W912D0-19-R-0004-0002.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

Extend the due date and time for receiving proposals due to additional time required to develop proposals.

Clarify solicitation and contract requirements based on industry feedback received during the questions and answ ers period.

See solicitation amendment details for more information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Dec-2018

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 W912D019R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Nov-2018

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

20-Dec-2018

CODE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING OFFICE - ALASKA

1064 APPLE STREET

FORT WAINWRIGHT AK 99703

W912D0 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912D019R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Jan-2019 01:00 PM to 17-Jan-2019 01:00 PM.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

A.1. Base Contract-Performance Work Statement-Revised 20 Dec 2018 A.1. Base Contract-Performance Work Statement A.2. Performance Requirement Summary-Revised 20 Dec 2018 A.2. Performance Requirement Summary A.3. Quality Assurance Surveilance Plan-Revised 20 Dec 2018 A.3. Quality Assurance Surveilance Plan B.1. Interior AK - Construction Task Catalog – 2018 B.2. Interior AK - Technical Specifications – 2018 C. UFC 1-200-01, DoD Building Code D. Environmental Concerns For Construction, Demolition and Renovation Projects E.1. USAG Alaska AoR Map E.2. FGA Map F. Job Order Contracting Guide G. EM 385-1-1 USACE Safety Manual H.1. FWA JOC Bid Schedule Coefficient H.2. FGA JOC Bid Schedule Coefficient I. Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form J.1. FWA Sample Project A, CRL-00001-5J – SO J.2. CRL-00001-5J –Drawings J.3. Submittal Register B4070 base K.1. FWA Sample Project B, DPW-17085-7J – SO K.2. DPW-17085-7J Drawings K.3. ADA Lift Example Product Data Sheet with Salient Characteristics K.4. Submittal Register B4511 base K.5. FWA BLDG 4511 Electrical - Asbuilt 1952 K.6. FWA BLDG 4511 Fire Sheet L.1. FGA Sample Project A, CRT-00001-5J – SOW L.2. Site Location Map L.3. CRT000015J_Standard Provisions_08042018

L.4. DPW-A1 A1-08-06-18

L.5. Submittal Register M.1. FGA Sample Project B, DPW-00002-7J – SOW

M.2. BLDG_661-100%

M.3. B661 Existing FA As-Builts M.4. Bldg. 661 EASE Evac Report M.5. Ft Greely Fire Criteria Signed M.6. Submittal Register DPW 00002-7J N. Construction Wage Determination Schedule 20181019 O. FWA JOC Site Visit Location Revised P. Access Roster Request Form

Q. 2019 Utility Rate Letter

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L-01

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.1. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate CD inside a sleeve or protective container. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be made using the “track changes” function in MSWord. Each disk container/sleeve shall be clearly labeled with its Title, Volume and copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5). Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Cost/Pricing information shall not be included in Volume I.

1.2. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

1.3. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME - TITLE DIGITAL COPIES MAXIMUM PAGES

I – Management and Technical Plans 4 100 II – Sample Project Plans 4 50 each III – Coefficients (Prices) 2 No page limit IV – Entry-gate submission 2 25 * (see notes below) V – General 2 No page limit

NOTES:

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

* Volume IV Page Limit:

- Offeror’s past performance information is limited to 25 pages. In addition to the page limitation on the offeror’s past performance, a maximum of 5 additional pages can be submitted for each major subcontractor as defined in paragraph 6.1.3. of the current section (Section L).

- Section 2, Bona Fides, are exempted from the page limitation of Volume IV.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

2.1. Digital Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. Volumes I and II shall be submitted with 2 original sanitized (devoid of offeror identification, references/names/watermarks/) copies and 2 unsanitized copies.

Failure to submit sanitized copies will render the proposal unacceptable. Volumes III, IV and V shall be submitted with 2 unsanitized copies. All pages shall be consecutively numbered. Unsanitized copies shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number/performance location in the header and/or footer. A Master Table of Contents should be created and an individual Table of Contents in each Volume disc using the Table of Content feature in MS Word.

MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters.

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” NOTE: 11X17 pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11X17 page counts as two pages.

2.2. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be in removable media (CD ROM) using Adobe Acrobat© MS Project© and/or MS Office© product in a searchable format to the maximum extent possible or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Unless specified elsewhere in this solicitation, all proposal documents other than the submittals for sample projects shall be in read-only format using PDF files. Sample project submittals shall be submitted in their native format. All price breakdown information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013 or earlier versions. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. ** Scanned pages or images shall be kept to a minimum. The CD ROM shall be labeled with the offeror’s name, solicitation number W912D0-19-R-0004, and performance location (Fort Wainwright or Fort Greely.) The submittal of an incomplete proposal or failure to provide the required number of the copies in the format requested may render the proposal unacceptable.

2.3. Site Visit. A site visit for the purpose of viewing the government-provided plot of land, staging area and sample projects will be held in accordance with FAR 52.236-27 Alt I of this solicitation.

2.4. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. A Master Table of Contents should be created and an individual Table of Contents in each Volume consisting of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2.5. Proposals must be hand carried or sent by mail. Regardless of the method used for submission, proposals must be received by the Contracting Officer at the address below no later than the due date and time for receipt of proposals as specified in block 13 of the SF 1442. Telegraph, facsimile, and electronic mail are NOT authorized for submission of proposals.

Contracting Officer: Dr. John Isgrigg, III Contracting Officer Address: Room 202

Regional Contracting Office-Alaska 1064 Apple Street Fort Wainwright, Alaska 99703

3. VOLUME I – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL PLANS. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

3.1. Section 1 – Integrated Management Plan. The offeror’s Integrated Management Plan shall address the following at a minimum:

3.1.1. Integrated management plan detailing the offeror’s ability to manage multiple individual projects simultaneously with appropriate task planning, scheduling and execution throughout the contract period of performance in accordance with the PWS.

3.1.2. Integrated project plan detailing an integrated plan that includes project swim lanes, task identification and duration, and critical path analysis.

3.2. Section 2 – Integrated Risk Management Plan. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Integrated risk management plan with major emphasis placed on:

3.2.1. Identification and mitigation of overarching performance risk over the life of the contract as well as for cumulative individual projects.

3.2.2. Identification and mitigation of overarching schedule risk over the life of the contract as well as for cumulative individual projects.

3.2.3. Identification and mitigation of overarching cost risk over the life of the contract as well as for cumulative individual projects.

3.3. Section 3 – Technical Management Team Plan.

3.3.1. Identify personnel who are the technical/management team for experiential quality.

3.3.2. Identify the management/technical robustness of the proposed key teaming partners.

4. VOLUME II – SAMPLE PROJECT PLANS. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

4.1. Section 1 – Individual Technical Task Approach.

4.1.1. Prepare a complete Submittal Register.

4.1.2. Develop the Initial Construction Schedule.

4.1.3. Task management/technical plan.

4.2. Section 2 – Individual Technical Task Risk Management Plan

4.2.1. Develop task risk management plan for all facets of project risk and their mitigation.

4.2.2. Develop a work product quality control plan for each individual sample task.

5. VOLUME III – COEFFICIENT (PRICE). Offerors shall complete the pricing schedule by filling in their coefficients for each JOC proposal and performance location in accordance with the Pricing Schedule. Each Item shall contain the appropriate coefficient for the specific location and indicated hours (standard or non-standard), limited to two decimal places. Assumptions: The minimum contract value is $25,000.00. For FWA, the Government estimates a $9.6M annual expenditure with a 95/5% standard/non-standard work effort. For FGA, the Government estimates $8M annual expenditure with a 95/5% standard/non-standard work effort.

5.1. FWA three (3) geographic areas:

Area 1 includes: Fort Wainwright Army Installation (including all associated ranges and training areas), Yukon Training Area (YTA), Dyke Range (North Pole), Fairbanks Permafrost Station (16 miles north of Fairbanks), and Eielson Air Force Base.

Area 2 includes: Donnelly Training Area (DTA), TOK Junction, Black Rapids Training Center (BRTC), Bolio Lakes, and Gerstle River.

Area 3 includes: Seward Recreational area/Seward Boat Harbor.

5.2. FGA three (3) geographic areas:

Area 1 includes: Fort Greely Army Installation (includes everything within the cantonment area) Area 2 includes: Donnelly Training Area (DTA), TOK Junction, Black Rapids Training Center (BRTC), Bolio Lakes, and Gerstle River.

Area 3 includes: Missile Defense Agency (includes everything within the cantonment area)

5.3. COEFFICIENT/UNIT PRICE BOOK INCLUSION INSTRUCTIONS

5.3.1. The contractor's coefficient shall include, at a minimum, the items noted in the Gordian Group's JOC

Note for the CTC (Attachment B) and JOC Guide Coefficient Factors (Attachment F). This CTC can be accessed at https://thegordiangroup –https://tinyurl.com/ydqx8s2x for proposal purposes only and a copy of the JOC Note will be kept as part of the contract. Coefficients are location-specific multiplier(s), developed and proposed by the offeror, to be applied against the published unit price book (UPB) cost line items for the purpose of providing consideration to the offeror for costs not included in the UPB line items including but not limited to:

• Contractor's overhead and profit (bare cost will be used in UPB)

• Subcontractors' overhead and profit

• Cost of annual software subscription for eGordian CTC.

• Insurance

• All costs associated with bonding (specifically including bond premiums)

• Employee payroll taxes, insurance and fringe benefits

• Business taxes, contributions, memberships, corporate

• Headquarters support (legal, financial, etc.)

• All waste and excess material

• Sales tax on material and equipment costs

• Clean up

• Mobilization and close out for the total contract and each task order

• Compliance with environmental laws (overhead {indirect} costs associated with performing work in compliance with EPA/OSHA regulations, including obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, reporting requirements, etc.)

• Compliance with protection and safety laws (i.e., safety rails, face and clothing protection, etc.)

• Traffic and work site signs and barriers

• Project management and supervision

• Protection of and/or moving of government property

• Quality control

• Office management and equipment

• Depreciation of mobile office(s)

• Interest associated with funding of equipment and payroll

• Submittal preparation

• As built drawings

• Permits, licenses and fees

• Other risks of doing business (i.e., risk of a lower than expected contract dollar value; risk of a high inflation cost if factors are bid for option years; risk of poor subcontractor performance and possible rework on various projects)

• UPB costs confidence (to include issues regarding how the cost data are captured and the size/types of projects they reflect)

• Contingencies

• Travel

• Depreciation of equipment or facilities

• Variances in subcontractor or worker availability

• Other local market conditions for each site not addressed by eGordian CTC.

• Other risks of doing business; acceptance testing; work-site security; etc.

5.3.2. At the time of award, the contractor shall obtain, at their own expense, access to the most recent version of the approved web-based, eGordian Group UPB for the Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely/MDA JOC for their use during the base year of this contract. The contractor shall obtain as many licensed copies (CDs/books/licenses) of the UPB as required for their operations under the contract. The contractor shall, at their own expense, maintain access to the most up-to-date UPB throughout the contract to include option years.

5.3.3. Annual price adjustments for option year(s) under this contract shall be applied on the contractor’s base year coefficient using the adjustment formula at AFARS 5152.237-9000. UPB line item prices will remain static throughout the life of the contract.

5.3.4. The Contractor is responsible for factoring in other potential risks on costs (ie. inflation) into their proposed base year coefficients.

6. VOLUME IV – ENTRY-GATE CRITERIA.

6.1. Section 1 - Past Performance. This section shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This section shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 236220) required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This section shall be organized into the following tabs:

6.1.1. TAB 1 – Contract Descriptions. This tab shall include the following information in the following format:

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

6.1.1.2. Government contracting agency, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, current address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

6.1.1.3. Government’s technical representative/COR, current address, email address, telephone and fax numbers.

6.1.1.4. Government contract administration office, Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, current address, e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

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

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

6.1.1.7. Awarded price/cost and final or projected final price/cost.

6.1.1.8. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

6.1.1.9. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

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

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

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

6.1.3. TAB 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price.

This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.

6.1.4. TAB 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

6.1.5. TAB 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract

Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the proposal.

The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire with responses to the Contracting Officer no later than the proposal due date. The offeror shall submit with the proposal a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number;

Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title;

POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day). Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

6.2. Section 2 – Bona Fides. This section contains the following:

6.2.1. TAB 1. The offeror shall submit a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-1 and executed on an SF 24. A scanned, PDF copy of the Bid Guarantee shall be submitted with the proposal. Scanned copies must be legible and free from any visual defects. The original, hardcopy

Bid Guarantee documents shall be retained by the offeror. Upon the request of the Contracting Officer, the offeror shall promptly present the original Bid Guarantee documents.

6.2.2. TAB 2. Offeror shall include their surety's letter of intent to provide performance and payment bonds upon award of any resulting contract for the maximum estimated annual value of $9.6M for FWA and $8M for FGA. In addition, the offeror shall submit information showing maximum available bonding capacity and bonding costs with verification from the surety (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information shall include 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.

6.2.3. TAB 3. The offeror shall submit proof of Insurance in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-5 executed on a Certificate of Liability Insurance Form. Offeror shall submit information showing that they can comply with FAR 52.228-5 by providing on the insurance companies’ letterhead the insurance company’s information stating at a minimum the type of insurance, insurance limits, workers compensation, if insurable and how long you have been insured by them or a Certificate of Liability Insurance Form.

6.2.4. TAB 4. Current Project Management Professional (PMP) certification documentation issued by the Project Management Institute (PMI) or current Certified Construction Manager (CCM) certification documentation issued by the Construction Manager Certification Institute (CMCI) for at least one personnel who is on the permanent on-site JOC management team.

7. VOLUME V- General. This section is arranged as follows:

7.1. TAB 1. Solicitation, Offer and Award

The SF-1442 shall be submitted fully completed to include all amendments. The offeror is cautioned that the SF-1442 must contain an original signature in block 20B of the form. The offeror shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually.

7.2. TAB 2. Representations and Certifications

The offeror shall submit completed Representations and Certifications under Section K of this solicitation using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP.

8. NOTICES

8.1. The Government reserves the right to revise or amend the specifications, drawings, or the solicitation prior to the proposal closing time. Such reservations or amendments will be communicated by amendments to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website (http://www.fbo.gov). If such amendments require material changes in quantities or prices, the proposal closing date may be postponed by enough days to enable offerors to revise their proposals. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new closing date and time. Offerors MUST acknowledge all amendments in their proposal (Volume V), either by completing SF 1442 Block 19, providing signed copies of the amendments with their proposal, or by separate letter which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers.

8.2. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competition; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

Excluded offerors may request a preaward debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post award debriefing. However, excluded offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

8.3. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Contracting Officer to consider as related to the claimed omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

8.4. 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 cost information 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 information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

8.5. Who Can Participate. Proposals may only be submitted by Small Business, firms. At the time of initial contract offer and at time of award, each business must be a Small Business under the designated NAICS size standard. Set-aside for performance location FWA is 8(a) and FGA is HUBZone. In order to submit an offer on a solicitation, each business concern in a teaming agreement must be a small business under the designated NAICS size standard.

8.6. The FWA JOC is being solicited under the Small Business Administration (SBA) Requirement Number :

GX1543535533U. The competition for FWA JOC is restricted geographically to the servicing area of the SBA Alaska District Office. All 8(a) certified firms serviced by the SBA Alaska District Office and all 8(a) certified firms with a bona fide place of business located in the servicing area of the Alaska District Office are deemed eligible to submit offers. In addition, the competitive is not restricted by stage (transitional or developmental) of a firm’s 8(a) program participation.

8.7. Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides. The SBA Alaska District Office must receive the joint venture agreement and all supporting documentation no less than twenty (20) working days prior to the scheduled date for contract award. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) in writing as soon as possible. The joint venture must be approved by SBA prior to contract award.

8.8. The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is listed below. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contracting Officer at the following email address:

Dr. John Isgrigg III, Email: john.isgrigg.civ@mail.mil

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. This is a Subjective Tradeoff with Entry-Gate Criteria, best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Guide, Army Federal Acquisition Requirements Supplement (AFARS) 5115.000, and the Army Source

Selection Supplement (AS3). The resulting award will be a firm fixed–price (FFP), JOC awarded to a single Section 8a contractor for FWA and a HUBZone contractor for FGA/MDA.

1.2. The Government will evaluate the proposals using an entry-gate, two-step process. Step 1: Entry-gate criteria (Volume IV) must be rated with minimum of an “Acceptable” rating and Volume V must be complete in order to enter the second evaluation phase. Step 2: The Government will evaluate the price and nonprice factors as described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined for selection procedures. Coefficients (Price) information will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness as described herein.

1.3. The award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the Entry-gate Criteria: Past Performance and bona fides, and three (3) evaluation factors: Management/Technical, Sample Task Proposals and Coefficients (Price). The Management/Technical factor is more important than Sample Task Proposals, which is more important than Coefficients. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Management/Technical factor and all subfactors. Successful Entry-gate Criteria completion is achieved with a Neutral Confidence Past Performance Rating or above and Acceptable rating for bona fides. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE

SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COEFFICIENTS (PRICE)

2. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

2.1. The combined adjectival rating for technical/risk is derived using the following evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors:

2.1.1. Adequacy of Response. (Technical) The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

2.1.2. Feasibility of Approach. (Risk) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2.1.3. The following table shall be used to assign adjectival ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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 solicitations, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.1.4. The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors, subfactors and entry-gate criteria described below.

2.2. Factor 1: (Volume I) Management/Technical Factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

(Section 1) Integrated management plan (Section 2) Integrated risk management plan (Section 3) Technical management team plan

2.2.1. Integrated management plan is equal to integrated risk management plan. Integrated risk management plan is more important than Technical management team.

2.2.2. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub factor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a combined adjectival rating for technical approach and risk.

2.3. Factor 2: (Volume II) Sample Projects Proposal is further divided into the following subfactors:

(Section 1) Individual technical task approach (Section 2) Individual task risk management

2.3.1. Technical task approach and task risk management subfactors are of equal importance.

2.4. Factor 3: (Volume III) Coefficient (Price):

2.4.1. The Government will evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price for this fixed-priced effort. The base year, all option years and a possible 6-month extension shall be included in the coefficient calculation.

2.4.2. Offerors will be evaluated on their response to the coefficient factor pricing schedule for the two different JOC contracts and their geographic areas for both the standard and non-standard work hours. Each Item shall contain the appropriate coefficient for the specific location and indicated hours (standard or non-standard), limited to two decimal places.

2.4.3. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, the preferred price analysis techniques are FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) and (ii);

however, other analytical techniques and procedures, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, may be used singularly or in combination with others to ensure that the final prices are fair and reasonable. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer/coefficient may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. In addition to determining whether a proposed price is fair and reasonable, the Government may determine that a proposed price is not awardable if prices are significantly unbalanced per FAR 15.404-1(g).

2.4.4. The total evaluated coefficient will be composed of two separate coefficients proposed by the offeror and provided on Attachment H, Coefficient Schedule.

The two separate coefficients are:

1 - Normal Business Hours Coefficient 2 – Other Than Normal Hours Coefficient

2.4.5. The Government has provided a weighted percentage for each coefficient. Once the offeror inserts the proposed coefficient in Attachment H, the two coefficients will be combined into a single coefficient value not to exceed two decimal places. The steps and formulas utilized to calculate the total coefficient are as follows:

2.4.6. Contractor shall complete Attachment H-1 for FWA or Attachment H-2 for FGA. All values shall not exceed two decimal places. Attachment H will automatically calculate the total coefficient utilizing the following formula:

Weighted Average = (.95)(Normal business hours Coefficient) + (.05)(Other than normal business hours Coefficient)

2.4.7. Offerors shall submit Attachment H, with the Offeror’s proposed coefficient. If Attachment H is completed properly, one coefficient will be calculated that is weighted in combination of the following two items: (1) normal working hours and (2) other than normal working hours. All elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal shall be included in the total price for the project. This coefficient will be used for the entire performance period of the contract, to include a possible 6-month extension at the end of the fourth option year period. The coefficient will be adjusted for the option years in accordance with AFARS 5152.237-9000.

3. ENTRY-GATE CRITERIA: (VOLUME IV)

3.1. The Government will evaluate the following entry-gate criteria for acceptability prior to moving on to the adjectival rating of the proposals. Offerors must attain an acceptable rating for each entry-gate criteria in order to be considered for the adjectival rating phase. Ratings are accomplished:

3.2. Past performance:

3.2.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.2.2. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.2.3. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical factor and Cost/Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of information demonstrating construction and design experience with contracts that have multiple projects/task orders containing work elements such as demolition, new construction, facility renovation, alteration and repair, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and teaming partners. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The relevancy of the projects will be assessed based on the past performance rating criteria.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Criteria

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.2.4. The Past Performance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

3.2.5. Quality of Past Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be somewhat relevant, relevant, or very relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

3.2.6. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality of the performance of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

3.3. Bona fides: Acceptable rating must be achieved for each of the following in the described manner:

3.3.1. The offeror shall submit a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-1 executed on an

SF 24.

3.3.2. Offeror shall include their surety's letter of intent to provide performance and payment bonds upon award of any resulting contract for the maximum estimated annual value of $9.6M for FWA and $8M for FGA. In addition, the offeror shall submit information showing maximum available bonding capacity and bonding costs with verification from the surety (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information shall include 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.

3.3.3. The offeror shall submit proof of Insurance in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-5 executed on a Certificate of Liability Insurance Form. Offeror shall submit information showing that they can comply with FAR 52.228-5 by providing on the insurance companies’ letterhead the insurance company’s information stating at a minimum the type of insurance, insurance limits, workers compensation, if insurable and how long you have been insured by them or a Certificate of Liability Insurance Form.

3.3.4. The offeror shall submit current Project Management Professional (PMP) certification documentation from the Project Management Institute (PMI) or current Certified Construction Manager (CCM) certification documentation issued by the Construction Manager Certification Institute (CMCI) for any one key personnel who is on the permanent on-site JOC management team.

4. GENERAL: (VOLUME V)

4.1. Offeror shall submit a complete and accurate proposal package in accordance with the solicitation instructions. Failure to do so may render the proposal unacceptable.

(End of Summary of Changes)