CMTSS AMENDMENT 02 01-20-2012.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Jan-2012 02:00 PM to 26-Jan-2012 02:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Methodology

A. Basis for Award. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation, to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government, technical, management, price and other factors considered. The Government reserves the right to reject all offers or to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror. The Government also reserves the right to award a contract based upon initial offers. The Government will make a single award resulting from this solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

B. Security Clearance Requiremen/Certification.

To be eligible for contract award,Offerors must certify, no later than 45 days after the proposal due date, that the offeror possesses a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level or above. There will be no exceptions or extensions to this requirement. This security clearance is a PASS/FAIL requirement to be verified by the offeror no later than 45 calendar days after the proposal due date. Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) will NOT sponsor potential offerors for the facility clearance requirement. Offerors that cannot verify their active/current DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level no later than 45 calendar days after the proposal due date shall be deemed ineligible for award and their proposal will not be further considered by the Government.

C. See Attachment J-C1 Performance Work Statement (PWS); for detailed information on the Construction Management Technical Support Requirement.

D. General. The factors below are listed in descending order of importance with the exception of Factors I through III being of equal importance. Within Factor I and Factor II all sub factors are of equal importance. The non priced factors, when combined are significantly more important than price.

Factor I: Management of Personnel

Factor II: Technical Approach

Factor III: Past Performance

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor V: Price

(1). The importance of price in the evaluation for award will increase as the offerors’ proposals under Factors I-IV become more equal.

(2). Factors I ,II , III, IV, and V will be evaluated by the appropriate evaluation committee(s) of the Source Selection Evaluation Panel (SSEP) and be given an adjectival rating described below.

(3) If any factor or sub factor is/are rated unacceptable then the entire proposal shall be rated unacceptable and the offeror shall be ineligible for award.

Evaluation Rating Methods. Each of the non price factors and sub factors listed in section M will receive adjectival merit ratings as defined below.

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.

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

The above ratings will be utilized for factors I, II, and IV.

VOLUME I-Factor 1: Management Approach

Sub Factor A - Management of Personnel

(a). The offeror shall be evaluated on a management approach that will provide qualified on-site construction management technical support team members as outlined in the Performance Work Statement. This approach will also be evaluated on how the offeror’s plan explains how all tasks will be completed within cost, on schedule, and to acceptable levels of quality and performance.

(b).The government also will evaluate the offeror’s ability to recruit, train, and maintain high quality personnel in the areas of engineering, planning, and architectural support services.

Sub Factor B - Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

(a). A rating for this factor will be based on the degree to which the offeror meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement and has demonstrated work experience with proposed project teams providing on-site construction management technical support services.

*This rating will be based on the company’s demonstrated work experience with providing on-site construction management technical support services, not based on any individual's education or work experience other than the Program Principal.

(b).The government will evaluate the offeror’s organizational chart and communication channels by reviewing the proposed teams (including sub-contractors), in terms of the size, scope, and structure of the offerors organization and staffing directly assigned to the solicitation.

This will include evaluation of the Program Principal's (key personnel) credible, recent experience and leadership and knowledge in the key subject areas as identified in Performance Work Statement.

*The government will evaluate the companies' ability to meet the requirements of the PWS, not any individual's education or work experience other than the Program Principal.

Factor 2: Technical Approach Sub Factor A - Technical Competence

(a). The government will evaluate the offeror’s technical plan for providing strategic and long range planning, mission analysis, requirements development and analysis, and acquisition and life cycle management to support a government operation of a magnitude of $600 million or greater; for the Facilities Services Directorate (FSD), over a five (5) year effort. Additionally, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to transition projects to final acceptance, completing DoD 1354s (Transfer and acceptance of DoD real property), and managing warranty issues for Department of Defense.

(b). The offeror will be evaluated on its experience providing scheduling (Primavera), estimating (RS Means Timberline), and office engineering (Prolog) support. The offeror’s experience using Tririga, Project Wise, and Microstation will also be evaluated. Additionally, the offeror will be evaluated on how they integrate the schedules of multiple design build contractors at a macro level into a master schedule to provide effective projections to assist in managing the construction program.

Sub Factor B: Quality Control Plan

The government will evaluate the QC plan of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

(a). Organizational Structure- the offeror’s organizational structure for its QC process is established in a manner that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest between the offeror’s personnel (or subcontractors) that perform the construction management technical support services and the personnel that inspect the construction management technical support services’ work.

(b). Effectiveness- The degree of effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed unique processes, resources, and/or qualifications that will be utilized to ensure that the QC plan actively identifies and corrects performance failures in the construction management technical support service requirement. Additionally; the government’s QASP (See Attachment 8-Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for additional information) will act as a guide, which will be used to rate the contractors’ submitted Quality Control Plan.

Sub Factor C: Transition Plan

(a). The transition plan shall include how all tasks will be transferred from the incumbent to the new contractor during the post award 90-calendar day Phase In/Phase Out Period (see PWS paragraph 1.6.13) to minimize any decreases in productivity and to prevent negative impacts on other services. The transition plan shall include how the new contractor will work with the current FSD staff to capture lessons learned, practices, and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) to ensure a seamless transition. The transition plan shall address the contractor's ramp up plan for staffing to include target dates by which personnel will be onboard and the contractor’s plan to provide personnel with Secret clearances when necessary and within the stipulated time frame. The transition plan will include any pertinent information demonstrating the contractor's plan for a smooth transition. (See Attachment 9 J-L4 Staff Transitioning Estimate).

VOLUME II: Factor 3: Past Performance

(a). The Offerors past performance proposal must address corporate past performance in performing projects similar in size and scope to the effort required by Section C: Attachment J-C1 Performance Work Statement. The projects referenced by the contractor must have been completed within 5 years from the date of this solicitation or currently on-going and have completed at least six months of performance by the solicitation date. If currently ongoing, the extent of actual performance will be considered in determining the project’s relevance. Past performance data must be received before the proposal due date for this solicitation. The Contractor's relevant Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the extent of its ability to perform the contract successfully (quality of product or service, accuracy and completeness, timeliness of delivery/work, business relations, customer satisfaction, key personnel and staffing, including subcontractors/partners). The evaluation will include information in Government databases such as PIPRS.

(b). The Offeror shall submit completed Attachment 1 J-L1 Past Performance Data Sheet, for three (3) Government or commercial contracts for services directly related or similar to the services required in Section C: Attachment J-C1 Performance Work Statement. Three (3) Past Performance Data Sheets shall be submitted for each individual firm, within a Joint Venture. Information for contracts or subcontracts shall be for relevant contracts and subcontracts currently in process or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of this RFP. Specifically address the following items:

· The nature of the effort

· The tasks performed, including the deliverables, as they relate to Section C: Attachment J-C1 Performance Work Statement

· Timeliness of deliveries

· The extent of involvement (as a prime versus a subcontractor)

· The period of performance

· The utilization of subcontractor technical support versus in-house technical support

· Point of contact, phone and fax number for each contact listed

· The reasons why the project is relevant to the solicited work

(c). The Offeror shall complete the top portion of page 1, Attachment 2 J-L2 Past Performance Questionnaire, and send it to each of the three (3) customers for the contracts identified above on Attachment 1. As stated in Attachment 3 J-L3 Contractor Performance Evaluation Survey, the reference will complete this form and return it directly to the Government by the solicitation closing date.

(d). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (neutral evaluation).

(e). The Government may consider past or current contracts (including Federal, State and local Government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The Government will consider information provided on problems encountered on the identified contracts and associated corrective actions. Contractors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies. The Government may also consider information obtained from any other sources when evaluating past performance. Failure of a contractor to disclose a relevant Government contract with poor past performance may affect the contractor's past performance rating.

(f). The Government may consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant.

(g). Evaluation of past performance may include an evaluation of the contractor's past performance in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, and DFARS 252.219-7003, as applicable.

Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offerors recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. See FAR 15.305.16. Past performance information about the offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more significant/relevant and given more weight in the past performance evaluation.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offerors contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Description

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offerors past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at

FAR 15.304(c) (3) (ii) and DFARS 215.305(a) (2).

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in

Table 5. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Description

performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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 offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

VOLUME II: Factor 4: Small Business Participation (a).Small Business Participation Plan: The offeror will be evaluated on their small business plan satisfying the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

(b).All offerors will be evaluated on their level of small business commitment under the proposed acquisition and their level of commitment and ability to utilize small businesses in performance of prior contracts for similar products or services. The following shall evidence small business participation:

1. The extent to which offerors, as defined in FAR Part 19 will subcontract to a small business in a socio-economic status.

2. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighed more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

3. The complexity and variety of the work(including consideration of the various contract labor categories) small firms are to perform;

4. The reasonableness of the proposal;

5. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition. *Due to the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity nature of this procurement the offeror shall base this value on the estimated workload information as listed in Section B;

6. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages. *Due to the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity nature of this procurement the offeror shall base these percentages on the estimated workload information as listed in Section B.

VOLUME III: Factor V: Price (a). The offeror shall complete the Schedule of Supplies/Services page(s) of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Section B of the solicitation with pricing for the base and each option period. The offeror’s price proposal should include a breakout of the proposed labor categories and the rates for each category.

(b). Complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, and 30 of the solicitation, SF 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation. Ensure that Attachment 4 J-B1 Pricing Submission Worksheet is filled out using the proposed unit price and the extended total price per a CLIN. Any conditions or qualified pricing will be deemed non-responsive and shall render the offeror ineligible for award.

(c). Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL

TEXT. The solicitation shall be returned in its entirety.

(d). Extension of Services: For purposes of evaluating the potential use of FAR 52.217-8 , the government will add ½ the price of the last option period, to the offerors total proposed price for the base and option years.

The offerors fixed price shall be evaluated using Attachment 4 J-B1 Pricing Submission Worksheet, as completed by the offeror. The pricing submitted via Attachment 4 will determine the total evaluated price of each offeror, inclusive of option periods. In the event that there is a conflict between Attachment 4 J-B1 Pricing Submission Worksheet, and Section B, information in the attachment will govern. Fixed price proposals will be reviewed for reasonableness under FAR 15.404-1, “Price Analysis” to determine if the price is fair and reasonable and whether the proposal reflects an understanding of the requirements or contain apparent mistakes. The offeror’s proposed approach must be consistent with the price proposal. As part of the price evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Price may play an additional role since considerations of price in terms of best value may be controlling in circumstances where two or more proposals are otherwise adjudged equal or when a technically superior proposal is at a price that is not in the Government’s best interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)