am_3.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

Solicitation No W9126G-07-R-0122, MATOC, Advanced Individual Training (AIT) & Basic Training (BT) Barracks in the Southeast Region (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), primarily Fort Benning is amended as follow s:

See Page 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Feb-2008

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 W9126G-04-D-00XX, RFB28

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Jan-2007

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 X is extended, 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

07-Feb-2008

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A19

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G-08-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS

OF AWARD ONE STEP - BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION 00 22 11

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA

AND BASIS OF AWARD

NOTICE OF COST LIMITATION

The target ceiling for contract award of the FY08 San Antonio Military Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston is $409,000,000 AM#3 $530,000,000 AM#3 based on congressionally appropriated funds for this project. The government cannot guarantee that additional funds above this amount will be available for award. Offerors are not obligated to approach this ceiling. Offerors are advised to review Section 00 72 00, Clause 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government’s Obligation.

The target ceiling for contract award of the FY08 ISR Rehabilitation Burn Unit at Fort Sam Houston is $18,512,000 based on congressionally appropriated funds for this project. The government cannot guarantee that additional funds above this amount will be available for award. This is not subject to Clause 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government’s Obligation.

Offerors are also advised that a contract resulting from this solicitation is contingent upon congressional approval.

Should congress not appropriate the funds, the solicitation will be canceled. If the solicitation is canceled, all proposal preparation costs will be borne by the Offeror.

1.00 INFORMAL SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with informal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select responsible Offerors to be the overall Best Value to the Government, price and other factors considered (the Best Value). The Government reserves the right to consider information regarding past performance from sources outside the proposal. The right is reserved to accept other than the lowest price offer and to reject any or all offers. Award may be made to the superior proposal, regardless of cost or price, provided that the price is determined to be reasonable. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

a. Source Selection Organization

The source selection organization is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority (SSA) and a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business and other functional staff management expertise.

b. Source Selection Procedure

(1) The proposals received in response to this RFP will be evaluated individually to select the most advantageous proposal. To be considered acceptable, each Offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors listed in Paragraph 3.00 EVALUATION FACTORS AND ELEMENT CRITERIA. Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the Offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

(2) The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals and continue with a technical and price evaluation conducted by the SSEB. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified below in the paragraph Evaluation Factors. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will determine the Best Value to the Government based on price and other factors considered. The SSA will also either make the final source selection decision or determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communication prior to establishment of a competitive range, or to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those Offerors that are included in the competitive range. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions. All communication leading to establishment of the competitive range will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.306b.

(3) If a competitive range is established, discussion will be conducted with Offerors who are included in the competitive range. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final revised technical proposals, the SSEB will complete the evaluation and establish final technical ratings. The final technical ratings will be presented to the

SSA.

(4) The Government is not responsible for information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in the appropriate proposal section. To ensure the evaluation credit is appropriately received for proposal material submitted, do not reference documents that are not contained in the proposal. References to sections of the proposal shall be by section number, page number, and paragraph number, and title,.

2.00 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to select, without discussions, the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the following relationship between price and technical merit. The technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price (see paragraphs below that describe the relative Weight of Technical Criteria and Price). The closer the technical ratings are to one another, the greater the importance of the price evaluation in making the Best Value determination. The closer the final price evaluations are to one another, the greater the importance of the total technical evaluations in making the Best Value determination. Price will not be point scored, but will be subjectively evaluated. The specific evaluation factors are described below.

3.00 EVALUATION FACTORS AND ELEMENT CRITERIA

Tab 1. Construction Integration Services Management Plan: The following elements, when combined, constitute the Offeror’s Preconstruction Services Management Plan.

Element a. Staffing Plan. The Government will evaluate the strength of the organization and the strength of personnel identified in the proposed package. The strength of organization evaluation will include an evaluation of the personnel assigned to the project and the ability of the Offeror to provide additional resources for the team if supplemental or replacement personnel are required. The education and experience of the individuals identified in the proposed package will be evaluated. Higher evaluation ratings may be given for the ability of proposed personnel to provide insight into design solutions and construction methods. Higher evaluation ratings may be given for military construction project experience, longevity of experience at the position being proposed, education and experience on projects similar to both this project and to the IDBB process. Higher ratings will be assigned for required personnel identified in Section 01 10 00 where experience, degrees, or registrations exceed the minimums listed in Section 01 10 00. Persons with degrees in engineering and/or construction-related fields will be more favorably evaluated than those without degrees or those whose degrees are in fields other than engineering or construction. Persons possessing licenses and/or professional certifications in the fields for which they are proffered may be more favorably evaluated than those without such licenses or certifications.

Element b. Interaction and Communication Plan. The Government will review and evaluate the Interaction and Communication Plan for the degree of detailed organization and ease of communication between the Government and the Offeror’s team. Interaction and communication plans allowing for ad-hoc meetings to occur face-to-face will be evaluated higher than a plan proposing teleconferences for ad-hoc meetings.

Element c. Schedule Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the approach for the Offeror’s ability to manage, control, and update an integrated fast track schedule and complete the project by the beneficial occupancy date. Use of Earned Value Techniques will be evaluated higher than a plan that does not use Earned Value as a method to control schedule.

Element d. Cost Estimating Approach. The Government will evaluate the cost estimating approach for the Offeror’s ability to create and maintain a detailed and accurate cost estimate, and evaluate the ability of the cost estimating procedure to provide accurate feedback of construction costs during the preconstruction phase, and control the construction costs during construction. Use of Earned Value Techniques will be evaluated higher than a plan that does not use Earned Value as a method to control costs.

Tab 2. Corporate Experience: The Construction Contractor’s experience in preconstruction services provided and construction services of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. Evaluation will be based on experiences included in the project summaries provided in the Offeror’s proposal. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for those projects that are similar in scope and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to construct a project of this size and execute the project successfully while containing cost and maintaining schedule. Recent experience means projects completed within the time frame stipulated in Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3, Tab 2. In addition, those Offerors that include military and/or federal government construction projects similar in type and size will be evaluated more favorably than those without such construction similarity.

Projects meeting the minimum stipulated total construction value criterion will be evaluated higher than those not meeting the minimum. Projects that do not meet the similarity criterion identified in Section 00 21 00, paragraph

3.00 will be evaluated lower than those projects meeting this criterion. Further, such characteristics as size, complexity, dollar value, the number and types of trades employed and whether the Federal Government or the military was the customer may be indication of similarity. Projects that are not yet complete will be evaluated lower than those that are complete. Projects showing significant cost and time growth will be evaluated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than those who provide all the information identified in Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3.00. In evaluating the similarity of projects, board members may examine such indicators as the nature/type of the listed projects. An Offeror’s experience as a prime contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that for which the Offeror acted as a subcontractor, consultant or material supplier. The following elements are listed in descending order of importance.

Element a. Complex Building Construction

Element b. Construction Integration Services Element c. Local Market Knowledge

Tab 3. Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers in the example projects identified by the Offeror and from which Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires have been received.

The Government may contact customers identified by Offeror to assure validity of the questionnaires received. The Government may also contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror to obtain information with respect to past performance evaluations in CCASS (Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System), telephone interviews, and personal knowledge of contractor performance capability obtained from Government personnel. The following elements will be used by the Government to evaluate the General Contractor. Each of the following elements is weighted equally.

Element a. Quality of Product/Service Element b. Customer Satisfaction Element c. Timeliness of Performance Element d. Financial Management – Adherence to Budget Element e. Subcontracting to Small Business

1) Sheer numbers of confirmed negative comments that are not in areas of vital importance to the successful performance of this contract may not result in a rating of less than satisfactory. Conversely, one or only a few negative confirmed comments of vital importance to the successful performance of this contract may give the Offeror an overall rating of less than satisfactory.

2) During the evaluation, the following will also be taken into consideration: the age and relevance of past performance information; the Offeror’s overall work record; if there are any problems identified, the number, type, and severity of the problems and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

3) At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information on about an Offeror’s past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party. Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror.

4) During the ranking process the SSA may also consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror.

Tab 4: Proposed Schedule and Construction Narrative

The Government will evaluate the Schedule and supporting narrative to ensure that the project can be completed within the specified time stated in this solicitation. The schedule shall be complete, reasonable, and realistic in order to evaluate the contractor’s understanding of all construction requirements and shall reflect all the elements listed in Section 00 21 00 for this factor. The narrative shall include an in-depth discussion on commissioning procedures. Offerors that demonstrate innovative and reasonable strategies for completing the schedule on or ahead of time with the least disruption to loop area access will receive the most favorable rating for this factor.

Tab 5: Assumptions

The Government will evaluate the Assumptions based on the level of detail provided, clarity of operational impact, reasonableness and, as applicable, the constructability and UFC compliance of the Assumptions such that the net benefit to the Government is ascertainable.

Tab 6: Subcontracting Plan And Small Business Participation: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed subcontracting plan for the utilization of small businesses in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD.

4.00 VOLUME II, TAB 7: PRICE PROPOSAL: The Offeror’s Price Proposal, will be evaluated on the following basis:

a. Pro Forma Requirements This information should be submitted in an envelope labeled “Pro Forma Requirements”. This category consists of the following:

• The Offeror will submit a cover letter containing:

(1) Solicitation number

(2) Name, address, email, and telephone and fax numbers of the Offeror.

(3) Names, title, email and telephone and fax numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

(4) Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

(5) A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the Solicitation.

• The Offer (the SF1442) duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company. Include the Offeror’s DUNS number in block 14.

• Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard

Form 30 (amendment form).

• The completed Section 00 45 00 of the solicitation (Representations and Certifications) and the ORCA certification.

• Proposal Bond

• Subcontracting Plan, if applicable.

• Financial statement and bank letter that verify that sufficient funds will be available to finance the work.

• For joint ventures/LLCs, the information required by Section 00 21 00 Paragraph 5.00, “Joint

Ventures/LLCs.”

• All HUBzone firms submitting as prime contractor will be provided a price evaluation in accordance with the FAR clause, 52.219-4 noted in Section 00 72 00. Indicate here if your firm is a HUBZONE and if you are claiming a waiver from the preference, please provide the waiver in accordance with 52.219-4.

• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

• Prices associated with Assumptions.

b. The Price Proposal Schedule submitted in response to this solicitation will not be point scored but will be subjectively evaluated for reasonableness). The Offeror shall enter a price for each item listed in the Price Proposal Schedule. In the event, during the course of the analysis, the SSA/KO has reason to question the reasonableness of a price proposal, or has reason to believe there is unbalancing in the price proposal, the SSA/KO may conduct such additional reasonable analysis as it requires in order to complete a thorough price analysis.

Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror might not be selected because of an unbalanced, unreasonable, or unrealistic price proposal. The following items will be considered in this evaluation:

1) Completeness. All price information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP) has been submitted.

2) Reasonableness. The Government will review the prices submitted for reasonableness.

3) Realism. The Government will review the prices submitted for realism. The goal of the project is to maximize the scope of the construction phase services within the ceiling price defined in FAR Clause 52.216-17.

Realism is defined by the FAR as a clear understanding of the project requirements.

Initial Target Price Proposals for construction phase services will reflect the Offeror’s understanding, or lack thereof, of the scope and goals of the project as it relates to the construction phase services.

c. The evaluated price information will be reported to the SSA. The SSA will use the technical and price evaluations in preparing her overall evaluation of the proposals and the Best Value determination for selection of successful Offerors.

d. The Offeror shall enter a price for each item listed in the base (CLIN 0001-0003a-d). All Base CLIN items will be awarded provided they are within the specified target ceiling for the funds available.

5.00 RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government considers the overall non-price rating to be significantly more important than price. The Offeror should note that, under this scenario, price is not the most important factor for award.

The following Tables 1-3 summarizes the relative importance of individual and overall evaluation factors.

Table 1. Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

Relative Importance

Criteria Elements (Descending Order of Importance)

Most 1 –Construction Integration Services Management Plan

A. Staffing Plan B. Interaction and

Communication Plan C. Schedule Management

Approach D. Cost Estimating Approach

Equal to 3 2 – Corporate Experience A. Complex Building Construction

B. Pre-Construction Services for IDBB

C. Local Market Knowledge Equal to 2 3 – Past Performance A. Quality of Product/ Service

B. Customer Satisfaction C. Timeliness of Performance D. Financial Management

/Adherence to Budget E. Sub-Contracting to Small

Business Lessor 4 – Proposed Schedule & Construction Narrative Lessor 5 – Assumptions

Table 2. Subcontracting Plan

Overall Importance Criteria Understanding the Requirements Least 6 – Subcontracting Plan (Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory)

Table 3. Combined Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors (Technical, Price)

Overall Importance Criteria Approximately Equal 1-6 – Technical

Approximately Equal 7 – Price Proposal

6.00. DETERMINATION OF BEST OVERALL VALUE

In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the government will compare proposals to one another in a series of paired comparisons, trading off Offerors’ values based on their overall performance on the non-price factors. In comparing two proposals, if one member of a pair has both the better overall non-price rating and the lower price, then the government will consider that proposal to be a better overall value. If both proposals have an overall equal rating for non-price factors, the government will consider the proposal with the lower price to be the better value.

If one member of a pair has the better overall non-price value, but a higher price than the other proposal, then the government’s source selection authority will determine if the difference in non-price value is worth the higher price.

If the source selection authority decides that the overall non-price value is worth the higher price, then the government will consider the proposal with the better non-price value and the higher price to be the better overall value.

If the Source Selection Authority decides that the overall value is not worth the higher price, then the Source Selection Authority will continue to make paired comparisons in this fashion until he or she has identified the proposal that represents the best overall value.

The contract will be awarded to the Offeror with the best overall value.

7.00 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Debriefing of Offerors shall be in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors, and FAR 15.506 Post-award Debriefing of Offerors.

END OF SECTION 00 22 11

SECTION 00 72 00 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

252.232-7007 LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION (MAY 2006)

(a) Contract line item(s) 0001 through 0003 are incrementally funded. For these item(s), the sum of (AM#3) $70,000,000 (AM#3) of the total price is presently available for payment and allotted to this contract. An allotment schedule is set forth in paragraph (j) of this clause.

(b) For items(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contractor agrees to perform up to the point at which the total amount payable by the Government, including reimbursement in the event of termination of those item(s) for the Government's convenience, approximates the total amount currently allotted to the contract. The Contractor is not authorized to continue work on those item(s) beyond that point. The Government will not be obligated in any event to reimburse the Contractor in excess of the amount allotted to the contract for those item(s) regardless of anything to the contrary in the clause entitled "TERMINATION FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT." As used in this clause, the total amount payable by the Government in the event of termination of applicable contract line item(s) for convenience includes costs, profit and estimated termination settlement costs for those item(s).

(c) Notwithstanding the dates specified in the allotment schedule in paragraph (j) of this clause, the Contractor will notify the Contracting Officer in writing at least ninety days prior to the date when, in the Contractor's best judgment, the work will reach the point at which the total amount payable by the Government, including any cost for termination for convenience, will approximate 85 percent of the total amount then allotted to the contract for performance of the applicable item(s). The notification will state (1) the estimated date when that point will be reached and (2) an estimate of additional funding, if any, needed to continue performance of applicable line items up to the next scheduled date for allotment of funds identified in paragraph (j) of this clause, or to a mutually agreed upon substitute date. The notification will also advise the Contracting Officer of the estimated amount of additional funds that will be required for the timely performance of the item(s) funded pursuant to this clause, for subsequent period as may be specified in the allotment schedule in paragraph (j) of this clause, or otherwise agreed to by the parties. If after such notification additional funds are not allotted by the date identified in the Contractor's notification, or by an agreed substitute date, the Contracting Officer will terminate any item(s) for which additional funds have not been allotted, pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled "TERMINATION FOR THE

CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT".

(d) When additional funds are allotted for continued performance of the contract line item(s) identified in paragraph

(a) of this clause, the parties will agree as to the period of contract performance which will be covered by the funds.

The provisions of paragraph (b) through (d) of this clause will apply in like manner to the additional allotted funds and agreed substitute date, and the contract will be modified accordingly.

(e) If, solely by reason of failure of the Government to allot additional funds, by the dates indicated below, in amounts sufficient for timely performance of the contract line item(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contractor incurs additional costs or is delayed in the performance of the work under this contract and if additional funds are allotted, an equitable adjustment will be made in the price or prices (including appropriate target, billing, and ceiling prices where applicable) of the item(s), or in the time of delivery, or both. Failure to agree to any such equitable adjustment hereunder will be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the clause entitled "disputes."

(f) The Government may at any time prior to termination allot additional funds for the performance of the contract line item(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause.

(g) The termination provisions of this clause do not limit the rights of the Government under the clause entitled "DEFAULT." The provisions of this clause are limited to work and allotment of funds for the contract line item(s) set forth in paragraph (a) of this clause. This clause no longer applies once the contract if fully funded except with regard to the rights or obligations of the parties concerning equitable adjustments negotiated under paragraphs (d) or

(e) of this clause.

(h) Nothing in this clause affects the right of the Government to this contract pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled "TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT."

(i) Nothing in this clause shall be construed as authorization of voluntary services whose acceptance is otherwise prohibited under 31 U.S.C. 1342.

(j) The parties contemplate that the Government will allot funds to this contract in accordance with the following schedule:

On execution of contract $--

FY08 $156,035,000 (AM#3) upon award $70,000,000 and on or before 30 Sep 08 $56,035,000 (AM#3)

FY09 $193,126,000

FY10 $107,539,000

FY11 $ 10,600,000

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)

Text1: The Solicitation for Construct San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) - North, Fort Sam Houston, Texas is amended as follows:

Section 00 22 11, revise paragraph "NOTICE OF COST LIMITATION."

Section 00 72 00, revise Clause 252.232-7007

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 5 March 2008, 2:00 p.m., local time, as previously announced.