W912HV20R0002 AM0003.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

See continuation page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Aug-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 W912HV20R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jun-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

14-Aug-2020

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE-JAPAN DISTRICT

RM. 116, BLDG. 364

CAMP FOSTER

CHATAN-CHO, NAKAGAMI-GUN OKINAWA

JAPAN

W912HV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HV20R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (continued)

A. The following revisions are made in red font to section 00 22 16 of the project specification:

1. Paragraph B.2.c. has been revised.

2. Paragraph B.3.b.i. has been revised.

B. The Phase One proposal due date and time remains unchanged.

C. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION 00 22 16 – Supplementary Instructions

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS OF AWARD

1. Solicitation no. W912HV-20-R-0002 is a competitive Local Sources acquisition utilizing the Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, outlined in FAR Subpart 36.3 and the Tradeoff Process, outlined in FAR 15.101-1, prepared in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), adapting the specified procedures to accommodate a hybrid approach to the Subjective Tradeoff process in which Phase One will be evaluated using an acceptable/unacceptable (pass/fail) rating methodology, while Phase Two will utilize a combined technical/risk adjectival rating methodology.

2. The Government will evaluate the Phase One performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein to determine the most highly qualified offerors to move to Phase Two. Offerors who meet all acceptability criteria in Phase Once will be determined to be most highly qualified to participate in Phase Two, this is in lieu of the limitations on the maximum number of offerors that may be selected to submit phase-two proposals as authorized by DFARS 236.303-1(a)(4)(i)(A). Phase One proposals will be evaluated using an acceptable/unacceptable (pass/fail) rating methodology to determine the most highly qualified offerors.

Successful Offerors will receive a written notification from the Japan District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation will be invited to submit a Phase Two proposal.

3. The Seed Project technical requirements package will be issued in Phase Two to be competed amongst the most highly qualified offerors selected in Phase One. The Government will utilize the Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value for MATOC Award. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. The Government may consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. In Phase Two, the non-cost factor is of equal importance to the price factor. The Government intends to award up to six (6) MATOCs to responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with all factors in the solicitation, but retains the right to award more or less dependent on the quantity and quality of proposals received.

4. Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make a selection of the most highly qualified and an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions with the offerors (other than communications conducted for the purpose of clarification). However, the Government reserves the right to discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors in the competitive range, if one is determined to be necessary, upon completion of the evaluation. Offerors are advised that the Government may make the most highly qualified selection and award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received.

Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price (Phase Two) and technical (Phase One and Phase Two) standpoint. Offerors shall not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

5. Revised proposals will not be accepted unless specifically requested by the Contracting Officer. If the Contracting Officer decides to conduct discussions and requests revised proposals from the offerors; offerors shall ensure that all replacement pages are clearly marked “REVISED”, shall show the date of revision, shall be submitted in the appropriate number of copies (e.g., if two copies of the original page was required, then two copies of the revised page will also be required). All proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g. bold face print or underlining.

B. PHASE ONE EVAULATION CRITERIA:

1. Phase One, Factor 1, Bonding Capability

a. The Government will evaluate the bonding capability of the Offeror. The minimum requirements for this evaluation factor will be met if the offeror demonstrates the following:

i. A minimum surety bonding capacity equivalent to ¥800,000,000 (or $8,000,000 if the capacity is denominated in U.S. dollars) for a single project.

b. Phase One, Factor 1, Bonding Capability, will be rated on an acceptable / unacceptable basis utilizing the rating method in Table 1.

Table 1: Phase One, Factor 1, Bonding Capability, Rating Method

Table 1: Phase One, Factor 1, Bonding Capability, Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Phase One, Factor 2, Past Experience

a. The Government will evaluate the past experience demonstrated by the offeror to assess the Offeror’s ability to complete the requirements anticipated under this contract based on the information provided by the offeror using the project information sheet – Attachment A. Past Experience will be rated utilizing the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method in Table 2 below.

b. Evaluation Criteria: The minimum requirement for this evaluation factor will be met if the proposal demonstrates experience on at least three (3) construction projects, with each project individually meeting all of the below criteria for minimum acceptability:

i. Project was a design-build construction project for sustainment, repair, maintenance, alteration, renovation, or new construction

ii. Project utilized more than one (at least two) of the following disciplines:

a. architectural,

b. structural,

c. electrical,

d. mechanical, OR

e. civil;

iii. Project/contract value was equal to or greater than ¥50,000,000 (or $500,000 if the project/contract value is denominated in U.S. dollars);

iv. Project was completed in Japan;

v. Completion of the project was by the Offeror as the Prime Contractor or the 1st tier sub-contractor – with a minimum of 40% of the invoiced effort completed by the Offeror; and

vi. Project was completed within the last five (5) years preceding the issuance date of this solicitation.

c. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability. Each submitted project must individually meet all the past experience evaluation criteria (i) through (vi) above. Submitted projects that do not meet all the evaluation criteria will not be considered for evaluation purposes on this factor. If a proposal cannot demonstrate experience on at least three projects which individually meet all of the criteria (i) through (vi), then the proposal will be considered "unacceptable" and rejected.

d. The Government will not evaluate more than five (5) projects submitted under this factor for each offerors' proposal. If more than five (5) projects are submitted for this factor, the Government will only evaluate the first five (5) projects submitted for this factor in the order presented in the proposal submitted by the offeror.

Note (1):

The Government will also consider prime contractor experience of the offeror's parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm as experience attributable to the offeror for evaluation purposes if the offeror can establish that the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm will have a significant involvement in performance of this contract and describe the resources of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm that will be utilized on project that is the subject of this procurement.

If submitting a parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm’s project for experience, it is the offeror's responsibility to effectively demonstrate and describe how the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm's resources (such as workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will significantly contribute to the execution of the project which is the subject of this procurement; failure to effectively demonstrate and describe the planned contribution of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm’s involvement in the subject project of this procurement will cause the past experience of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firms to be considered not relevant for evaluation purposes in this procurement. Further, any project in which the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm performed the role of a subcontractor will not be considered relevant when evaluating the experience of the offeror.

Note (2):

A Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) or Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) alone is not considered a relevant construction project, but an individual task order project against its SATOC or MATOC may be submitted if it meets the requirements for a relevant construction project set forth above.

Note (3):

If offeror identified in Block 14 is a JV, a project completed by a JV may be submitted for purposes of demonstrating prime contractor experience, so long as at least one member of the offeror JV was a member of the JV on the completed project. Offeror must demonstrate evidence that at least one member of the offeror JV was a member of the JV on the completed project, such as a signed joint venture agreement or similar documentation.

i. Example: Offeror for this solicitation is Joint Venture A-B. JV A-B is comprised of Company A and

Company B. Past projects completed by JV A-C, comprised of Company A and Company C may be used to demonstrate prime contractor experience for this solicitation, as Company A, a member of the offeror JV, was a member of JV A-C.

Projects completed by a joint venture where the offeror was a member of the JV may be submitted for the purpose of demonstrating prime contractor experience. Offeror must demonstrate evidence of JV membership on the completed project, such as a signed joint venture agreement or similar documentation.

ii. Example: Offeror for this solicitation is Company A. Past projects completed by JV A-C, comprised of

Company A and Company C may be used to demonstrate prime contractor experience for this solicitation, as Company A, the offeror, was a member of JV A-C.

Projects completed by a member of a joint venture for this solicitation (as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement for this effort) may be submitted for the purpose of demonstrating prime contractor experience.

iii. Example: Offeror for this solicitation is JV A-B. Past projects completed by Company A may be used to demonstrate prime contractor experience for this solicitation, as Company A is a member of the offeror JV A-B.

e. Phase One, Factor 2, Past Experience, will be rated on an acceptable / unacceptable basis utilizing the rating method in Table 2.

Table 2: Phase One, Factor 2, Past Experience, Rating Method

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. Phase One, Factor 3, Past Performance

a. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror using the project information sheet (Attachment A), and (ii) past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment B), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method in Table 3 below.

b. Evaluation Criteria: Past performance will first be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent and relevant, or not relevant, to the effort to be acquired. Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

i. Only recent and relevant contract/project performance will be considered for this factor. Performance on a contract/project is deemed recent and relevant if the contract/project individually meets the criteria (i) through (vi) listed in paragraph B.2.b. evaluation criteria (see above).

c. The past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

d. The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify Offeror’s past performance information from other sources including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Government evaluators may contact points of contacts listed in the Past Performance Questionnaire for the projects submitted to verify your past performance on these projects. Offeror shall encourage all customer points of contacts/reference to provide evaluation of your performance as requested.

e. Phase One, Factor 3, Past Performance, will be rated on an acceptable / unacceptable basis utilizing the rating method in Table 3.

Table 3: Phase One, Factor 3, Past Performance, Rating Method

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown” or “Neutral” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable”.

C. PHASE TWO EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTS:

1. Phase Two, Factor 4, Seed Project Technical Approach, is approximately equal to Phase 2, Factor 5, Seed

Project Price.

2. Phase Two, Factor 4, Seed Project Technical Approach

a. The Government will evaluate how well the narrative describes the Offeror’s intended technical approach for the seed project and how well it demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate:

i. TBD. To be provided in Phase Two.

b. Phase Two, Factor 4, Seed Project Technical Approach, will be rated utilizing the combined technical/risk rating method in Table 4.

Table 4 – Phase Two, Factor 4, Seed Project Technical Approach, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

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

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.

Acceptable

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

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

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 unawardable.

3. Phase Two, Factor 5, Seed Project Price

a. The total price proposed for the seed project will be utilized for the Phase Two, Factor 4, Seed Project Price, in the tradeoff process. Any tradeoffs among price and technical will be based on the total price proposed for the seed project.

b. Price reasonableness will be established using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

The price analysis will also check for the appearance of unbalanced line item prices as it relates to the seed project. Offerors are cautioned to accurately distribute direct costs, such as material, labor and equipment, and indirect costs, such as overhead, bonds, etc. to the appropriate contract line item.

c. Offerors shall ensure the data in Seed Project Section 00 10 00 is complete and accurate. Failure to provide all price data requested may be cause for determination of proposals as unacceptable.

D. AWARD DECISION

1. Multiple Award Decision

Contract award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal represents the best value to the Government utilizing the Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, outlined in FAR Subpart 36.3 and the Tradeoff Process, outlined in FAR 15.101-1. The Tradeoff Process utilized in Phase 2, permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost or price evaluation factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal. All non-price factors in Phase 2, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price. The Contracting Officer will make an integrated assessment and select contractors that represent the “best value” for MATOC Awards.

2. Seed Project Task Order Award Decision

Award of Seed Project Task Order (TO): POJ intends to award a TO for Seed project at the time of initial contract award or within 90 days after award, subject to the availability of funds (see FAR 52.232-18). Note that if sufficient funds are not available for the seed project at the time of the basic contract awards, then the Government may make basic awards without awarding the seed project. However, all Phase Two offerors awarded a basic contract are to maintain offers on the seed project (even after award of basic contracts) until the date indicated on Block 13(D) of the SF 1442, so that the seed project may be awarded to the overall best value offeror under this solicitation if sufficient funds are obtained by this date. If the seed project is not awarded at the time of initial award, the selected contractor will be issued a TO for the minimum guarantee. The contractor for the seed project TO will be selected by the Contracting Officer immediately after selecting the contractors for award of basic contracts. Among those contractors selected for award of basic contracts, the Contracting Officer will make an integrated assessment of the offerors proposed Technical Approach and the offerors proposed Total Evaluated Price to determine the “best value” contractor for award of the TO; the competing offerors’ combined technical/risk rating will be evaluated on a basis significantly less important than price.

E. EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

1. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. See FAR 15.306(a).

2. Communications. Communications are exchanges between the Government and offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

3. Deficiency. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

4. Discussions. Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

5. Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

6. Significant Strength. A strength that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

7. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

8. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciable increases the risk of an unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

9. Two-phase design-build selection procedures. A selection method in which a limited number of offerors is selected during Phase One to submit detailed proposals for Phase Two.

10. Subjective Tradeoff. Subjective Tradeoff is a source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements. See DoD Source Selection Procedures.

(End of section)

(End of Summary of Changes)