W911SF18R00220003.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 correct the Task Areas in section M.3.3.1.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jun-2019

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 W911SF18R0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Apr-2019

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 1 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

21-Jun-2019

CODE

MICC - FORT BENNING

6650 MELOY DRIVE

BLDG 6, SUITE 250

FORT BENNING GA 31905-1300

W911SF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911SF18R0022

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization has changed from

MICC - FORT EUSTIS

705 WASHINGTON BLVD

FORT EUSTIS VA 23604

to

MICC FORT LEE

1830 QUARTERMASTER ROAD, BLDG 7124

FORT LEE VA 23801

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. Basis for Contract Award.

M.1.1. The Government intends to solicit and award on a small business set aside competition basis resulting in the award of five (5) awards. This is a best value source Selection procedure IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 Source Selection as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and th Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Based on a competitive acquisition, the Government intends awards to be made to multiple offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance withi the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposals conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposals, judged by an overal assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specificaed in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offers. The LPTA process does not permit tradeoffs among price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-2(b)(2)).

M.1.1.1. Unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. The Government will not evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness for proposals that were evaluated and rated “Unacceptable in Factor 1 (Technically Acceptability).”

M.1.2. Award for all Work. The government intends to make multiple awards as a result of this solicitation. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors, but reserves the right to seek clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M.1.3 Responsiveness and Acceptability. Offerors must demonstarte the ability to perform multiple on-going simultaneously through sufficient performance and Payment Bonding capacity in accordance with FAR 28.102 and verification from Securities or Bonding Company Proposals submitted gbgy offerors without a suffcient bonding capacity will not be evaluated or considered for award.

M.2. Evaluation Criteria

M.2.1. Evaluation criteria consist of price and non-price factors. Trade-off between price and non-price factors are not permitted:

M.2.2. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: Construction Experience Subfactor 2: Design/Build Experience Subfactor 3: Management Approach Subfactor 4: Seed Project Response Subfactor 5: Bonding Capacity

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

M.2.3. Non-price factor 1 will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings in Table 1 (Technical Acceptability acceptable/unacceptable rating). Proposals are evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

Table 1 Technical Acceptability Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.2.4. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

Support contractors will not participate as members of or advisors to the source selection team.

M.3. Factor 1: Technical Acceptability.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Technical Acceptability approach to meeting the solicitation requirements to ensure the offeror has a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work set forth over the entire five (5) year ordering period whether the offeror, along with their teaming partner/subcontractors, has the specialized experience identified in the MAIDIQ SOW. For the purpose of evaluation, any reference to Task Areas in the solicitation include the sub-task. The offeror’s proposal must be acceptable in all Sub-Factors wihtin factor 1 to be determined acceptable.

M.3.1. Factor 1/ Subfactor 1: Construction Experience.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s construction experience approach and actual methodology it will use to perform all construction activities identified in the SOW. The approach shall demonstrate as efficiently and effectively as possible a clear understanding of the nature and scope of all construction activities in the SOW. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a clear understanding of the SOW requirements and has demonstrated an ability to successfully perform all construction activities singularly, or with teaming arrangements, joint ventures, or subcontracting within limitations. If there are risks in the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, the offeror shall identify the risks and provide their plan to mitigate the identified risks.

Failure to demonstrate an ability to perform all construction activities identified in the SOW will result in an unacceptable rating for this factor.

M.3.2. Factor 1 / Subfactor 2: Design/Build Experience.

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrates the ability to describe their design-build capabilities by providing the following:

a) Provide written evidence of the job qualifications and experience of their architectural/engineering design personnel proposed for this contract.

b) Describing the proposed internal design quality control processes, and the ability to manage multiple design-build projects simultaneously. This experience should include your years of experience, licenses (in each state) and any Government work magintude.

c) Demonstrate the capabilities that includes but are not limited to the following:

1) Foundation and Site Work

2) Concrete Construction

3) Masonry Construction

4) Metals

5) Carpentry

6) Thermal/Moisture Protection

7) Earthwork

8) Curtain Walls, Doors, Windows, Glass

9) Finished Materials

10) Communications

11) Elevators/Conveying Systems

12) Mechanical/Electrical

13) Demolition and Removal

14) Roads/Paving.

M.3.3. Factor 1 / Subfactor 3: Management Approach.

M.3.3.1. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has proposed a sound management approach to monitor and manage a workforce capable of accomplishing all requirements set forth in the MAIDIQ SOW efficiently and effectively to ensure timely quality work. Failure to demonstrate an ability to perform in all five (5) Task Areas will result in an unacceptable rating for this subfactor. The five (5) Task Areas are Administrative, Recreational Billeting, Workshop and Maintenance and Training Facilities. The Government will evaluate the following:

Whether the proposed organizational structure delineates lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability between/across technical specifications; and between the prime and its subcontractors;

Whether the offeror has identified where individual authorities and decision making authority lies within the Offeror’s organization;

Whether the qualifications, education, training, experience and certification requirements of Key Personnel support the success of their management approach and meet the identified requirements.

Whether the offeror has identified a sound approach to managing multiple task orders, covering multiple tasking/subtasking areas, with multiple skill sets, in multiple locations simultaneously;

Whether the offeror has addresssed the QCP. The plan must demonstrate its ability to continued improvement of procedures and scheduling, conducting and documentation of inspections. Procedures for addressing Government discovered non-conformance; procedures for root cause analysis to identify and correct the discrepency; procedures for addressing customer feedback complaints, and a process for monitoring personnel compliance with security, training, and qualification requirements.

M.3.4. Factor 1 / Subfactor 4: Seed Project Response.

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the Seed Project in accordance with the Seed Statement of Work (Attachment 2). The Government will evaluate whether the approach includes:

a) Scheduling technique and project planning methodology used in completing the seed project to include approximate number of days.

b) Narrative demonstrating how the project will be accomplished utilizing the proposed project schedule and the rationale for selecting the proposed project schedule.

c) Description of the automated scheduling systems used and description of events that must be considered in the schedule associated with, but not limited to, submittals, inspections and closeout.

d) Procedures, processes and methods for managing the progress of project and interacting with the Government from beginning to end

M.3.5. Factor 1 / Subfactor 5: Bonding Capability.

The Government will evaluate whether offeror demonstrates their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5 million minimum per task order. The offeror provided evidence showing minimum available bonding capacity of $10 million aggregate with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information included how long the Surety Company has provided bonding for the Contractor and the bonding limit for a single project, aggregate amount, and current available bonding.

M.4. Factor 2: Past Performance.

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance to determine how well the contractor performed on the referenced contracts and to assess the offeror’s probability of performing the solicitation’s requirements. Past performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and/or State Department Watch Lists.

The team will use information determined to be recent and relevant to determine how well the contractor performed on the referenced contracts. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

Business Relations Quality of Service Schedule Customer Satisfaction Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

M.4.2. Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements. The Government will first conduct a recency and relevancy assessment of the submitted past performance efforts. Only submissions assessed as recent and relevant, per the definitions below, will be evaluated for a past performance confidence assessment:

Recency: To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance: To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

M.4.3. Past Performance will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings in Table 2 (Past Performance Evaluation Ratings) below:

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort OR the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (*See Note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

M.5. Factor 3: Price.

M.5.1. The contractor shall submit the following documents as part of the Price Proposal. Price-Section B shall be submitted fully complete. Pricing for the Seed Project will be used for evaluation purposes, Offerors shall prepare pricing information for the Seed Project, provided at Attachment 3 - Contractor’s Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet, using firm-fixed pricing. Offerors shall complete the subsequent worksheets, listing the work elements, number of units for each work element, pricing for material, equipment, labor, labor burden, general and administration costs, profit, bonds, and all other charges that the offeror intends to recover and perform. No other format will be accepted. The Price factor will not be scored or rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness and pricing balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable and complete.

M.5.1.1. Price reasonableness will be evaluated in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b).

M.5.1.2. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk.

M.5.1.3. Completeness/Accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the offerors have properly understood the proposal instructions. The proposals will also be checked for mathematical accuracy.

M.5.2. The Offerors shall submit their approach for accomplishing the seed project from commencement to completion. The approach shall demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the work required utilizing the SOW, specifications, and drawings.

Contractor Pricing at the MAIDIQ. The offeror’s submission in response to L.6.3 above will be used by the Government to analyze and evaluate each Offeror’s cost/price proposal submitted for the MAIDIQ.

(End of Summary of Changes)