Amendment 0006.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 W25G1V21R0014, Section L, Volume I, Technical (4) Subfactor d. Contract Management Plan, to remove "documentation/evidence" from sixth bullet. Also, Section M, Subfactor d revised to remove "documentation" from sixth bullet.

2) Post Q&A dated 22 July 2021.

The proposal due date is not extended as a result of this amendment. Offerors shall acknow ledge this amendment in their proposals.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jul-2021

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 W25G1V21R0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jun-2021

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

22-Jul-2021

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:

W25G1V21R0014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Only electronic proposals will be accepted. No hardcopy proposals will be accepted. Electronic offers shall be submitted via the DoD SAFE Service site, https://safe.apps.mil. NOTE: The Offeror is encouraged to test the DoD SAFE site in advance of the due date of proposals to familiarize themselves with the system.

A “drop-off” code is required for non-DoD Offerors. Offerors who do not have a CAC must submit a request for the “drop-off” code to Ms. Jacqueline Ramsey at jacqueline.d.ramsey.civ@mail.mil at least ten

(10) days prior to the proposal due date; once a code is provided it is only good for fourteen (14) days. The Government will not consider proposals that were delayed or otherwise not timely delivered to the SAFE Service site because of an issue with the Offeror or the Government's service providers, to include email maintenance, firewall or delivery to any other email box (e.g. junk). Therefore, the Offeror should anticipate delays in transmission and are advised to plan ahead and to begin transmitting their proposal in time to ensure successful delivery prior to the close of the solicitation. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

The Offeror shall indicate that their proposal remains valid for a minimum of 90 days and shall not contain classified data/information.

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced, and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Technical 1 No Page Limit

II Past Performance 1 15

III Price 1 No Page Limit

IV Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations and Submittals

1 No Page Limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents shall be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. **Please note – Self extracting executable (.exe) files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Volumes:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Subfactor a. This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ Bonding Capacity. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

KEY POINT: The Offeror shall provide a signed letter from its chosen surety demonstrating that it can obtain at least $5M of performance and payment bonds or evidence that it currently has at least $5M of spare performance and payment bond capacity per year for this contract. This is in addition to the bid bond, performance and payment bond required for the Building 14 Renovation TO, Exhibit A. The Offeror shall also provide contact information for the surety so that the Government can at its discretion verify the information provided. Surety companies utilized for the proposal and contract must be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website.

(2) Section 2 – Subfactor b. This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ Safety Program. The Offeror shall

KEY POINT #1: The Offeror is required to submit an Accident Prevention Plan (APP) for the Building 14 TO in accordance with the requirements of the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 01 35 26 and compliant with United States Army Corp of Engineers Engineering Manual 385-1-1 (USACE EM385) Safety Standards and Controls requirements (see Attachment 3). This APP will be used in the Base MATOC Award and Building 14 seed project TO evaluation.

KEY POINT #2: The Offeror shall provide the Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for itself and teaming partners for at a minimum the previous three (3) full year operating period from issue date of RFP. The required EMR information shall be provided in a letter format from the insurance companies of the Offeror. The Offeror shall also provide contact information for the insurance companies so that the Government can at its discretion verify the information provided.

KEY POINT #3: The Offeror shall provide the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable injuries/illnesses reports and Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate for at a minimum the previous three (3) full year operating period from issue date of RFP.

(3) Section 3 – Subfactor c. This sub-factor evaluates the Offerors’ Quality Control. The Offeror shall

KEY POINT: The Offeror is required to submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) for the Building 14 TO in accordance with the requirements of the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 01 45 00.00 99 and compliant with US Army Corp of Engineer – Construction Quality Control Management (USACE-CQCM) Standards.requirements (see Attachment 4). This QCP will be used in the Base MATOC Award and Building 14 seed project TO evaluation.

(4) Section 4 – Subfactor d. This sub-factor evaluates the Offerors’ Contract Management Plan (CMP): The

Offeror shall provide information that demonstrates/substantiates the following:

Describe the overall company structure, experience and capability related to fulfilling the potential requirements described in this MATOC for NAICS Code 236220.

Provide general overview of planned contract execution.

Organization: Organization and ability to manage multiple projects through adequate and qualified on-site staffing to support at least three (3) ongoing task orders.

Scheduling methodology: Describe the scheduling techniques and project planning methodology. Describe the criteria for selecting and qualifying subcontractors.

Include a plan for providing additional resources, manpower and technical expertise for support of the field office to cover peak workloads, special projects and urgently required projects. Response time shall be not more than one (1) hour from notification of emergency projects.

Provide discussion of how the Offeror has the ability to provide a sufficient quantity of qualified personnel, i.e. U.S. Citizens, who can obtain mobility access badges for the security areas of Tobyhanna Army Depot.

Describe method of evaluating and selecting Architect/Engineering (A/E) firm on

Design/Build Task Orders.

(ii) VOLUME II - Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 15 pages excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. The Offeror shall submit five (5) recent Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror in performance or awarded during the past five (5) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. This MATOC may include (but not limited to) renovation, HVAC, additions, alterations, maintenance and repairs with a dollar range of $15,000.00 - $15M. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 required by the RFP. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(e) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(f) Contract Type (specific type such as Firm Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(g) Awarded price/cost.

(h) Final or projected final price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. The Offeror shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offeror shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the Offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the Offerors’ delivered product.

(3) Section 3 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(4) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a PPQ shall be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire, providing detailed description on all ratings other than Satisfactory Confidence; when detailed information is not provided, the rating will be considered Satisfactory Confidence for evaluation purposes. The entire questionnaire shall be e-mailed to the Contract Specialist at jacqueline.d.ramsey.civ@mail.mil no later than the proposal due date.

The Offeror shall also e-mail to the Contract Specialist a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

(5) Submissions. The Offeror is discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case the Offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. The Offeror shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(iii) VOLUME III – Pricing.

(1) The Offeror shall complete the pricing page of the Exhibit A(1), Building 14 Renovation TO RFP, and not on the SF1442. Fill-in an amount for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) including Options. Offeror shall provide a complete breakdown of CLIN pricing with the offer including labor categories, hourly labor rates, number of labor hours, materials, supplies, equipment, other direct costs (quantity and unit price), profit, and indirect costs in sufficient detail to provide thorough evaluation per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-20 Alt I in electronic Excel spreadsheet format. When subcontractors are used, provide evidence of competitive award; if subcontract is not competitively awarded provide subcontractor’s detailed pricing as previously described.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for cost information may result in an adverse assessment of the Offeror’s proposal and remove the proposal from evaluation due to being non-responsive. The Offeror shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, the Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the Exhibit A(1) Bldg 14 Renovation TO RFP.

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 52.215- 20 Alt I. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to Cost will be disregarded.

(iv) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENT AND

CERTIFICTIONS/REPRESENTIONS.

(1) Section A – Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442), Solicitation, Offer and Award - An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission. All Amendments must be acknowledged on SF 1442.

(2) Section K – Certifications and Representations – Each Offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the MATOC

RFP.

(3) Joint Venture (JV) Offerors: The Offerors shall provide a copy of the signed joint venture agreement with the proposal.

(4) Teaming Offerors: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship (as described in Section H, Special Contract Requirements), the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement.

(5) Exhibit A – Building 14 Renovation TO Bid Guarantee for Building 14 TO must be included with proposal.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M) Awards will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical and Past Performance are weighted equally and, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Technical subfactors are weighted equally. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make awards without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror should ensure the completeness of their proposal and offer their best terms and conditions with their initial proposal. Also, the Offeror is cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost or highest technically rated offer.

A TO award of Building 14 Renovation TO, may be made to the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government considering the Accident Prevention Plan submitted under Technical Subfactor b, Safety; Quality Control Plan submitted under Technical Subfactor c, Quality Control Approach; and Price. The TO will be awarded to one Offeror after the base award.

In order to be considered for award, the Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under NAICS 236220 (Size Standard $33.5M) prior to contract award. The Offeror must also be registered as a Small Business in SAM in accordance with NAICS 236220, in order to be considered for award.

A. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Awards will be made to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Building 14 TO may be awarded following the MATOC awards to the Offeror who provides the best overall proposal using the evaluation criteria described in Exhibit A(1) Bldg 14 TO RFP. The Government reserves the right to make award of the TO based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

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

a. Subfactor a. Bonding Capacity

b. Subfactor b. Safety Program

c. Subfactor c. Quality Control Approach

d. Subfactor d. Contract Management Plan (CMP) The technical subfactors all have equal weighting. Based on the evaluations of the technical subfactors and noted strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the Government will then assign an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical Factor.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each Offerors’ past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Price

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

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 Offerors’ 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 proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

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

Subfactor a: Bonding Capacity - This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ proposed Bonding Capacity for the base contract. An adjectival rating will be given for this subfactor.

The Offeror will provide information to substantiate the following: The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ ability to provide documentation from a certified and approved Surety demonstrating that it currently has or can obtain $5M of payment and performance bonds per year specifically for this contract.

KEY POINT: The minimum (threshold) amount of bonding required is $5M per year. The Offeror who can demonstrate significantly greater than $5M of bonding capacity/ability may earn an evaluated strength which could increase the Technical Factor rating.

NOTE: Surety companies utilized for the proposal and contract must be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website.

Reference https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified- companies.html Subfactor b: This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ Safety Program. An adjectival rating will be assigned to this subfactor. This rating will consist of the rating for Key Point #1 and depend on the Offeror receiving Acceptable ratings for both Key Point #2 and #3. An unacceptable rating in either may result in an unsatisfactory rating for this subfactor. Evaluators will rate:

KEY POINT #1: The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Accident Prevention Plan (APP) written for the Building 14 Renovation TO, using the Statement of Work (SOW) in Exhibit A(2), in accordance with the requirements of the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 01 35 26 and compliant with United States Army Corp of Engineers Engineering Manual 385-1-1 (USACE EM385) Appendix A Safety Standards and Controls requirements, Attachment 3, to the solicitation. The APP will be evaluated using a two-step approach. Step one, the Government will evaluate the numerical headings listed in Attachment 3 to ensure they are addressed and written to provide the Government confidence the Offeror has a clear understanding of the mandatory requirements stated in the UFGS and USACE EM385 Standards. If information is missing, the proposal may be removed from further evaluation. Step two, the Government will credit the Offeror for details provided using the alphabetical sub criteria listed in the attachment. This detail will be evaluated for added strength in the APP based on the information provided and the confidence the Government has that the Offeror has a clear understanding of the requirement.

KEY POINT #2: The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the previous three (3) full year operating period from issue date of RFP. This key point will be evaluated acceptable/unacceptable based on meeting minimum requirements.

NOTE: An EMR of greater than 1.0 during any portion of the previous three (3) full year operating period from issue date of the RFP will be considered unacceptable.

KEY POINT #3: The Government will evaluate the DART rate for the previous three (3) full year operating period from issue date of RFP. Evaluation will be of the Offerors’ record of safe and regulatory compliant operations based on its OSHA recordable injuries/illnesses reports and its DART rate. The Offerors’ OSHA DART rate shall be at or below 1.4 - 2017; 1.4 - 2018 and 1.1 – 2019 for each of the previous three (3) full year operating periods from issue date of RFP.

This key point will be evaluated acceptable/unacceptable based on meeting minimum requirements. A DART rate below the rates stated above for any one (1) year will be rated unacceptable.

Subfactor c: This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ Building 14 Renovation Quality Control Plan. An adjectival rating will be assigned for this subfactor.

KEY POINT - The Government will evaluate the Offeror Quality Control Plan (QCP) for the Building 14 Renovation TO, using the SOW in Exhibit A(2), in accordance with UFGS and US

Army Corp of Engineer – Construction Quality Control Management (USACE-CQCM) Standards. The QCP will be evaluated using a two-step approach. Step one, the Government will evaluate the numerical headings listed in Attachment 4 to ensure they are addressed and written to provide the Government confidence the Offeror has a clear understanding of the mandatory requirements stated in the UFGS and USACE-CQCM Standards. If information is missing or unclear, the proposal may be removed from further evaluation. Step two, the Government will credit the Offeror for details provided using the alphabetical sub criteria listed in the attachment.

This detail will be evaluated for added strength in the QCP based on the information provided and the confidence the Government has that the Offeror has a clear understanding of the requirement.

Subfactor d: This sub-factor evaluates the Offerors’ Contract Management Plan (CMP). An adjectival rating will be given based on the thoroughness and quality of response:

KEY POINT - The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ ability to perform based on its submitted information in the CMP for the following items:

Did the Offeror describe the overall company structure, experience and capability related to the requirements described for NAICS Code 236220?

Did the Offeror provide general overview of planned contract execution?

Did the Offeror provide scheduling methodology and criteria for selecting and qualifying subcontractors?

Organization: Did the Offeror describe their Organization and Method for managing 3 ongoing task orders and multiple projects simultaneously?

Did the Offeror include a plan for providing additional resources, manpower and technical expertise for support of the field office to cover peak workloads, special projects and urgently required projects? Does the Offeror acknowledge a response time shall be not more than one hour from notification of emergency projects?

Does the Offeror provide discussion of how the Offeror has the ability to or plans to provide a sufficient quantity of qualified personnel, i.e. U.S. Citizens, who can obtain mobility access badges for the security areas of Tobyhanna Army Depot?

Did the Offeror describe method of evaluating and selecting A/E firm on Design/Build Task Orders?

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, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The adjectival ratings for the subfactors will rolled up into a single Technical rating as long as there were no unacceptable ratings in any of the technical subfactors.

TABLE 1 – 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.

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offerors’ record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, the Offeror will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant five (5) efforts (within the past five (5) years) in their proposal. A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence on the PPQ must be given for all evaluation categories (A-E) to be considered for a MATOC Award.

If prior past performance lacks recent and relevant history or is so vague that a confidence assessment rating cannot 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. The Offeror shall submit five (5) Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror in performance or awarded during the past five (5) 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 the Offerors’ demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offerors’ 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 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.

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.

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 Offerors’ past performance. Documented results from the PPQ to include rationale for each rating;

any rating other than Satisfactory Confidence with no rationale will be rated Satisfactory for evaluation purposes, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (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 the Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offerors’ 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 Offerors’ 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 Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ 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 Offerors’ 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. The Offerors’ proposed firm-fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable. Detailed, other than cost and pricing data must be provided for evaluation to begin, only providing lump sum pricing may result in the total proposal being non-responsive.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall 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 Price instructions to include other than cost and pricing data as described in FAR 52.215-20 Alt I, using an Excel spreadsheet. When subcontractors are used, provide evidence of competitive award; if subcontract is not competitively awarded provide subcontractor’s detailed pricing as previously described.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offerors’ overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

Errors: The Offerors’ 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.

Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offerors’ proposed firm-fixed-price CLIN prices as indicated in Exhibit A(1) – Bldg 14 TO RFP Pricing Sheet.

5. SF 1442/Certifications/Representations. This data will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable.

- SF 1442 is signed by authorized official and all amendments are acknowledged.

- Section K Certs & Reps are completed.

- Joint Ventures/Teaming arrangements have provided agreements.

- Exhibit A – Bid Guarantee included.

C. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be notified of the required response date by the Contracting Officer to have submitted their Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be notified of the required response date by the Contracting Officer to have submitted their Final Proposal Revisions. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will be held telephonically.

(End of Summary of Changes)