HDEC03-11-R-0001 SCIP III Amend 4.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions ofthe 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 for the follow ing reasons:

A. The due date for proposals has changed from 29 Aug 11 to 30 Aug 11.

B. The Magnitude of Construction for McGuire AFB project has changed from "Betw een $5,000,000 & $10,000,000" to "Betw een $10,000,000 and $25,000,000" C. Replace Schedule B w ith revised Schedule B adding roof replacement as Option Clin 0007 (Attachment 3) D. Incorporate Statement of Work for Roof for McGuire AFB, NJ (Attachment 18) E. Incorporate Infrared Moisture Survey (Attachment 19) F. Incorporate Questions and Answ ers (Attachment 20) G. Replace DOL General Decision NJ100032 DATED 08/05/2011 w ith DOL General Decision NJ100032 dated 07/15/2011 (Attachment 21) H. Section Mhas been revised as follow s: Add correct information in Combined/Technical/Risk Rating Chart.

I. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Aug-2011

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 HDEC03-11-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jun-2011

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 ofOffer 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 ofthe following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies ofthe amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt ofthis amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegramwhich 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. Ifby virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegramor letter, provided each telegramor 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.(Ifapplicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Aug-2011

CODE

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY

CONSTRUCTION - DESIGN BRANCH

2250 FOULOIS STREET, SUITE 3

LACKLAND AFB TX 78236

HDEC03 7. ADMINISTERED BY (Ifother than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HDEC03-11-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Aug-2011 04:00 PM to 30-Aug-2011 04:00 PM.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENTS

# of

ATCH DOCUMENT PAGE(S) DATE

1 SCIP III Statement of Work (Rev 1) 16 28 Jul 2011

2 Past Performance Questionnare 7 30 Jun 2011

3 McGuire AFB Seed Project Schedule B 1 5 Aug 2011 Schedule B (Rev 1)

4 McGuire AFB Project Specific Docs 1 30 Jun 2011

5 DOL General Decision NJ20100032 13 10 June 2011 Building - McGuire AFB, NJ

6 Entry Authority List (EAL) Letter 1 6 July 2011

7 Pre-proposal Conf Location Map 1 6 July 2011

8 Questions and Answers 2 6 July 2011

9 Project Schedule Spreadsheet (Rev 1) 7 29 July 2011

10 Pre-proposal Conference Slides 19 22 July 2011

11 Pre-proposal Conference Attendance 15 14 July 2011

12 Questions and Answers – 2 9 22 July 2011

13 DOL General Decision NJ100032 15 15 July 2011 Building – McGuire AFB, NJ

14 Asbestos Survey Report 50 25 Sep 2010 McGuire AFB

15 Questions and Answers – 3 13 29 Jul 2011

16 Sketch #2 Equipment Phasing 1 29 Jul 2011

17 Sketch #1 New AHU1 Location 1 29 Jul 2011

18 Request for Proposal 1 31 Jul 2011 Architectural and Refrigeration

19 Infrared Moisture Survey 1 1 Aug 2011

20 Questions and Answers – 3 19 5 Aug 2011

21 DOL General Decision NJ100032 17 5 Aug 2011 Building – McGuire AFB, NJ

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Introduction: This is a competitive, best value, multiple award source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Part 15.3), Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS 215.3), and Defense Commissary Agency Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DeCAARS 15.3).

1. The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the technically acceptable responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation offers the best value to the Government, with past performance greater in importance than price considerations. The Government intends to award approximately ten (10) contracts. It is the Government’s intent to award the respective seed project to the proposal with the overall best value.

2. For the purpose of this source selection the Technical and Past Performance when combined are considered more important that Price.

3. Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability: The Government will first evaluate the technical acceptability of all proposals. Mission Capability provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the government’s requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission

Capability factor shall receive a color rating based on the combined technical/risk assessed on strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of the offeror's proposal. Features or aspects of a proposal that exceed the standard for acceptability in a manner that is beneficial to the Government will be given higher consideration in the best value source selection decision. To be eligible for award an offeror’s proposal must be technically acceptable. To be acceptable all technical factors must be rated technically acceptable. The agency will not further evaluate or consider for award any proposal found technically unacceptable. The following technical factors will be evaluated:

1) Technical Evaluation, Subfactor 1: Capability to Successfully Manage Multiple, Concurrent Task Orders: The organizational chart and key position requirements will be evaluated for completeness, logic and appropriateness of the organizational chart and associated key position requirements. Strong organizational structures will not include conflicts of interest in the chain of command and will include enough positions to adequately manage the basic contract and subsequent, concurrent projects in multiple locations. The management approach will be evaluated for realism given the organizational structure and other workload, both existing and potential.

2) Technical Subfactor 2: Capability to Successfully Manage TaskOrders at Multiple Locations: Capabilities will be evaluated for logic, completeness and realism.

3) Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule: The proposed schedule will be evaluated for completeness, the overall performance period, compared to the Government’s estimated 15 month performance period, and the schedule logic. Logic will be evaluated in terms of date sequencing, constrained activity analysis, float analysis, resource loading, open ended activities, and ties between activities. Strong proposals will have performance periods less than 15 months, reasonable average float values and float ratios, include dollar values for each activity, few or no activities without at least one predecessor and one successor, and few or no activities with excessive float. Proposals will be rated Unacceptable (Red) if the performance period is greater than 20 months, regardless of the number of additional deficiencies. In this case, the proposal does not meet requirements and is unawardable.

Each proposal will receive one of the technical/risk ratings listed below:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Definition BLUE OUTSTANDING Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE GOOD Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has no demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

NOTE: The Mission Capability Evaluation Subfactors are listed above. Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance. For the technical proposal to be rated as acceptable, all technical subfactors must be rated acceptable. If a proposal receives a different rating for any technical factor the overall proposal will receive the rate of the lowest rated technical factor. Only technically acceptable proposals are eligible for award.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government will rank all Technically Acceptable offers by evaluated price.

1) Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Reasonableness will be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison with the Government estimate and prior acquisitions, if applicable. Prices will be evaluated to determine if they are unbalanced. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced.

2) An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the schedule of Supplies/Services by the proposed fixed-unit price for each CLIN to confirm the extended amount for each. The proposed extended amounts shown for each CLIN are then totaled to confirm a total proposed price. Unrealistically low (or high) prices submitted, either initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The government will then rank all Technically Acceptable offers by evaluated price starting with the lowest overall price and continuing to the highest overall price. The government will begin past performance evaluation with the proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Using questionnaires and/or data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the contracting officer will evaluate relevant and recent past performance information of all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from Government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. 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 RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past or present performance effort will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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 than 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.

1. Very Relevant - Very relevant performance carries more weight than relevant or somewhat relevant. To qualify as very relevant the past performance effort must meet all of the following. (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $10 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project must have required phasing of new construction and/or phasing allowing continued operation of an occupied retail/resale facility, (4) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete supermarket product refrigeration systems and refrigeration systems monitoring and controls system, (5) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

2. Relevant - Relevant performance fails to meet all requirements for very relevant performance but meets all of the following. (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $6 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project must have required phasing of new construction and/or phasing allowing continued operation of an occupied retail/resale facility, (4) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete supermarket product refrigeration systems and refrigeration systems monitoring and controls system. (5) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

3. Somewhat Relevant – Somewhat relevant performance does not meet all requirements for very relevant or relevant but meets all of the following: (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $3 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems (HVAC) and controls. (4) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

4. Not Relevant – Not relevant performance is all performance that fails to meet one of the three relevancy categories above.

Quality of Performance - Performance efforts that qualify as recent and meet one of the three relevancy criteria (very relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant) will be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance ratings:

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Neutral

Based on the evaluation of past performance the government will develop one of the following performance confidence assessments for all offeror’s whose past performance was evaluated.

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.

SATSIFACTORY

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

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.

The Government reserves the right to down grade the performance confidence assessment of any offeror based on lack of relevant performance information. Offeror’s 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 or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

D. General Basis for Award: 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. If discussions are to be conducted they will be held with all offerors whose proposal is within the competitive range. Prior to establishing the competitive range the government will evaluate all offerors against all factors in the solicitation. In this event award will be based on an integrated best value assessment of all proposals remaining in the competitive range. As stated earlier, Technical and Past Performance when combined are considered more important that Price.

In using this best value approach, the Government will award up to ten (10) contracts to the offerors who give the Defense Commissary Agency the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s assessment of the evaluation factors. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the Past Performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The government anticipates an award of up to ten (10) contracts from this solicitation. The government intends to award to at least three (3) 8(a) Small Businesses. However, the Government is not required to award a minimum number of contracts or award to a certain number of any particular socioeconomic group.

E. Award: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise, furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

F. RESPONSIBILITY: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

(End of Summary of Changes)