOURCE SELECTION, paragraph b. Number of Contracts to be Aw arded.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Jun-2017

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 FA568217R0028

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2017

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 X 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

16-Jun-2017

CODE

31 CONS LGC - FA5682

VIA PORDENONE 89/B, AREA "E" EDIF. 600

BASE AEREA DI AVIANO

AVIANO (PN) 33081

FA5682 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA568217R0028

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 19-Jun-2017 04:00 PM to 20-Jun-2017 04:00 PM.

The offeror acceptance period has increased by 91 from 103 to 194.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION,

SUPERVISION AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT HEREIN

LISTED AT THE PRICE STATED BELOW AND STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED DOCUMENTS LISTED

IN SECTION J HEREIN: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT ASHE 13-1061 REPLACE

AIRFIELD LIGHTS WITH LEDS AREA F, AVIANO AB, ITALY, DATED JUNE 2017 (REV.3.1) AND

MARKED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REV 3.1, ITEM 4.4 OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

To:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION,

SUPERVISION AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT HEREIN

LISTED AT THE PRICE STATED BELOW AND STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED DOCUMENTS LISTED

IN SECTION J HEREIN: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT ASHE 13-1061 REPLACE

AIRFIELD LIGHTS WITH LEDS AREA F, AVIANO AB, ITALY, DATED JUNE 2017 (REV.3.1) AND

MARKED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REV 3.1 AND ADDENDUM #1, ITEM 4.4 OF TECHNICAL

SPECIFICATIONS.

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION,

SUPERVISION AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT HEREIN

LISTED AT THE PRICE STATED BELOW AND STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED DOCUMENTS LISTED

IN SECTION J HEREIN: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT ASHE 13-1061 REPLACE

AIRFIELD LIGHTS WITH LEDS AREA F, AVIANO AB, ITALY, DATED JUNE 2017 (REV.3.1) AND

MARKED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REV 3.1, ITEM 4.1, 4.2 AND 4.3 OF TECHNICAL

SPECIFICATIONS.

To:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION,

SUPERVISION AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT HEREIN

LISTED AT THE PRICE STATED BELOW AND STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED DOCUMENTS LISTED

IN SECTION J HEREIN: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT ASHE 13-1061 REPLACE

AIRFIELD LIGHTS WITH LEDS AREA F, AVIANO AB, ITALY, DATED JUNE 2017 (REV.3.1) AND MARKED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REV 3.1 AND ADDENDUM #1, ITEM 4.1, 4.2 AND 4.3 OF

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS – CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

The following documents are attachments to this document and are an integral part hereof:

a. Attachment 1:

Technical Specifications ASHE 13-1061 Replace Airfield Lights with Leds, Area F, Aviano AB, Italy dated June 2017 (Rev. 3.1) and marked Technical Specifications REV 3.1 and Addendum #1

- 19 pages including cover page and Schedule of Material Submittal

b. Attachment 2:

Additional Requirements, dated 15 May 2017, 3 pages

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 C, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 of 27 January 2017. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Contract 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.

Proposals received will be evaluated first by price then technical and last past performance acceptability. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the lowest offerors for technical and past performance acceptability. In the event the two lowest total price offeror are evaluated and determined acceptable for technical and past performance respectively, the evaluation process will terminate. The lowest total price technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance will receive contract award.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for the performance of Project ASHE 13-1061 Replace Airfield Lights with LEDS Area F, Aviano AB, Italy dated June 2017 (Rev.3.1) and Addendum #1.

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: Price Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Qualification certification Subfactor 2: Technical Approach Subfactor 3: Experience Subfactor 4: Technical Data Subfactor 5: Legal Standing

Factor 3: Past Performance

b. Price Factor

The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated submitted as part I.

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, 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.

c. 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Qualification certification

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s Societa’ Organismi di Attestazione (SOA) certification for category OG11 and/or OS09 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 current SOA certification for category OG11 and/or OS09 and classification adequate to cover offeror’s proposed amount for project performance.

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to accomplish all work elements of the project in accordance with the Technical Specifications. To facilitate evaluation, the information provided should be specific, detailed, and clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement for the accomplishment of this effort.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal fully addresses and reflects a clear understanding of all required work elements as well as adequately demonstrates the capability to successfully execute and complete the project in accordance with Technical Specifications and solicitation performance period.

Subfactor 3: Experience

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

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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 similar work/trades and complexity as the instant requirement.

Subfactor 4: Technical Data

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s capacity to install materials in compliance with the requirements of the project Technical Specifications Rev 3.1.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the technical data in the form of catalog extracts for the following materials which demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt total compliance with the requirements of the project technical specifications: the light base and light fixtures to be installed shall be certified IAW FAA regulations and guidance .

Subfactor 5: 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). The document’s issuance date must not be older than 120 calendar days from the date of the offer.

d. Past Performance Factor The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

(1) Evaluation Process.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. 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 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Offer’s shall not submit more than two

(2) past efforts.

(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.

Relevancy is determined when the past project(s) demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity as the effort described in this solicitation. Consideration will be given to all projects performed for this type of work (SOA category OG11 or OS09) 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). The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

Secondly, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

Past performance will be analyzed through past performance questionnaire responses received on each project/contract reference submitted and any information obtained from other sources known to the Government.

Adverse performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Contractors shall be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings not previously provided for a response through communications.

(End of Summary of Changes)

TABLE 1- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment See note below.)

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

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.”