Solicitation Amendment 0003 FA667021R0002.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

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Introduction: The Government intends to utilize FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process and shall be 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 5315.3, 03 June 2016. These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

The Government will select the proposal with the lowest, technically acceptable evaluated price from those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

The Government intends to award one FFP contract, without discussions with respective offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If so, discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interests.

M-002

EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical Proposal as unacceptable.

Factor I: TECHNICAL Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Bonding Capabilities Subfactor 3: Subcontract Management Subfactor 4: Proposal

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

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

- Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

- Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

- The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror's management approach to provide an effective and efficient

FA667021R00020003

management organization in accordance with requirement of the RFP and SOO to successfully manage the effort. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a management plan and organizational chart that identifies the key personnel by qualification, experience, and responsibilities. Key personnel include at a minimum the company Owner, Project Manager and Site Superintendent/Supervisor.

Subfactor 2: Bonding Capability The Government will evaluate the Offeror's bonding capability in order to assess confidence in ability to successfully operate during performance of the contract. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates their bonding capabilities to provide payment and performance bonds in the singular amount of $250,000.

Subfactor 3: Subcontract Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror approach to providing effective and efficient Subcontract Management in accordance with the requirement of the solicitation including Section L. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by clearly identifying the proposed level of contracting and in house work to be accomplished that meets or exceeds the requirement of FAR 52.219-14.

Subfactor 4: Proposal Offerors SHALL use the SOO to develop a Performance Work Statement; the Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal based on the Offeror's PWS for the project. The Government will review the overall completeness and accuracy of the Offeror's PWS. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by providing the following:

a. The Offeror has included a comprehensive PWS.

b. Offeror identifies all major components of the project in their PWS

c. Offeror includes drawings indicated proposed location for the items to be installed as necessary.

Factor II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Proposals which do not address all evaluation factors and subfactors, or that are found to be unacceptable in any factor/subfactor, will be determined unacceptable proposals and will receive no further consideration for award.

Determination of relevancy relies solely with the Government.

Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

This will be based on the offeror's record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and /or services outlined in the solicitation. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of "acceptable" to be eligible for award.

1. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

a. Acceptable - Based on the offeror's past 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.

(see below)

b. Unacceptable - Based on the offeror's past performance record, the Government does not have a 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 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".

The evaluation of past performance will result in an overall assessment of acceptable or unacceptable.

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 contract's 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), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and other commercial sources.

1. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (see Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Block 3).

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (see Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Block 3).

To be considered relevant, the effort must have included contracts with the same magnitude and scope of work as this effort, performed within the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Offers will be determined relevancy based on the Offeror providing past performance references for past contracts which includes task order or delivery order type contracts, Job Order Contracts (JOC), Task Order Contracts (TOC), general facility construction, design-build construction, or other general construction work with the magnitude, duration and complexity as this requirement for Federal agencies, State or Local Government and/or commercial sources within the last five (5) years.

Past performance of other team members will be evaluated only if the primary Contractor plans to submit their offer as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement or with significant contribution of subcontractors;

validations may include information obtained from the customer or the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS). Only information determined to be recent and relevant past performance information will be considered in evaluation.

Factor III: Price

The offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, total evaluated price and financial resources. These will be evaluated in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4.

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror's response to the pricing structure.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal for lowest-priced offer of CLIN 0001 in Schedule B. The offeror's TEP will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The otherwise technically-acceptable, lowest-priced offeror may be required to confirm its price on a total price basis, and/or provide additional information in support of their price, prior to contract award.

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

4. Financial Resources: The financial capability letter will be evaluated to determine financial capacity to meet this requirement. The letter from the bonding company will be evaluated to determine bonding capacity and maximum dollar threshold.

Other/Conformance to RFP Requirements: The Government will determine if the proposal conforms to the RFP requirements; only conforming proposals will be eligible for award. Proposals will be determined to conform based on the following:

- Offer is submitted by a Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB).

- Offeror registration is current in System for Award Management (SAM) and offeror is not debarred/ineligible.

- Offer must provide evidence of sufficient bid guarantee, as required in FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

- Offeror has the financial and bonding capability and is determined responsible.

Proposals which do not address all evaluation factors and sub factors, or that are found to be unacceptable in any factor/sub factor, will be determined unacceptable proposals and will receive no further consideration for award.

800 KIRKBRIDGE DR

ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY NO REQUISITIONS

NIAGARA FALLS, NY 14304-5000

UNITED STATES

Jason Topick, Email: jason.topick.1@us.af.mil Telephone: 7162362214

B. All other terms and conditions of the basic solicitation, as amended, remain unchanged.

Email: jason.topick.1@us.af.mil Telephone: 7162362214