FA7000-14-R-0004-0003_CE_ _Cadet_Support_Services.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Modify 52.212-2, Evaluation.

2. Incorporate FAR Clause 52.222-6 into the soliciation.

3. Incorporate revised Cadet Support PWS dated 13 March 2014 (Attachment 3).

4. Incorporate revised CE PWS dated 13 March 2014 (Attachment 1).

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Mar-2014

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 FA7000-14-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-2014

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, X 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 1 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

13-Mar-2014

CODE

10 CONS - FA7000

WILSON, E.

8110 INDUSTRIAL DR STE 200

LGCA

USAF ACADEMY CO 80840-2315

FA7000 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA7000-14-R-0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by reference:

52.222-6 Davis Bacon Act JUL 2005

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will conduct a best value source selection utilizing trade-off procedures described in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures, effective 1 Jul 11 and as supplemented by AF MP5315.3, 2013 Edition. Technical capability will be evaluated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. If an offeror fails any subfactor, it will be ineligible for award of the contract. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be established for each offer. Past Performance will be considered approximately equal to price. Trade-off may be made between past performance and price.

Although only one solicitation will be issued, separate evaluations will be conducted for Civil Engineer (CE) and

Cadet Support services using this model. If an offeror chooses to submit proposals for both CE and Cadet Support, they must also submit a combined price proposal for both efforts. If one offeror is selected as the best value for both CE and Cadet Support, and the offeror’s combined price is less than their separately proposed CE & Cadet

Support prices, award of one contract will be made at the combined price. The Government may incorporate portions of the successful offeror’s proposal, by reference or full text and as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision, into the resultant contract.

2.0 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS (FPRs)

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)) based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions may be held and result in Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

Formal responses to discussion items and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision.

Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to price, technical, past performance and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held. All offeror and team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent proposal to be considered complete.

Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g. prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Civil Engineering proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price.

The CE Technical factor consists of the following subfactors:

- Subfactor 1: Emergency Response/Resolution

- Subfactor 2: Requirements Planning and Execution o A. Quality Control Plan o B. Asset Management Process

- Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan

- Subfactor 4: Transition Plan

Cadet Support proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past

Performance, and (3) Price.

The Cadet Support Technical factor consists of the following subfactors:

- Subfactor 1: Event Scenario

- Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan

- Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan for Transition and Contract Performance

If an offeror chooses to submit proposals for both CE and Cadet Support, they must also submit a combined price proposal for both efforts. If one offeror is selected as the best value for both CE and Cadet Support, and the offeror’s combined price is less than their separately proposed CE & Cadet Support prices, award of one contract will be made at the combined price.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Offerors’ proposal(s) shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required.

The focus of the Technical Rating is on the offeror’s ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS(s). The

Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. Technical proposal(s) will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis and will be assessed a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” at the subfactor level IAW Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011, as shown below.

To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each technical subfactor.

Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

4.1.1 Civil Engineering Technical Subfactors

4.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Emergency Response/Resolution. The offeror will provide a Crisis Management Plan that addresses how they will respond to mission essential services as described in PWS paragraph 2.6.2. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

- Effective approach to respond within 1 hour of discovery of emergency with personnel adequately skilled and resourced to perform simple troubleshooting and repairs

- Effective approach to provide additional personnel and resources to resolve or downgrade emergency situation within 24 hours of discovery of emergency

4.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Requirements Planning and Execution

A: Quality Control Plan. The offeror will provide a Quality Control Plan to include elements identified in PWS paragraph 2.9. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

- Adequate approach to comply with the time constraints associated with service calls and preventative maintenance scheduled work.

- Detailed processes for identifying and resolving performance weaknesses and discrepancies before they are identified by the Government and corrective actions prevent recurrence.

- Effective process for continual process improvement including preventative-based monitoring and a measurement analysis program which uses quantifiable metrics focused on conformance to the PWS with emphasis on customer satisfaction.

B. Asset Management Process. The offeror will detail their general Asset Management Process that details an effective approach to identify, prioritize, allocate, manage and control Civil Engineer activities as described in PWS paragraph 3.2. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

- Effective approach to identify, prioritize, plan, and program activity requirements in the short term (current

FY), mid-term (current FY+2), and long term (beyond FY+2) planning horizons.

- Effective approach to allocate, manage, and execute programs and objectives to ensure the longevity and operability of all facilities, equipment, vehicles as described in the PWS.

4.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan. The offeror will provide a Staffing Plan that details their approach to an effective organizational structure to successfully accomplish mission requirements. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

- Sufficient manning, labor categories and skill level required to support PWS requirements.

- Sufficient approach to comply with collective bargaining requirements.

4.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Transition Plan. The offeror will provide a Transition Plan that clearly demonstrates continuity of mission support and contract performance. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

- Proposed milestones ensure transition completed on time for full contract performance to meet paragraph

PWS 4.2 requirements.

- Proposed personnel are identified with functional statement, staffing and timeline for each position.

- Effective procedures to hire, train and certify non-incumbent personnel to ensure uninterrupted service.

4.1.2 Cadet Support Technical Subfactors

4.1.2.1 Subfactor 1: Event Scenario. The offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy of their approach to event planning and execution of a USAFA graduation in addition to the events outlined in USAFA Plan 10-44. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates the following:

- Adequate approach to capture, identify and respond to challenges present in the event scenario in paragraph

3.5.6.2.1 of Addendum to 52.212-1.

- Proposed milestones and skill mix allocation ensure completion of USAFA Graduation Week events on time to meet PWS paragraph 3.1 requirements.

4.1.2.2 Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan. The offeror will provide a Quality Control Plan that adequately addresses their approach to facility support requirements IAW PWS paragraph

2.9. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates the following:

- Detailed processes for identifying and resolving performance weaknesses and discrepancies before they are identified by the Government and corrective actions prevent recurrence.

- Effective process for continual process improvement including preventative-based monitoring and a measurement analysis program which uses quantifiable metrics focused on conformance to the PWS with emphasis on customer satisfaction.

4.1.2.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan for Transition and Contract Performance. The offeror will provide a Staffing

Plan that describes their proposed manning levels and skill mix for efficient transition and contract performance.

This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates the following:

- Sufficient manning, labor categories and skill level required to support PWS requirements.

- Proposed milestones ensure transition completed on time for full contract performance to meet PWS paragraph 4.2 requirements.

- Proposed transition personnel are identified with functional statement, staffing and timeline for each position.

4.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

4.2.1 The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation for CE and Cadet Support will follow the same procedures outlined below.

4.2.2 Performance confidence will be assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and

Price factor. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume and information obtained from other sources to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.2.3 The Past Performance Evaluation Team will first determine the recency of the effort and then evaluate how relevant a recent effort is to the CE and Cadet Support services. The final aspect of the past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts which are determined to be recent and relevant.

4.2.4 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency is defined as ongoing performance or performed, at least in part, during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.5 Relevancy. For each past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for Technical subfactors and the Price factor, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Past performance that is found to be Not Relevant will not be evaluated for quality.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions from the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For CE services, consideration will be given to work in the areas involving the skills required for installation management, engineering and facilities infrastructure maintenance and repair that exhibit similar magnitude of workload, scope and complexity as outlined in the PWS.

To be considered RELEVANT regarding CE services, the offeror must demonstrate at least three of the following criteria:

- Asset Management of diverse facilities in terms of size, age, and composition on the scale of the structures found at USAFA.

- Environmental management over improved and unimproved areas.

- Execution of a comprehensive preventative maintenance program.

- Construction project design and management similar in quantity and complexity as described in the PWS.

- Facility maintenance of structures with high visibility to distinguished visitors and/or the public.

For Cadet Support, consideration will be given to work in the areas of event planning, coordination and execution;

facility management and athletic support that exhibit similar magnitude of workload, scope and complexity as outlined in the PWS. This consideration includes work involving competitions similar to those conducted under

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I requirements.

To be considered RELEVANT regarding Cadet Support services, the offeror must demonstrate at least two of the following criteria:

- Simultaneous management of facilities similar in number, size and diversity as those required under Table

6.1.5 of the Workload Data.

- Event planning and coordination for athletic competitions similar to those conducted under NCAA Division

I requirements.

- Event planning and coordination for high visibility events/conferences similar to the major Direct Mission

Events described in paragraph 3.1.1 of the PWS.

- Inventory management similar to the requirements described in paragraph 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 of the PWS.

For both CE and Cadet Support, a relevancy determination will be based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

4.2.6 Performance Quality. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, a performance quality assessment will determine how well the contractor performed on the contract. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing performance quality.

Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) During the contract period, contractor is meeting

(or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non- existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

4.2.7 Performance Confidence Assessment. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The Government will assign one of the following Performance Confidence

Ratings from Table 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures at the overall past performance factor level.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past

Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the

Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

4.3 FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Price Evaluation for CE and Cadet Support will follow the same procedures outlined below.

4.3.1 Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of each offeror’s total evaluated price. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, the

Government will obtain “other than cost and pricing data” from offerors. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond the solicitation.

4.3.2 Top Ten Planned Program and Planned Sustainment Work (TTPW) Coefficients. The Government will evaluate proposed TTPW coefficients by dividing the estimated project total value of $1.8M per year by the 4 coefficients ($450,000.00) and multiplying each proposed coefficient by $450,000.00. the subtotal for each coefficient will then be added together to determine the total price for CLIN X010.

Normal duty hours are defined as 0730-1600 (Monday-Friday except Federal Holidays). Anything outside these hours/days are considered “Other than Normal Duty Hours”.

Controlled Area is defined in the USAFA Security Plan (available through the technical library).

4.3.3 Total Evaluated Price.

4.3.3.1 CE Total Evaluated Price. The Government will evaluate offers for award by adding the total price for all

CLINs including transition, base year, and all option years plus fifty percent (50%) of each year’s price to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8.

4.3.3.2 Cadet Support Total Evaluated Price. The Government will evaluate offers for award by adding the total price for all CLINs including transition, base year and all option years, plus fifty percent (50%) of each year’s price to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8.

4.3.4 Combined Price.

4.3.4.1 Total Evaluated Combined Price. The total Evaluated Price will be determined by adding the total price for all CLINs plus 50% of each year’s price representing the evaluation of the option to extend services clause.

4.3.4.2 Should the same offeror be determined to be the best value to the Government for both CE and Cadet

Support services, and the total evaluated combined price is less than the offeror’s separately proposed CE and Cadet

Support total evaluated prices, award will be made at the combined price.

NOTE: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Attachments

Document Type Description Pages Date

Attachment 1 CE PWS w/appendices 152 13 Mar 2014

Attachment 2 CE Workload Data 22 28 Feb 2014

Attachment 3 Cadet Support PWS w/appendix 43 13 Mar 2014

Attachment 4 Cadet Support 41 28 Feb 2014

Workload Data

Attachment 5 CBA 27 Jun 2013 31 27 Jun 2013

Attachment 6 Wage Determination-Davis Bacon 5 24 Jan 2014

Building

Attachment 7 Wage Determination-Davis Bacon 6 7 Feb 2014

Heavy

Attachment 8 Wage Determination-Davis Bacon 5 24 Jan 2014

Highway

Attachment 9 Wage Determination-SCA 9 25 Jun 2013

Attachment 10 CE PPQ 4 15 Jan 2014

Attachment 11 Cadet Support 4 15 Jan 2014

PPQ

Attachment 12 Past Performance Cover Sheet 1 24 Jan 2014

Attachment 13 Cross Reference Matrix 1 28 Feb 2014

Attachment 14 Teaming/Partner Consent Letter 1 24 Jan 2014

Attachment 15 PPI Contract Reference Sheet 3 28 Feb 2014

Attachment 16 PPI Tool Instructions 9 6 Mar 2014

Attachment 17 PPI Tool Download

Attachment 18 Civil Engineer ONLY 10 Feb 2014

Bid Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 19 Cadet Support ONLY 7 Mar 2014

Bid Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 20 Combined Proposal 7 Mar 2014

Bid Excel Spreadsheet

(End of Summary of Changes)