Amendment 0002 W25G1V20R0031.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

1) The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate verbiage in Section M of the soliciation regarding the number of proposals received.

2) Post Question & Answ ers Attachment 8-10-2020, received from Site Visit held 8-7-2020.

3) The solicitation close date/time of 24 August 2020 at 3:30 pm est does not change as a result of this amendment.

Amendment 0002 shall be identif ied on the SF1442 during proposal submission; see Section L for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Aug-2020

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 W25G1V20R0031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jul-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

11-Aug-2020

CODE

ACC-APG, TOBYHANNA DIVISION

11 HAP ARNOLD BLVD

TOBYHANNA PA 18466-5100

W25G1V 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W25G1V20R0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

CONTRACTING OFFICER NOTES

1) Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of funding. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

Costs incurred by the contractor in the development of a proposal shall not be reimbursed by the Government.

2) Questions - All questions shall be submitted via e-mail, to jacqueline.d.ramsey.civ@mail.mil, NLT August 14, 2020. Questions/Reponses will be posted to betaSAM.

3) The magnitude of this construction project is more than $10,000,000.00.

4) Offerors are advised only electronic proposals will be accepted; hardcopy proposals will not be accepted.

5) SITE VISIT will be held Friday, August 7 at 1000, please contact Daniel Stapleton at daniel.stapleton1.civ@mail.mil for additional information. Be advised Tobyhanna Army Depot has a mandatory mask requirement in place. All individuals must wear masks and temperatures will be checked at the Visitor Center or Main Gate.

6) If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals received exceed the number at which an efficient comparison can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit or otherwise down select the number of proposals to be compared to the greatest number that will permit an efficient and timely comparison among the lowest priced proposals. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

7) Solicitation W25G1V20R0031 shall close 8-24-2020 at 3:30 pm EST – all proposals must be received prior to closing.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

BASIS FOR AWARD

A. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Cost/Price and Past Performance. The Technical factor is more important than the Cost/Price factor, which is more important than the Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors). Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE

MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Capability and Experience

b. Subfactor 2 - Organization

c. Subfactor 3 – Quality Control

d. Subfactor 4 – Safety Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 3 and Subfactor 3 is more important than Subfactor 4.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Statement of Work, Drawing/Specs and Appendices. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and confidence assessment.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals received exceed the number at which an efficient comparison can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit or otherwise down select the number of proposals to be compared to the greatest number that will permit an efficient and timely comparison among the lowest priced proposals. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Capability and Experience for the Building 1E Renovation Project. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

KEY POINT #1 : Description of their experience and capability in managing construction projects for the dollar levels, disciplines, and specifications being required in the Bldg 1E

Renovation project.

KEY POINT #2 : Detailed explanation on how they will perform the minimum percentage required, 15%, with your own forces. Do they have the capability to perform both as a General contractor and self-perform a major element of construction, for example, Electrical, or Mechanical or Roofing.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Organization. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

KEY POINT #1 : Providing of names, duties and levels of responsibility of key personnel to include the Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Control Manager and Safety Manager. Indicate to whom the Quality Control and Safety Managers report (Lines of authority).

Did they include resumes that identify the education, training and experience in managing construction projects of the key personnel. If employee is not a current employee, provide a conditional offer of employment if award is received.

KEY POINT #2 : Did the offeror provide a list of the in-house trades that they employ. Providing the number (not names) of these employees and if they are full-time, part- time etc. If applicable, was a description of the support and interface with your home office or corporate headquarters for such aspects as financial, management and technical support included.

KEY POINT #3 : The list of major subcontractors and their trades that are intended to be used on these projects. Is a Subcontract Information and Consent Form included in the proposal for the named subcontractors for their consideration. Does the proposal include narrative advising if the offeror and proposed sub have previously worked together with a description of the jobs.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Quality Control. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

KEY POINT #1 : Description on how quality issues will be dealt with on this project. The discussion included as a minimum, meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work and how you intend to ensure non-reoccurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials.

KEY POINT #2 : The offerors’ procedures for contract closeout (Punch list, as builts, etc.).

Subfactor 4: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Safety Program. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

KEY POINT #1 : Discussion of their Safety Program in general, and did they provid as a minimum, details on training, documentation, and your plan to ensure adherence to OSHA Standards, and the USACOE EM 385-1-1 (Safety Manual).

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Definitions:

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

3. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L-(ii) Volume II Cost/Price instructions.

2) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

3) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLIN prices (CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0005).

The Total Evaluated Price will include all the priced CLINS for an overall proposed cost, however all the Option CLINS may not be exercised.

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror (Prime Contractor’s) record of past and current performance as well as the past and current performance of all major sub contractors to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires included as Attach 6 PRAQ and Attach 7 Subcontractor attached to the Solicitation.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (Prime Contractor’s) and major subcontractor’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 15% percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an

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.

important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 236220.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past 3 years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s (Prime Contractor’s) and major subcontractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s (Prime Contractor’s) and major sub contractor’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror (Prime Contractor’s) and major sub contractor is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - 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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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 facto 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.

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.

f. The major sub contractor’s past performance will be combined in the overall evaluation of the offeror’s (Prime Contractor) rating resulting in a single rating.

5. Submission Requirements:

a. Submission of Bid Bond – Pass/Fail

b. Confirmation of compliance with Buy America Construction – Pass/Fail

c. Reps and Certs submitted – Pass/Fail

d. Amendments identified on SF1442 – Pass/Fail

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to evaluate and make an award without conducting discussion. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussion if the Contracting Officer it is in the best interest of the Government to do so. Therefore, the offerors initial submission should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 3 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 2 business days prior to their discussion session.

(End of Summary of Changes)