Amendment 0006.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been modified:

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000)

(a) If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $10,854.43.

(b) If the Government terminates the Contractor's right to proceed, liquidated damages will continue to accrue until the work is completed. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause.

(c ) It has been determined that additional liquidated damages are appropriate, due to mission impact, over and above those required for normal construction and administration costs ($411.55) plus $10,442.88 per day.

(1) Heating Load: 42Mbtu/Hr.

(2) fuel Cost: Gas or fuel oil cost at $10.36/Mbtu.

(3) Operating Cost: 42Mbtu/Hr x $10.36/Mbtu = $435.12/Hr = $10,442.88 day

(End of clause)

The following have been deleted:

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PKC L-001

PKC L001 - GENERAL INFORMATION (88 CONS/PKC)

1. Point of Contact. The Buyer listed in Block 9A, page 1 of this solicitation is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to that person. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the address located in Block 7 of the SF 1442.

2. Debriefings. The Contracting Officer (CO) will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

3. Discrepancies. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the buyer in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

4. Mandatory Submission. The offeror shall submit a paper copy of the SF 1442, front and back, including the proposed amount in block 17, the appropriate original signatures, and acknowledgement of all amendments as required, along with Schedule B through Section M and reference information. Original paper Bid Bonds with appropriate signatures and raised corporate seals shall be submitted. Proposals that do not comply with the above requirements may be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

5. Subcontracting Plan Submission. Large businesses whose proposal exceeds $1,000,000.00 shall submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal. The following information is provided as the minimum acceptable agency goals:

a. Small Business = 23%

b. Small Disadvantaged Business = 5%

c. Woman-Owned Small Business = 5%

d. Veteran-Owned Small Business = 3%

e. Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business = 3%

f. HUBZone = 3%

6. FUNDS ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT. OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT THE COSTS OF ANY RESPONSE OR OTHER COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS SOLICITATION ARE AT THE OFFERORS OWN COST. UNLESS FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THIS REQUIREMENT, NO CONTRACT WILL BE AWARDED.

(End of Clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

PKC M-002

PKC M002 – BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1. This acquisition will use the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) technique to make a best value award decision. Under this approach the offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of approximately equal to price.

A. Initially the offers will be evaluated for responsiveness. In order to be considered responsive, the offeror must accept all solicitation requirements, including (but not limited to) terms and conditions, representations and certifications, specifications and drawings. Any offeror deemed non-responsive will not advance to the tradeoff process and will not be considered for award. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

B. PRICE

1. Offers shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The government may determine that a proposal is not acceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the options.

2. Price will be a substantial factor in the contracting officer’s award decision. Selection of the awardee will be based upon the most advantageous offer (price and other factors considered) and though not necessarily the determinative factor, price will contribute substantially to the award decision. The basis of the proposed price must be compatible with all other elements of the offer.

3. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price. Such an offer may be viewed as indicative of a lack of understanding of the government’s desired objective and may result in the offeror being excluded from the competition.

4. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit its best price upon initial submission of the offer.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE

1. If no past performance information is submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for award. For those offeror’s who do not have any relevant past performance information to submit, a statement to that effect will satisfy the requirement for a past performance volume. In such a case, that offeror will be considered to have a neutral/unknown past performance rating for evaluation purposes. However, if the Government has knowledge or gains knowledge through other sources regarding what the Government believes to be relevant past performance for an offeror who states they have none, such information may be used by the Government for evaluation purposes and a past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to that offeror’s proposal.

2. Responsive offerors will receive an Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the offeror’s past and present performance as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the required effort. The Integrated Past Peformance Confidence Assessment Rating will be determined by combining two individual components: Relevancy and Quality of Past Performance. Sources such as the following may be used to obtain relevant past performance information and determine the quality:

(a) The Federal Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), which extracts information input into CCASS, and information independently obtained by the Government through other sources;

(b) Hard copy questionnaires sent to a maximum of five sources for which the offerors provide like efforts to the solicitation at hand. The questionnaires use the same data points as used by the PPIRS system;

(c) Hard copy questionnaires issued to Wright-Patterson AFB program managers and quality assurance inspectors who have previously worked with the offeror on WPAFB projects/programs; and;

(d) A review of the information in the offeror’s proposal.

a. RELEVANCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE: The contracting officer shall seek relevant past performance information on all responsive offerors. Relevant past performance information includes performance of efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation, and have not expired more than 3 years ago.

1. Each contract evaluated for Relevancy will receive one of the following ratings:

Rating

Description

HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR)

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

RELEVANT (R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

b. QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE: Determined by examining documentation to identify how well the offeror actually performed on current and recent past contracts.

(1) Each contract evaluated for Quality will receive one of the following ratings:

Excellent: Performance meets all contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements.

Satisfactory: Perfomance meets all contractual requirements.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements.

Neutral: No performance record identifiable (see FAR15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)).

c. INTEGRATED PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this solicitation, based on the quality and relevancy of the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. An Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be determined by subjectively integrating the overall relevancy and quality past performance ratings. The assessment process will result in an overall integrated performance confidence rating of one of the following:

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. (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii)and (iv)

D. If the lowest-priced, responsive offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers, provided that offeror receives a positive responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9.

E. If the lowest- priced, responsive offeror’s performance confidence rating is less than Substantial Confidence, the government will accomplish a trade-off between price and past performance (based on the assessment as described above) to determine which offer represents the best value to the government. Award will be made to this offeror subject to a positive responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions if discussions are not held.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Clause)

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes)