HQ0034-18-R-0149_Amendment_01_.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) Update Section G, 2) Add full text clauses in Section I, 3) Update clause 252.232-7006, 4) Update Section J list and order of attachments, 5) Update Attachment L1, L3, and L8, 6) Add full text clauses in Section K, 7) Add full text clauses in section L, 8) Update Section L instructions L2.1.4, L2.2, L2.1.5, L3.3.3, L3.3.4, L4.2.1, L4.3, L5.2.9 L5.3.4, L5.3.5; 9) Update Section K, and

10) Update Section M2.2.3.

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 80

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jun-2018

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 HQ003418R0149

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jun-2018

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, 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 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

22-Jun-2018

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003418R0149

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions.

Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award.

(1) This is a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://acquisition.gov and http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will award a contract resulting from this RFP to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best overall value to the Government when all non-price and price-related evaluation factors are considered. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. In using the best value, tradeoff approach, the Government seeks to award a contract to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements. This process may result in an award being made to a firm with a higher-priced offer where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria/factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical or service superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher-priced offer outweighs the cost difference. As such, the Government may award on the basis of a proposal with superior ratings even though it may result in a higher price to the Government.

(2) As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal.

Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

(3) The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria in the factors described below. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity, the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the best value process. Ultimately, the contract shall be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government.

Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

M1.1.3. Evaluation.

The technical proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ competitive range is established and the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M1.1.4. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award up to 1 contract(s) for the Pentagon Memorial Lighting (PML) Repairs Project;

however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all or cancel the solicitation at any time.

M1.1.5. Rejection of Offers.

The Government shall reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. Note that unreasonably high or unreasonably low proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, the Offeror’s approach poses great risk of poor performance.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Phase 1: Key Personnel Qualifications

Phase 2: Technical and Price Evaluations

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Key Personnel, Technical/Management, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical/Management factor, the subfactors are in equal order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(3) If an offeror receives a “Fail” rating under Phase 1 - Key Personnel, the offeror shall be ineligible for award and shall not be further evaluated. If an offeror receives a “Pass” rating under Phase 1, the offeror will be evaluated under Phase 2/Factor 1. If an offeror receives an “Unacceptable” rating in any subfactor under Factor 1 – Technical/Management, the offeror shall be ineligible for award and shall not be further evaluated. If an offeror receives a rating greater than “Unacceptable”, the offeror will be evaluated under Factor 2 – Past Performance. If the offeror receives a “No Confidence” rating under Factor 2 – Past Performance, the offeror shall be ineligible for award and shall not be further considered. If an offeror receives a rating greater than “No Confidence” or a Neutral rating under Factor 2, then the offeror’s price shall be evaluated under Factor 3 – Price. An “Unacceptable” rating under any factor or subfactor or a “No Confidence” rating under the Past Performance factor shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. At its discretion, the Government may elect to cease evaluating a proposal after a single “Unacceptable” or “No Confidence” rating under any factor or subfactor.

M2.0 Key Personnel Qualifications Factor

The offeror’s proposed Key Personnel will be evaluated on whether it meets all of the requirements in Section L3.3.4 Phase 1 – Key Personnel Qualifications. This factor will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis. To be eligible for contract award, offerors must receive rating of “Pass”. Any offeror who does not meet all of the stated requirements shall be rated as a “Fail” under this factor, shall be deemed ineligible for award, and the Government will not further consider the proposal.

Table M.1 – ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M2.1. Technical/Management Factor.

The technical/management evaluation will be evaluated using a combined technical/management rating and risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. An unacceptable rating under any sub-factor or overall shall render the offeror ineligible for award. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M2.

TABLE M2. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M2.2.1. Management Approach Subfactor.

The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated based on the quality of its approach to successfully manage, plan and execute the project. Contractors showing an advanced level of planning will be more favorably evaluated.

M2.2.2. Technical Approach Subfactor.

The Offeror’s Technical Approach will be evaluated based on a demonstrated understanding, knowledge, ability to perform all task areas of the SOW, and how the technical approach will be beneficial to the Government. Offerors representing the most thorough understanding, realistic and comprehensive approach for the entire project will be more favorably rated.

M2.2.3. Small Business Participation Subfactor.

The Contracting Officer shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business performance of the contract, whether as a prime contractor or subcontractor. The small business participation factor assesses the commitment to small business participation based on the detail provided in the Small Business Participation Document. The Small Business Participation Document shall address the following areas for evaluation:

(a) Proposed goals for utilization of small business concerns, as defined in FAR Section 19;

(b) Efforts to ensure that the small business goals (at least 20% small business participation as a goal) will be met;

(c) Specific extent of commitment to subcontract with small business firms (commitments for inclusion of small business via negotiated/signed agreements are desired);

(d) Identification by name, type of business, products/services, estimated dollar value; duration of work (if a service); and type of commitment shall be provided in the Table.

(e) Initiatives to subcontract to women owned small business.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Participation Document on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis based on the extent to which small businesses are specifically identified in the proposal and the extent of participation of small business in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

Table M.3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.3.0. Past Performance Factor.

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance.

Past performance information shall be obtained from any 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), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

M3.1. Recency Assessment.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be currently well underway (designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than 5 years from the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M3.2. Relevancy Assessment.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for similarity in scope, complexity, and magnitude. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1.2).

TABLE M4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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 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.

M3.3. Performance Confidence Assessment.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated and consideration of other relevant past performance information, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In the event that the Government is unable to obtain performance quality information for a reference, resulting in a "Not Applicable" Quality Assessment Rating, the relevance of that reference will not be considered in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Offerors 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 and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the past performance factor. For evaluation purposes, a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3.

TABLE M5. 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.

NEUTRAL 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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

M4.0. Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the base award. Price proposals will not be rated or ranked.

(2) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. Price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

(4) Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

M5.0. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

The offeror’s Subcontracting Plan, COI Disclosure Statement, Bid Guarantee, and Financial Statement will each be rated on a Pass/Fail basis as part of the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9. Failure to achieve an affirmative responsibility determination will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

Each item will be evaluated as follows:

(a) The offeror's Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on whether it meets all of the requirements of the Section I clause FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2018-O0013) (APR 2018) and Section J, Attachment 7 – Subcontracting Plan Format. For purposes of this solicitation and any resulting contract, the offeror’s subcontracting goals shall be consistent with the goals described in the Section L provision, WHS Goals for Subcontracting with Small Business. Plans that meet all requirements will be rated "Pass." Plans that do not meet all requirements will be rated "Fail". An offeror whose Subcontracting Plan is rated as "Fail" at time of award will be ineligible for award.

(b) The offeror’s COI Disclosure Statement will be evaluated on whether it meets all of the requirements of the Section L provision, "Disclosure Requirements for Organizational Conflict of Interest". Disclosure Statements that meet all requirements will be rated "Pass." Disclosure Statements that do not meet all requirements will be rated "Fail". An offeror whose Disclosure Statement is rated as "Fail" at time of award will be ineligible for award.

(c) The offeror’s Bid Guarantee will be evaluated on whether it is legally sufficient. The Bid Guarantee must be legally sufficient. If the offeror’s Bid Guarantees that is legally sufficient, it will be rated “Pass”. An offeror whose Bid Guarantee is rated “Fail” at time of award will be ineligible for award.

(d) The offeror’s Financial Statement will be evaluated to determine if the offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain the financial resources to perform the contract.

M6.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The representations and certifications submitted under this tab and online will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror’s representations are consistent, accurate and in accordance with regulation. It will not be rated.

52.222-5 CONSTRUCTION WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS--SECONDARY SITE OF THE WORK (MAY

2014)

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.

(a)(1) The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements,of this solicitation.

(2) If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.

(b)(1) If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from the Contracting Officer.

(2) The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror's request for a wage determination for a secondary site of the work.

(End of provision)

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmdfara.htm

(End of provision)

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for June 28, 2018 at 10:00AM ET

(c) Participants will meet at the visitor entrance of the Pentagon Modular Office Complex (MOC) located at 100 Boundary Channel Drive, Arlington, VA.

(End of provision)

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from

Paulette Creighton Washington Headquarters Services Acquisition Directorate 4800 Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22311 paulette.m.creighton.civ@mail.mil http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmdfara.htm

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of provision)

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

LIST OF SECTION L ATTACHMENTS

Attachment L1 – Question & Answer Template

Attachment L2 – Past Performance Information Sheets

Attachment L3 – Past Performance Questionnaire Form

Attachment L4 – Pricing Template

Attachment L5 – Non-government Advisor NDA

Attachment L6 – Subcontracting Plan Template

Attachment L7 – Small Business Participation Commitment Plan

Attachment L8 – Client Authorization Letter

Attachment L9 – North Village Visitor Parking Form

L1 – INFORMATION TO OFFERORS

L1.0 Program Title and Objectives L1.1. Overview The Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) has a requirement from the Facilities Services Directorate (FSD) to provide design-build construction for the Pentagon Memorial Light (PML) Repairs project. The term “Offeror” as used in this solicitation shall mean the prime contractor and any proposed team subcontractors or consultants that will perform direct labor under the contract. In addition to the requirements of FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, offerors shall adhere to the following proposal preparation instructions for this solicitation.

L1.2. Estimated Magnitude of Construction

In accordance with FAR 36.204, the estimated magnitude of construction is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

L2.0 General Instructions L2.0.1. This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall address all requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) and attachments. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Information to Offerors may result in removal of the proposal from further evaluation.

L2.0.2. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the

Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

L2.0.3. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, internet hyperlinks, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

L2.0.4. In accordance with (IAW) FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one digital copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

L2.0.5. Portions of the successful offeror’s proposal may, at the Government’s discretion, be incorporated into the contract as an attachment in Section J.

L2.0.6. Use of Non-Government Advisors.

(a) Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as Technical Advisors in the source selection process. These individuals will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties and are prohibited from accessing past performance information. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition and from scoring or ranking of proposals or recommending the selection of a source.

MARKON, Inc.

400 South Maple Ave Suite 230 Falls Church, VA 22046 In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary or source selection information contained in the offeror’s proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, if the offeror does not object to the any of the companies listed as participating on the source selection team, the offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to submission of proposals. Further, the offeror shall submit copies of the executed agreement and its written consent, with their proposal, to provide access to the firm’s proprietary and Source Selection information to the nongovernment advisor or the company which employs the nongovernment advisor. Offerors shall use Attachment L.5, Non-Disclosure Agreement between Nongovernment Advisor’s Company and Offeror.

(b) This clause must be included in all subcontracts and other agreements executed by the prime contractor in connection with submitting the prime contractor’s proposal or performing the work.

L2.1 General Information L2.1.1. Point of Contact.

The contracting officer (KO) and the contract specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this procurement.

Address any questions or concerns to the KO and CS. Written requests for clarification must be sent to the KO at the email address located in Section G.

L2.1.2. Debriefings.

The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing with a timely request. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable. Excluded offerors are only entitled to one debriefing for each proposal.

L2.1.3. Discrepancies.

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unclear, the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing.

L2.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents.

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

Additional documents, known as the Bidders Library, pertaining to the technical requirements of this solicitation will be made available via ARMDEC SAFE; however, documents will only be provided after a formal request is received. All requests shall be sent NLT Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:00AM ET to valencia.r.thornton.civ@mail.mil and additional instructions on obtaining access will be provided.)

L2.1.5. Communications.

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the KO or CS.

Evaluation Notices (EN) and responses will be transmitted via emails and will be treated as source selection information. The subject line of the email shall be titled: “RFP HQ0034-18-R-0149, Contractor Name, Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Questions/comments are due no later than 05:00 ET on JUL 3, 2018. Questions submitted after the deadline may not be answered. The email address for the KO and CS are contained in Section G. Questions/comments will only be responded to if received in email and only when submitted on Attachment L1, Solicitation Questions and Answer Template in Section L.

No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided in response to offeror initiated telephone calls or oral requests. All such requests must be made in writing and submitted as directed above. All questions/comments provided in a timely manner will be answered in writing and provided to all offerors via solicitation amendment. However, written inquiries may not be answered when requests are received by the Government points of contact after the original due date for receipt of questions as specified in this solicitation. The timeframe for submitting inquiries will not be extended as a result of an extension to the due date for the receipt of offers unless authorized by the KO.

L2.1.6. Award without Discussions.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best approach/terms for technical/management, past performance, and price; however, despite this intent, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines they are necessary. If the SSA determines that discussions are necessary, a competitive range will be established. The SSA may further reduce the competitive range for purpose of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2)). In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the SSA's satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing.

L2.1.7. Organizational and Conflict of Interest Notification

(a) The prospective Contractor certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it is not aware of any information bearing on the existence of any potential organizational conflict of interest. If the prospective Contractor cannot so certify, it shall provide a disclosure statement in its proposal which describes all relevant information concerning any past, present, or planned interests bearing on whether it (including its chief executives and directors, or any proposed consultant or subcontractor) may have a potential organizational conflict of interest.

(b) Prospective Contractors should refer to FAR Subpart 9.5 for policies and procedures for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest.

(c) If the Contracting Officer determines that a potential conflict exists, the prospective Contractor shall not receive an award unless the conflict can be avoided or otherwise resolved through the inclusion of a special contract clause or other appropriate means. The terms of any special clause are subject to negotiation.

L2.1.8. Disclosure Requirements for Organizational Conflict Of Interest http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ mailto:valencia.r.thornton.civ@mail.mil

The proposed contract utilizes documents/services performed by the WHS Construction Management and Technical Support Services (CMTSS) contract for the preparation of the Statement of Work (SOW), Cost Estimates, Project Schedules, and Technical Criteria. An offeror shall specifically disclose whether they have any business or financial relationships with an entity whose financial interests may be directly affected by the work performed by the CMTSS contractor.

The disclosure statement must address actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest within the offeror's entire corporate organization, including parent company, sister companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, and other interests held by the offeror. In addition to identifying actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest, the disclosure statement shall describe how any such conflict can be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. The Contracting Officer will determine an offeror's eligibility for award based on the information provided in the disclosure statement.

L2.1.9. Contractor Disclosure of Actual or Potential Conflict Of Interest If, before or after award, an actual or potential conflict of interest is identified by the Government or discovered by the Contractor, the Contractor shall immediately make a full disclosure in writing to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor further recognizes that during the term of this contract, conditions may change which may give rise to a newly recognized actual or potential conflict of interest. In the event that the Government identifies or the Contractor discovers an actual or potential conflict of interest before or after award, the Contractor shall, at a minimum, immediately provide the following information:

i. A description of the actual or potential conflict of interest and identify the parties involved;

ii. A description of the work affected by the actual or potential conflict of interest; and

iii. A mitigation plan as described in section (c)

(a) Mitigation Plan. To the extent that the Contractor of the Government has at any time before or after award identified an actual or potential conflict of interest, the Contractor shall propose a written mitigation plan which concisely describes all relevant facts concerning any potential conflict of interest including any past, present, or currently planned interest (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) relating to the services performed or product to be delivered under this solicitation. The mitigation plan shall describe the actions or planned actions the Contractor has taken or purposes to take, to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest. If accepted by the Contracting Officer, the mitigation plan will become part of the contract.

(b) Final authority. The Contracting Officer is the final authority in determining whether a conflict of interest exists and whether the conflict of interest has been adequately mitigated, neutralized or avoided.

(c) Remedies. The presence of an actual or potential conflict of interest that, in the Contracting Officer’s discretion, cannot be avoided, mitigated or neutralized, may preclude the Contractor form competing for the award or, if the conflict is discovered after award and cannot, in the Contracting Officer’s discretion, be neutralized, mitigated or avoided, may result in termination of the contract. If the conflict of interest results from conflicting financial or other interests involving Contractor personnel performing under this agreement, the Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to remove such personnel from performance of work under the contract as a means to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict of interest before award, or discovers or with reasonable diligence should have discovered an actual or potential conflict after award and does not disclose or misrepresents relevant information to the Contracting Officer, it will be deemed a material breach of the agreement/solicitation. In that event, the Government may elect to terminate the contract for default. Nothing herein shall prevent the Government from electing any other appropriate remedies afforded by other provisions of this agreement, or statute or regulation.

(d) The Contractor may not compete for any requirement that incorporates, involves or relates to any work performed by contractor under this solicitation unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.

L2.2. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits.

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table L-1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits as specified in Table 1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the information to offerors paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table L-1 - Proposal Organization

Volume RFP Paragraph Number Volume Title Page Limit

I L3.0. Technical Proposal

(Résumés, and Project Schedule, and Small Business

Participation Commitment Plan not included in the page count)

II L5.0 Past Performance Information 3 pages per project

III L8.0 Business and Price Proposal No page limit

L2.2.1. Page Limitations.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation. Each page shall be counted except résumés, blank pages, cover pages table of content, or those identified in Table 1, Proposal Organization, as having no limit.

L2.2.2. Page Size and Format.

L2.2.2.1. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts.

Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point Ariel, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text. The technical volume of the proposal is to be submitted as an MSWord 2010 or PDF document. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. The technical portion of the proposal is to be submitted as an MSWord 2010 or PDF document.

L2.2.2.2. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point Ariel, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text included in a table.

L2.2.3. Pricing Information All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Business and Price Proposal Volume. With the exception of L5.2.3.3., the Business and Price Proposal Volume submission instructions in L2.2.2. shall be used. L5.2.3.3. of the Business and Price Proposal shall be provided in a separate electronic file in .xls format with all formulas and calculations intact/unlocked and may contain font smaller than 12-point.

L2.2.4. Indexing.

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

L2.2.5. Labeling.

Each volume shall include a coversheet and be clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. Each volume shall be submitted as separate documents and labeled clearly with the volume number, title, and offeror’s name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

L2.3. Electronic Offers.

Submit only the electronic files that are specifically requested. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. All pages shall be numbered. Searchable PDF pages shall be formatted to print on 8 ½ by 11 inch paper, unless another paper size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission.

Spreadsheets and presentation drawings must fit to 11” x 14” or 11” x 17” paper size unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Hard copies shall not be submitted, with the exception of the bid guarantee. Refer to L6.2 Bid Guarantee, for bid guarantee submission requirements.

Submitting proposals via AMRDEC SAFE: In order to respond to this solicitation, the offeror shall transmit a copy of its proposal to the KO and CS not later than the time and date specified in this solicitation via the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) website. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, ALT, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror's proposal submission will be considered complete when all volumes are received. Use separate files for each Volume. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2013, MS Office Excel 2013, and MS Office Project 2007, as applicable.

Instructions:

a. To respond to this solicitation, the offeror shall deliver an electronic proposal to https://safe.amrdec.army.mil in accordance with the instructions in the “Getting Started Guide: https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx.

b. Prior to submitting proposals, the offerors shall be registered in System for Award Management (http://www.sam.gov).

c. All proposal volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF); except the Pricing Proposal, which shall be submitted in MS Excel 2013. Note:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/ https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx http://www.sam.gov/

There shall be no page markings with restrictive legend prohibiting the copying and pasting of text for Government use specific to this acquisition.

d. Submit each volume as a separate electronic file or .zip file with the name of the volume from the table in Section L2.2. Each individual file within the zip file must be autonomous and complete.

e. Virus Check. Offerors shall perform a virus check prior to proposal submittal and certify they have done so in the proposal’s Cover Pages.

f. Use of the software and procedures described in this part will reduce the amount of time and effort needed by the Government to receive and install proposals into an electronic evaluation system and will help to ensure that proposals are suitable for reading electronically. Information regarding electronic products listed herein should not be construed as Government endorsement for such products.

g. Due Date/Time. The time specified on the SF1442, Block 10, is in Eastern Time (ET).

Any proposal, modification, or revision that is received at the AMRDEC SAFE site specified in Section L2.3(a) after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals in Block 9 is “late” and will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208(b) and subparagraphs thereto.

h. The offeror’s proposal submission will be considered complete when all volumes have been received.

i. Efforts by the Government to clarify or expedite installation of electronic proposal submissions, in accordance with FAR 15.207(c), will not be considered discussions.

L2.4. Distribution.

Proposals shall be uploaded as requested in paragraph L2.3 above and shall be addressed to the KO with a copy to the CS at the following email addresses: nnenna.c.njoku.civ@mail.mil and valencia.r.thornton.civ@mail.mil.

L3.0. Volume I – Technical/Management Volume.

L3.1. Cover Page and Table of Contents.

Include cover page and a master table of contents of the entire technical proposal.

L3.2. General.

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Responses will be evaluated against the technical/management sub-factors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology to be used for accomplishing/satisfying these sub-factors and relevant SOW section. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

L3.3. Format and Specific Content.

Phase 1: Key Personnel Qualifications

Phase 2: Technical and Price Evaluations

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Sub-factor 1:…