A-11_Solicitation_W912J2-16-R-4000-0003_SF30.docx

W912J2-16-R-4000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

See Section 0800 in solicitation/contract.

To:

See Section 00100 in solicitation/contract..

CLIN 1004

See Section 0800 in solicitation/contract.

CLIN 2004

See Section 0800 in solicitation/contract.

CLIN 3004

See Section 0800 in solicitation/contract.

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

The following have been added by full text:

CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING

1. Contractor Manpower Reporting (CMR).

1.1. For Task Orders awarded for Army and Air National Guard service personnel support, the Army requires contractors to report on the number of personnel employed by major unit/command on an annual basis. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) operates and maintains a secure Army data collection site where the contractor will report ALL contractor manpower (including subcontractor manpower) required for performance of this contract. The contractor is required to completely fill in all the information in the format using the following web address: https://cmra.army.mil/. The contractor shall ensure that all Task Orders are entered in the CMR system within 5 business days of award. Instructions can be found at the CMR website. The required information includes:

· Contracting office, Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative;

· Contract number, including task and delivery order number

· Beginning and ending dates covered by reporting period

· Contractor name, address, phone number, email address, identity of contractor employee entering data;

· Estimated direct labor hours (including sub-contractors);

· Estimated direct labor dollars paid this reporting period (including sub-contractors);

· Total payments (including sub-contractors);

· Predominant Federal Service Code (FSC) reflecting services provided by contractor (and separate predominant FSC for each subcontractor if different);

· Estimated data collection cost;

· Organizational title associated with the Unit Identification Code (UIC) for the Army Requiring Activity (the Army Requiring Activity is responsible for providing the contractor with its UIC for the purposes of reporting this information;

· Locations where contractor and subcontractors perform the work (specified by zip code in the United States and nearest city, country, when in an overseas location, using standardized nomenclature provided on website);

· Presence of deployment or contingency contract language; and

· Number of contractor and subcontractor employees deployed in theater this reporting period (by country)

1.2. As part of its submission, the contractor will also provide the estimated total cost (if any) incurred to comply with this reporting requirement. Reporting period will be the period of performance not to exceed 12 months ending September 30 of each government fiscal year and must be reported by 31 October of each calendar year. Contractors may use a direct XML data transfer to the database server or fill in the fields on the website. The XML direct transfer is a format for transferring files from a contractor’s systems to the secure web site without the need for separate data entries for each required data element at the web site. The specific formats for the XML direct transfer may be downloaded from the web site.

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This solicitation is for a Multiple Award Task Order (MATOC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) . The Government intends to award contracts to a minimum of three qualified offerors deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) whose proposal conforms to all of the RFP's requirements and are judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government’s stated importance of evaluation criteria. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Present/Past Performance, and Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is somewhat more important than Present/Past Performance and when combined, however, the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The firms that represent best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

1.2. To arrive at a Best Value decision this acquisition will utilize the FAR Part 15.101-1 tradeoff process unless the lowest priced offeror (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) is also deemed to be the highest rated in terms of non-price evaluation criteria. If the lowest priced offeror is also the highest rated in terms of non-Price Factors, no tradeoff is necessary. Further, there is no tradeoff necessary between any offer that is lower priced and higher rated in terms of non-Price Factors with respect to any other offers that are higher priced and lower rated for the non-Price Factors. While the Government and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors for Award”. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability, past performance and/or pricing and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.4. The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor Technical, Present/Past Performance and Price or any technical subfactor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

1.5. Offerors must ensure that no pricing information is displayed in Volume 2, Technical and Past Performance Proposal.

1.6. Although the assessment of Present/Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past Performance information obtained herein will be used during the Government’s responsibility determination. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination from all offerors after receipt of proposals. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer, in his/her sole discretion, later determines them to be necessary or appropriate. Further, the Government reserves the right to create or not to create a competitive range.

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

1.9. The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in his/her proposal, including that provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the facts and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected and removed from the competition.

1.10. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award if such action is in the Government's best interest; negotiate with any or all offerors; award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest price(s) or highest technically rated; and award contracts to offerors submitting a proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous to the Government.

1.11. Upon conclusion of evaluations the names of the apparent successful offerors, who are being considered for future task orders as an 8(a) set-aside will be provided to the , US Small Business Administration (SBA), Chicago, IL for an eligibility determination unless adequate documentation is provided with the proposal. The SBA must approve the joint venture agreement prior to award of an 8(a) contract to the Joint Venture.

1.12. Joint Venture Requirements - Parties wishing to propose as a joint venture must submit, with the Pro Forma documents, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement. The joint venture agreement shall be executed in accordance with FAR 4.102(d). Each joint venture partner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer that its Board of Directors has approved its participation in the joint venture or by an instrument of similarly binding character in the case of an unincorporated entity. Offerors are reminded that to obtain an award the awardee, to include a joint venture, must be registered in the SAM (www.sam.gov) database. Applicable to set-aside solicitations: Joint Ventures must meet applicable size standards (See FAR Subpart 19.1). Submit with the proposal any size determination for the Joint Venture entity received from the Small Business Administration. A Joint Venture where-in one party is not a small business may be referred to the Small Business Administration (IAW FAR 19.302 (b)) to determine eligibility. All questions regarding Joint Ventures must be directed the Small Business Administration and not the Contracting Officer.

1.13. The Government reserves the right to contact the SBA at any time during the evaluation process to determine eligibility of an offeror. An offeror found ineligible by the SBA will be eliminated for award under the set-aside.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. The evaluation factors are (1) Technical, (2) Past/Present Performance and (3) Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is somewhat more important than Present/ Past Performance and when combined however, the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

2.1.2. The sequential nature of this evaluation. Following the compliance check by the contracting officer, the technical proposal will be rated first. Any offeror receiving a rating “RED” or “YELLOW” rating in the Technical Factor, or any subfactor, may be eliminated from advancing further in this competition unless the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary and a revision of the technical proposal may result in the offeror being eligible for award. The Government will evaluate and rate an offeror's Technical proposal at the sub-factor and overall Factor level using a color rating that combines technical merit and proposal risk considering all subfactors identified in this section. The technical proposal assigned rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The Government will then evaluate the past performance of all offerors. Price evaluation is the final stage; the Government will examine all prices to see if they are reasonable and realistic.

2.2. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS:

2.2.1. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. This is a combined rating that includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level as well as an overall factor level rating. Based on evaluation results, the Government will assign a technical rating for each of the six (6) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. The subfactors, 1-6, will be rated in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1, Experience and Capability being the most important. An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete, and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration for award.

2.2.2. The Government intends to award without discussions. Due to the evaluation process the Technical Proposal must contain all the required information for a complete evaluation.

2.2.3.1. Subfactor 1. Capability and Experience. The Capability and Experience Proposal is limited to 20 single pages, exclusive of table of contents, tabs, and dividers. Pages in excess of the limit will not be evaluated.

2.2.3.1.1. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of related experience, and determine if the offeror has the experience to manage multi-disciplined construction projects, which is comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation considering the dollar level and at the locations requested in areas of consideration.

2.2.3.1.2. The proposal must demonstrate that the offeror has experience with management of multi-disciplined construction projects, as well as the capability to perform multiple projects at one time at the dollar levels and locations requested in Areas of Consideration.

2.2.3.1.3. The proposal discussion should address familiarity with construction in the locations selected, relationships with local subcontractors, familiarity with issues pertaining to work in this/these area(s) including involvement of the local workforce.

2.2.3.1.4. Self-performance of a major disciple may offset limited multi-discipline experience. An offeror who has the capability to perform both as a prime contractor for multi-discipline projects and self-perform a major element of construction, for example, Electrical, or Mechanical or Roofing may be afforded additional consideration in the evaluation.

2.2.3.1.5. The proposal must demonstrate capability and plans for meeting Government requirements and shall address as a minimum, but not limited to, the following:

Section 00800 SC-4 Ordering Procedures For Competitive Task Orders, including, but not limited to, the emergency response requirements specified in this special contract requirement (SC); Note that response to a task order notice must be made by the prime contractor (Contract holder) or employee of the prime contractor. Response cannot be made by a subcontractor representing the contractor and to propose this method will be found unacceptable; and

2.2.3.1.6. The proposal shall demonstrate understanding of and plan to be in compliance with contract Clause 52.236-6, Superintendence by the Contractor. Proposals that fail to demonstrate understanding and commitment to compliance may be found to be Marginal/Yellow or Unacceptable/Red; and

2.2.3.1.7. The proposal must demonstrate the technical and administrative capabilities that are adequate to meet contract requirements within the offeror’s chosen areas of consideration.

2.2.3.2. Subfactor 2. Key Personnel – The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of related experience for adequacy the offeror’s answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning proposed personnel for the following functions. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror has adequate experienced key personnel to manage multi-disciplined construction projects, which is comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation and at the dollar level and at the locations requested in areas of consideration. Evaluation will consider the following:

2.2.3.2.1. Project management, site superintendence, quality control manager, and safety, as well as the list of major subcontractors who will be utilized throughout the life of the contract. A resume or information provided for each proposed personnel should be included. The detailed background, education, and experience provided are indicative of acceptable experience. Personnel must meet any applicable experience qualifications included in the special contract requirements or specifications. If proposed personnel are not currently on the contractor’s staff, letters of intent are provided where required.

2.2.3.2.2. The proposed subcontractors are verifiable, and information provided indicates a good professional relationship with Electrical, Mechanical, Roofing, Horizontal disciplines, Civil Site Work subcontractors. Subcontractors shall have completed Exhibit B in Volume 2, to be considered.

2.2.3.3. Subfactor 3. Quality Control

2.2.3.3.1. The proposal narrative demonstrates that the quality control staff, with lines of authority, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements.

2.2.3.3.2. The proposed Quality Control answers should provide a detailed explanation of how quality issues are dealt with on various types of construction projects and as a minimum, meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work and how you intend to ensure non-reoccurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials. (Note: A Quality Control Plan is not required with this proposal).

2.2.3.4. Subfactor 4. Scheduling Methodology

2.2.3.4.1The Government will evaluate the offeror’s answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning scheduling methodology to determine if they have scheduling processes that ensure completion and control of the project from beginning to the end of the project.

2.2.3.4.1. The proposal narrative should demonstrate an understanding of the limitations of a schedule as well as an understanding that an appropriate schedule will result in successful completion of projects.

2.2.3.5. Subfactor 5. Safety Activities

2.2.3.5.1. The proposal narrative concerning proposed safety program, includes an adequate discussion of:

2.2.3.5.1.1 Training and documentation.

2.2.3.5.1.2. Proposal demonstrates familiarity with, and/ or plans to adhere to, OSHA standards, USACE EM 385-1-1 (Safety Manual) and standard State OSHA safety requirements, if applicable. (Note: The proposed Safety Plan (if provided) will not be evaluated).

2.2.3.5.1.3. There is an adequate discussion of steps taken to promote safety during construction during the past three (3) years.

2.2.3.6. Subfactor 6: Experience with building to United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards. Indicated previous projects that achieved USGBC LEED® certification, any level of recognition. Additionally, indicate the key construction personnel and demonstrate they have experience and required qualifications in assigned roles with building to USGBC LEED® standards. If no experience indicated, the proposal stated in detail how this lack of experience is being overcome. In the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted then a completed Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” is also required or the information will not be considered. Offerors requesting consideration for a range of projects < $1M, this subfactor does not apply.

2.3. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Relevancy weight will affect offeror’s overall Past Performance Confidence rating. The more relevant the project is weighted the greater confidence there will be in the past performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

3.3.3.2. The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

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.

Offerors who otherwise have satisfactory performance on previous construction projects may be rated “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral) if those projects are not considered relevant to the proposed acquisition and relevancy cannot be obtained through the evaluation of key personnel and/or subcontractors. Projects that are not current will not be considered in the evaluation.

Submittals and Adequacy of "As-Builts”.

3.5.3.1. General Business Practices, including, but not limited to: Contractor provided experienced managers, and supervisors with the ability needed to meet contract requirements; Hired experienced subcontractors; Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner; The contractor cooperated to resolve problems, attending meetings (as applicable) and maintained communication to assure satisfactory resolution; Overall customer satisfaction and willingness to foster a spirit of partnership with owner. This is a critical element in this subfactor.

3.5.3.2. Pricing, including, but not limited to: The contractor submitted proposals that accurately represented the work required; The contractor's supporting price/cost information for modifications were accurate, complete and reasonable (not over inflated or under estimated); Provided well-substantiated pricing data for change orders;

3.5.3.3. Site Management/Superintendent, including, but not limited to: Site manager ensured compliance to contract requirements & safety regulations; Site manager acted promptly to resolve problems and ensure work quality; Site manager had sufficient authority to make decisions or take actions during project performance; Site manager consistently present on site when work was performed.

3.5.3.4. Sustainability requirement compliance including but not limited to: Extent to which the contract’s sustainability requirements were met. Achievement of USGBC recognition at certified or silver level on completed projects is considered a benefit to the Government and may receive additional consideration. Achievement above the silver level may receive additional consideration.

3.7. The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment.

Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

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.

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

NO 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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (NEUTRAL): 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.

4.6.1 The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to make an adjustment in their price proposals to accommodate cost changes caused by fluctuating construction material market conditions. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors, normally by electronic mail (email) of a common closing date for receipt of the adjusted price proposals. No additional proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.

4.7. In the event the current prevailing Wage Determination is changed by the Department of Labor after the closing date of this solicitation, the updated Wage Determination will be incorporated by amendment and issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition. If applicable, these offerors/contractors will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide revised proposals solely to amend proposals due to Wage Determination changes. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions if award without discussions is contemplated.

5. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

5.1. At the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer a MATOC award may be offered at an individual order maximum dollar level lesser than requested in “Areas of Consideration.” if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Individual order maximum may increase in option years at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, based on demonstrated capability.

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

Section 00100 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. SCOPE: You are invited to submit a proposal in response to our Request for Proposal (RFP) entitled, “Wisconsin National Guard MATOC Solicitation” for construction services for National Guard locations throughout the State of Wisconsin. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends that a minimum of nine (9) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, (IDIQ) Task Order Contracts will be awarded, providing sufficient qualified contractors present offers. All awards will be to small businesses pursuant to a 100% small business set-aside. The contracting officer may set-aside task orders for SBA Certified 8(a) participants; Certified HUBZone Small Business Concerns, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and Women Owned Small Businesses Concerns provided 2 or more qualified contractors in each category present conforming offers and are awarded a MATOC.

1.1.1. Awards will be made to offerors whose proposals are in compliance and conforming to the RFP and are determined to be most advantageous to the Government in terms of Technical, Past Performance and Price.

1.1.2. Work to be performed under the MATOC contracts will include, but are not limited to, construction, demolition/remediation services. Projects will be bid build type from already completed designs, and/or projects specified by a Statement of Work using the Master Specification. It should be noted that the majority of work under these contracts will be for sustainment, repair and maintenance (SRM) at or under the $1M dollar level. However, occasionaly large SRM and MILCON type projects will be performed under this contract.

1.1.3. The Government reserves the right to issue additional solicitations and award additional contracts within the activities covered by this contract. In this event, new MATOC contractors, in accordance with the terms of their contracts, may compete for Task Orders with the Contractors selected under this solicitation. This is not a solicitation for a Requirements Contract.

1.2. PROJECT CATEGORIES: Work performed under these Multi-Discipline Contracts will generally be of, but are not limited to, the following general project categories:

1.2.1. Construction, repair and alteration of various facilities.

1.2.2. Construction, repairs and alteration of Electrical Systems (ES)

1.2.3. Construction, repair and alteration of Mechanical Systems (e.g. HVAC systems, and controls.)

1.2.4. Concrete and/or Asphalt Paving.

1.2.5. Demolition of facilities when required. Note: Demolition projects that are stand-alone, not part of a rebuild, fall under the Service Contract Act, and the Davis Bacon Act is not applicable, nor is bonding. FAR 52.222-41, Services Contract Act of 1965, and FAR 52.246-13, Inspection—Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements clauses and requirements apply. Note that the applicable clauses for Prompt Payment, Value Engineering, and Termination are likewise different from such clauses applicable to all other requirements under this contract.

1.2.6. Construction of new facilities

1.3. CONTRACT DURATION, LIMITS, AND AMOUNTS: Each of the resulting contracts will include a two-year base period and three one-year option periods. The maximum value of each contract will not exceed $20 million over the life of the contract. The Minimum and Maximum values for a single Task Order are $5000.00 and $5 million, respectively. The minimum guaranteed order for each contract is one (1) task order valued at $5,000 with a guaranteed fee of $5,000.00 for the life of the contract. At time of award of the basic contract, a task order for $5,000.00 will be issued. If the awarded contractor does not receive another task order in the base period of two years, this $5,000 will be paid out. If they are awarded another task order, the $5,000 will be removed from the initial task order an be placed towards the project task order received. See Section 00800 for details.

1.4. TASK ORDERS

1.4.1. As requirements develop, Task Orders will be competed among the MATOC awardees, or negotiated on a sole source basis as described in Section 00800. Section 00800 describes the Task Order process in detail. Offerors are highly encouraged to read Section 00800 before submitting a proposal.

1.4.2. The basic contract will be administered, (e.g. issuing modifications, exercising options), by the Contracting Office, USPFO for Wisconsin, 1 Williams Street, Camp Douglas, WI 54618-5002.

1.4.3. Individual Task Orders will be awarded and administered by federally appointed contracting officers, and may be issued by any Army or Air National Guard location in the State of Wisconsin. Organizations outside of the issuing office of the basic contract will be responsible for the complete administration of Task Orders issued.

1.4.4. Construction performance requirements will be specified for each project in the Task Order Request for Proposal. MATOC Awardees will compete for Task Orders among themselves. The majority of all Task Orders shall be awarded based on competitive proposals received in response to the agency request for quotation.

1.5. NOTICE OF PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE:

1.5.1. A pre-proposal conference will be conducted on April 26, 2016 at 1000 hours for the purposes of briefing on the proposal requirements and making clarifications regarding this solicitation. This conference will be held at Bldg 430, Truax Field, Madison, WI 53704. Interested Contractors are highly encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference.

Due to security conditions, all offerors must register to attend this conference.. Email the following information for all attendees to Dianne Graham and copy Maj Dan Statz at the following addresses: dianne.m.graham4.nfg@mail.mil and daniel.p.statz.mil@mail.mil respectively.

Firm Name and Telephone Number Visitor’s Full Name (if no middle initial put NMI): last, first middel initial Date of Birth Gender (M/F) Drivers License with State of issue Home Address

1.1.1. This information must be provided in advance, not later than 3 business days prior to the meeting, in order to ensure access to the military base and conference site and ensure adequate seating for the conference attendees. Even if you have access to the base you must register to ensure adequate seating. The furnishing of the above information is voluntary; however, your failure to furnish all or part of the requested information may result in the Government’s denial of your access to the pre-proposal conference. This information will be provided to the Base Security Forces who will authorize your entrance to the site.

1.1.2. Visitors must pick up their passes at the Installation’s Main Entry Gate upon arrival. You may be required to present the following information upon arrival: (1) Vehicle Registration, (2) Valid Drivers License, (3) Proof of Insurance for Vehicle, (4) Safety Inspection or Car Rental agreement if applicable. Any of the above information furnished by you is protected under the Privacy Act and shall not be released unless permitted by law and/or you have consented to such.

1.1.3. Information provided at this conference or site visit shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgment and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.

1.1.4. A record of the conference shall be made and furnished to all prospective offerors via posting to our web site at…