W9124C20R0007_0002_20200902.pdf

0011382458

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 amendment 0002 to solicitation W9124C20R0007 is to remove a statement added to M.3.1 Factor 1/Subfactor 1: Construction Experience, erroneously added in amendment 0001. As a result of this amendment the solicitation w ill not be extended. All other terms and conditions remain the same. (See Summary of Changes).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Sep-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 W9124C20R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-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 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

02-Sep-2020

CODE

MICC - FT JACKSON

4340 MAGRUDER AVE

FORT JACKSON SC 29207

W9124C 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9124C20R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION

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 100% Hub-zone small business set aside competitive basis resulting in the award up to five (5) awards as a result of this solicitation. This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) PGI 253.215., and AFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5107 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Army the greatest confidence that each will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

M.1.1.1. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M.1.2. Rejection of Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be non-compliant with contract terms and conditions.

M.1.3. Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility with the Small Business Administration. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M.2. FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M.2.1. Evaluation criteria consist of price and non-price factors. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: Construction Experience Subfactor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 2.1: Sample Project Response Subfactor 3: Bonding Capacity

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price (Sample Project)

M.2.2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, Technical/Risk and past performance when combined are significantly more important than price. Technical/Risk and Past Performance are approximately equal.

M.2.3. EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-3 The Government may reject any proposal that fails to comply with the RFP requirements, terms and conditions as non-compliance may hinder the Government’s ability to properly evalute the proposal.

M.3. Technical Acceptability.

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

The offeror clearly demonstrated that it has attained sufficient experience to successfully manage and execute varied projects simultaneously as envisioned by the Statement of Work and annual dollar limits. Evaluation of experience will take into consideration the number, variety and scope of projects that the offeror has executed simultaneously.

Evaluation will be based on the offeror’s five (5) projects submitted, which were performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation or are currently being performed with at least 50% of the project complete. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated.

M.3.1.1 Factor 1 / Subfactor 2: Management Approach.

The offeror clearly demonstrated that is has the necessary approach to successfully manage a MATOC. The Government will evaluate the following:

The Offeror fully described an approach to managing multiple projects simultaneously to effectively manage five (5) simultaneous on-going projects similar in nature, size, magnitude, complexity and scope.

The Offeror provided a Corporate Organizational Structure and Communication Approach to determine the comprehensiveness of the approach and the likelihood of success with minimal disruption and risk to the Government.

The Offeror demonstrated the ability to manage a Quality Control Plan staff to execute multiple on-going projects. This evaluation will include the Quality Control Staff, Estimating Staff, and any other positions the Offeror considers to be key and the qualifications of those position(s); what parts of the organization are responsible for managing and accomplishing what work (identify each organizational element, i.e., Division/Branch/Team); where decision making authority lies within the organization;

and how the offeror will simultaneously manage multiple task orders; and identify specific work the prime, subcontractors or teaming partners are performing.

The offeror demonstrated the ability to estimate, manage, schedule, and integrate teaming partners/subcontractors into their organization. Job qualifications associated with each Offeror identified key labor category must demonstrate the offeror’s knowledge and understanding of necessary experience, education, and licensing/certification.

M.3.1.2 Factor 2 / Subfactor 2.1: Sample Project Response.

The offeror demonstrated an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the Sample Project in accordance with the Statement of Work (Attachment III and Attachment VIII). The approach includes:

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

b) Narrative demonstrated 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.

e) Complete unpriced breakdown of tasks including sufficient line item details that demonstrated the Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed.

M.3.3. Factor 3 / Subfactor 3: Bonding Capacity.

The offeror demonstrated their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5 million minimum per task order. The offeror provided evidence showing minimum available bonding capacity of $28 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.3.4. Combined Technical/ Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Color Adjectival 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 un-awardable.

M.4. Factor 2: Past Performance.

M.4.1. Past Performance Evaluation: Offerors must thoroughly demonstrate, by way of their past performance, their likelihood of successfully performing the solicitation's requirements. In assessing past performance, the Government will assess the Offeror's/Joint Venture’s overall past performance, and will examine how well the offeror performed in the following areas: Quality Control (QC); Timely Performance;

Effectiveness of Management; Compliance with Labor/Safety Standards; and, Customer Satisfaction. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M.4.2. Each offeror will receive a relevancy and 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. The contractor's submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, scope and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation, to include any contracts demonstrating performance of multiple construction projects simultaneously. The Offerors must submit a maximum of five (5) recent/relevant project references. It is anticipated that task orders will range from $250,000.00 to $3,500,000.00. Therefore, past performance efforts that were awarded at $250,000.00 and over will be more relevant than past performance efforts that were awarded at a value less than $250,000.00. Also, identify whether active or completed contracts, were either Government or commercial.

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Only submissions assessed as recent and relevant, per the definitions below, will be evaluated for a past performance confidence assessment:

• Recency: To be determined recent, offerors must submit contracts that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

• Relevance: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to this acquisition. For each recent past performance effort reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed using the below Table 2. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 2 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s recent efforts. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevance Ratings Adjectival Rating Description 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.

*NOTE* In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

M.4.3. Performance Confidence Assessment: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 3 below. Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral” rating. A confidence rating of “Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence” will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” rating.

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

M.5. Factor 3: Price.

M.5.1. The Offeror’s proposal shall be for a one year base and four year option periods.

The offeror’s shall submit their approach for accomplishing the Sample Project from commencement to completion. The proposed rates provided will become the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for that labor category when pricing task orders and task order modifications.

M.5.1.1. Price will not be scored or rated and will be evaluated for Price Reasonableness, Balance, and Completeness/Accuracy. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) shall be used for evaluation of price reasonableness and for the purpose determining best value for award.

The offeror’s total evaluated price will be computed as in the following example:

The total of the sample project (proposed rates provided for that labor category) will equal the total base year. Each option year amount will be calculated based on the offeror’s option year escalation rate (proposed rates provided for that labor category).

The TEP will be the sum of the base year, four (4) one-year options escalation rate.

M.5.1.2. Price reasonableness will be evaluated in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through this technique the Government will determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.5.1.3. Unbalanced pricing will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected, if the lack of balance poses a significant risk to the Government.

M.5.1.4. Completeness/Accuracy. The offerors price proposal complies with Price Volume Instructions, providing all information required for evaluation and is mathematically correct. The offeror’s proposed price matrix will be cross-walked with the offeror’s proposed unpriced technical matrix to ensure alignment.

M.5.2. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

NOTE:

The fully burdened labor rates proposed for each year cannot be adjusted except for instances where the labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards/Davis Bacon Act and a revision is permitted under the provisions of FAR Clause 52.222-43. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to include inflation; that appropriately identifies fringe, overhead, G&A, profit rates, Direct Hourly Labor Rate w/ Fringe Benefits, Contract Manager $, Contract/Site Superintendent $, Quality Control Manager $ (The Contractor Quality Control Person can be the SSHO on this project), Percentage Applied G&A (Applied to total cost less bonds) % Profit (Applied to total cost to include G&A less bonds) % where warranted.

(End of Summary of Changes)