W911YN-24-R-0002-0002 - FL MATOC Amendment.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 incorporate all Q&A sets by reference into the solicitation.

SECTION 00120, paragraph 3.2.3 is amended to change Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submission deadlines to the closing date and time of the solicitation.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

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-Feb-2024

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 W911YN24R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jan-2024

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-Feb-2024

CODE

USPFO-FL PURCHASING & CONTRACTING

189 MARINE STREET

ST. AUGUSTINE FL 32085-1008

W911YN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911YN24R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00120

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. The Government intends to award a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) from this solicitation.

An indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract will be awarded to all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. For this evaluation process, interested offerors submit specific performance and capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.2. The Government intends to make the MATOC awards without holding discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, offerors should include their best terms and conditions in their initial offer. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) later determines them to be necessary. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability and/or past performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.4. The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators.

Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any of the listed evaluation factors shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

1.5. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

2. EVALUATION APROACH

2.1. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

2.2. The proposal submitted will be used to determine whether the offeror is a responsible source, has a proposal that meets the requirements of the solicitation, and provides no reason why the offeror would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

2.3. The Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist will initiate the source selection process and convene the

SSEB, providing the proposals that conform to the solicitation to the SSEB. Non-conforming proposals will not be further reviewed by the SSEB. A detailed debriefing will not be available for those proposals not selected for review by the SSEB. While the intent is to award without discussions, if at any stage in this process it is determined to be necessary to conduct discussions, the SSA will determine which proposals will be included in the competitive range consistent with FAR 15.306(c).

2.4. Proposals will be evaluated consistent with the uniform evaluation procedure set forth in this section of the solicitation. The SSEB will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all conforming proposals against the factors established in the solicitation. Each member of the SSEB will independently evaluate all information provided in a proposal against the prescribed evaluation factors. The overall evaluation approach for all factors will include evaluating proposals to determine if the offerors proposal satisfies the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.5. The proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability (including past performance); they will not be ranked. In order for an offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating for each evaluation factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any factor will not be eligible for award.

2.6. After SSEB members independently evaluate the proposals, proposal evaluations will then be discussed among the SSEB voting members to reach a consensus on each evaluation factor and on the overall proposal. The results of the evaluations will be summarized in an SSEB report, which will be forwarded to the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) for use in making a final award decision. As indicated, awards will be made to all qualifying offerors. The final selection of contractors will be made from the single evaluation.

2.7. Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely repeat back the contractual requirements, but rather provide substantive, understandable and realistic evidence to support promised performance.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. Factor 1. Corporate Experience

3.1.1. Offerors are required to provide the following information as part of their proposal for Factor 1, Corporate

Experience:

3.1.1.1. Offerors shall identify a minimum of five (5) and no more than seven (7) projects that have been performed by the offeror/team member and for which the offeror was the prime contractor performing and/or managing the work. The projects shall demonstrate the offeror’s experience in performance of work similar to the work required by this solicitation. If fewer than five (5) projects are submitted, the offeror will be considered ineligible for award.

If more than seven (7) projects are submitted, only the first seven (7) projects as identified in the proposal will be evaluated. Offerors must submit projects that meet the following criteria:

3.1.1.1.1. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall be for new construction, renovation, or repair of a facility within the state of Florida.

3.1.1.1.2. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall be for roof installation or repair within Florida. If submitting a general renovation project that included roofing, offeror shall clearly specify the percentage of the project attributed to roofing.

3.1.1.1.3. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall be for construction, repair, or alteration of a mechanical system (e.g., HVAC systems or controls) within Florida. If submitting a general renovation project that included construction, repair or alteration of a mechanical system (e.g., HVAC systems or controls), offeror shall clearly specify the percentage of the project attributed to mechanical systems.

3.1.1.1.4. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall have been completed in an occupied facility and included a phasing plan which provided for certain areas, floors or building sections to be completed and occupied as construction progressed.

3.1.1.1.5. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall have been performed on a Department of Defense

(DoD) contract issued by any DoD component.

3.1.1.2. All submitted projects shall have been awarded to the offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an offeror which is a Joint Venture (JV), the project shall have been awarded to one (1) of the members of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an offeror that is a prime contractor/subcontractor team, the project may have been completed by the subcontractor if a formal teaming agreement is provided.

3.1.1.3. Offerors shall complete EXHIBIT – 3 Performance Relevancy Questionnaire for each project submitted for Factor 1, Corporate Experience. Clearly identify which individual Corporate Experience criteria

(detailed in paragraphs 3.1.1.1.1 thru 3.1.1.1.5) the project submission is intended to satisfy. No single project submission will be used to satisfy more than one (1) criteria, except for the criteria in 3.1.1.1.5. (See 3.1.1.5.5 below.) EXHIBIT – 3 Performance Relevancy Questionnaire will not be counted against page limitations.

3.1.1.4. Recency: All submitted projects shall have been completed within five (5) calendar years before the closing date of this solicitation.

3.1.1.5. Relevancy:

3.1.1.5.1. Project(s) submitted to satisfy the new construction, renovation, or repair of a facility criteria shall convey experience with interior and exterior construction, renovations, or repairs of a facility located within Florida.

The value of at least one (1) project submitted in this category shall have an award value of no less than $250,000.00 and no more than $5,000,000.00.

3.1.1.5.2. Project(s) submitted to satisfy the roof installation or repair criteria shall convey experience with repair and/or replacement of standard roofing types and located in Florida. The value of at least one (1) project submitted in this category shall have an award value of no less than $100,000.00 and no more than $5,000,000.00. If submitting a general renovation project that included roofing, offeror shall clearly specify the dollar value attributed to roofing which must exceed $100,000.00.

3.1.1.5.3. Project(s) submitted to satisfy the construction, repair or alteration of a mechanical system criteria must be located in Florida. The value of at least one (1) project submitted in this category shall have an award value of no less than $50,000.00 and no more than $5,000,000.00. If submitting a general renovation project that included construction, repair or alteration of a mechanical system (e.g., HVAC systems or controls), offeror shall clearly specify the dollar value attributed to mechanical systems which must exceed $50,000.00.

3.1.1.5.4. Project(s) submitted to satisfy the occupied facility with a phasing plan category must include the phasing plan detailing how certain areas, floors or building sections were made available for occupation as construction phases progressed, and customer occupation occurred during active construction.

3.1.1.5.5. The DoD Contract criteria can be satisfied concurrently if a project submitted under any other criteria was performed on a DoD contract. If no DoD project was included, a separate submission counting against one (1) of the maximum seven (7) projects is required.

3.1.1.5.6. Where a project was awarded as a task order under an IDIQ-type contract, offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the project awarded by task order rather than the base IDIQ contract. The

Government will not permit multiple projects, such as individual task orders, to be combined to meet the minimum value of any of the three (3) project types indicated above. Projects with an award value below the values stated for each category will not be considered. Offerors shall provide sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate relevancy.

3.1.1.5.7. For recognized contractor teaming arrangements, offerors shall submit a minimum of one (1) relevant project for each member of the team; but offerors remain responsible to collectively submit the minimum of five (5) relevant projects. Offerors shall not exceed the maximum of seven (7) projects. Offerors shall indicate which team member was the prime contractor on each project. Offerors shall also describe their primary roles/duties in execution of the work (i.e., which major components of the project were completed by the prime’s staff and which major components were subcontracted).

3.1.1.5.8. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate how their submitted projects are similar in size, scope and complexity, including any distinctive or unique features and any project-specific information that supports the project’s relevance to the work required by this solicitation. This can be accomplished by correctly completing

EXIHBIT 3 – Performance Relevancy Questionnaire for each project.

3.1.1.5.9. Where a project consisting of a base award and one (1) or more options is submitted by an offeror to meet the recency, relevancy or value criteria for Factor 1, the same base contract and options will be used to evaluate the remaining criteria for Factor 1 and Factor 2, Past Performance.

3.1.2. This section shall not exceed a total of 35 pages (5 pages maximum for each submitted project. NOTE:

EXIHBIT 3 – Performance Relevancy Questionnaire will not be counted against the page limitation.)

3.1.3. Factor 1. Corporate Experience Evaluation Criteria

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror has submitted five (5) or more projects and has demonstrated experience with all specified criteria among the submitted projects.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror did not submit at least five (5) projects, or the projects submitted did not demonstrate experience with all specified criteria.

3.2. Factor 2: Past Performance. Offerors shall submit past performance information for each project submitted for Factor 1, Corporate Experience.

3.2.1. For each of the projects submitted for Factor 1, the offeror shall submit an interim or final performance evaluation from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) - OR - request a Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) from a client reference. Submit either a CPARS report OR a PPQ, but not both, for each project.

3.2.2. For any projects that did not meet the original schedule or performance requirements, resulting in assessment of liquidated damages, offerors shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence.

3.2.3. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). A blank PPQ and sample cover letter are provided as Exhibit 1 to this solicitation. Offerors shall send a PPQ and cover letter to the client for each project submitted for Factor 1, Corporate Experience, for which a CPARS report is not available. For purposes of this solicitation, the Government defines the client as the project owner for the submitted project. The PPQ package should be sent to the Contracting

Officer or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for Government contracts, or to individuals in similar positions (such as Purchasing or Technical Representatives) for commercial contracts. Offerors shall complete all information in Blocks 1-4 of the PPQ form, to include a complete and accurate project description. The client shall complete Blocks 5-8 and the rating sheets. The project clients shall email the completed PPQ forms and rating sheets directly to the Government at darrin.j.weaver.mil@army.mil and matthew.j.michael2.civ@army.mil no later than the date and time proposals are due. Completed PPQs should NOT be returned to the offeror. Offerors are responsible for following up with clients to ensure they complete and submit the PPQs on time.

3.2.3.1. For each PPQ package sent to a client reference, the offeror shall submit a copy of the PPQ form with

Blocks 1-4 completed, along with the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of the client Point of Contact

(POC), with their proposal. The Government may contact and interview the POCs and reserves the right to interview other representatives of the reference’s firm if the listed POC is not available. The Government may contact references for submitted projects for purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of work performed.

3.2.4. The offeror may also provide performance recognition documents such as awards, letters of appreciation or award fee determinations received for any of the submitted projects within three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation.

3.2.5. If offerors are submitting as a Joint Venture (JV) or recognized teaming arrangement, PPQ information must be provided for each team member for one (1) or more of the projects submitted (performed by the team member individually or as a member of the same team).

3.2.6. Regardless of the rating or evaluation terminology used in any single past performance information, the

Government will make a determination of the acceptability or non-acceptability of an offeror’s past performance based on the totality of the information reviewed.

3.2.7. This section shall not exceed a total of 49 pages (7 pages maximum for each submitted project).

3.2.8. Factor 2. Past Performance Evaluation Criteria.

3.2.9. The Government will evaluate past performance information to assess the level of acceptability associated with the offeror’s likelihood to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation. The recency and relevancy of the information (as determined by the Government), the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance may be considered.

3.2.9.1. Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating:

3.2.9.1.1. Demonstrate work on previous projects has been of acceptable quality

3.2.9.1.2. Demonstrate timely completion on previous projects

3.2.9.1.3. Demonstrate acceptable cost control on previous projects

3.2.9.1.4. Overall ratings of Satisfactory or above on all past performance references

3.2.9.1.5. All past performance references indicate they would hire the offeror to perform work in the future

3.2.10. In general, projects that the Government did not consider relevant for purposes of evaluating corporate experience will not be considered relevant for the purposes of evaluating past performance.

Acceptable

The Offeror submitted past performance ratings for each of the projects submitted for the Corporate Experience factor. All past performance records must have overall ratings of satisfactory or above. Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance (and for which there is also no recent, relevant past performance information for its predecessor companies or key subcontractors), or for whom information on past performance is not available or cannot be verified, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Offeror’s past performance records did not receive an overall rating of satisfactory or above. Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.2.11. The Government may consider the past performance of the offeror’s business arrangements and relationships, such as Joint Venture participants, teaming partners, and key subcontractors, if the Government believes that such business arrangements may impact the offeror’s performance of work under the contracts resulting from this solicitation.

3.2.12. In addition to past performance information submitted by the offeror, the Government may use personal knowledge or information obtained from other sources, such as CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or any other sources available to the Government, in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

3.2.12.1. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden lies with the offeror to provide current, accurate and complete past performance information as described in this solicitation.

3.2.13. The assessment of past performance is separate from the responsibility determination required under FAR

Subpart 9.1.

3.3. Factor 3. Single Project Bonding Capacity

3.3.1. The offeror shall submit a signed letter from a surety company confirming that the offeror is capable of bonding to at least $3,000,000.00 for a single construction project. The names and addresses of both the offeror and the surety company must be clear in the letter, and the contact information for a surety representative must also be provided.

3.3.1.1. The surety company shall be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s

“List of Certified Companies” found at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

The surety’s name and address on the letter must be the same as shown on the “List of Certified Companies.”

3.3.2. Factor 3. Single Project Bonding Capacity Evaluation Criteria

Acceptable The Offeror submitted a letter from a surety confirming that the Offeror is capable to bond to at least $3,000,000.00 for a single construction project.

The Offeror did not submit a letter from a surety, or the letter submitted does not confirm that the Offeror is capable to bond to at least $3,000,000.00 for a single construction project.

4. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

4.1. AWARD. A written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall be deemed to result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

4.2. DEBRIEFINGS:

4.2.1. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.505.

4.2.2. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.506. The written request must be on company letterhead and may be emailed directly to the Contracting Officer.

END OF SECTION 00120

(End of Summary of Changes)