AMENDMENT_1_-_W912KC-17-R-0001-J-0001_-_REPAIR_B301-B302.pdf

JLSQ132013/132014

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is as follow s:

-Period of Performance corrected from 900 to 1000 days.

-The proposal due date has been extended from Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 2:30 pm (Eastern Time) to Tuesday, 21 March 2017 2:30 PM (Eastern Time).

-All Requests for Information (RFIs) w ill be due by 9 March, 2017 at 2:30 PM (Eastern Time) and answ ered by 15 March, 2017 at 1:00 PM (Eastern Time).

-Answ er all RFI's received w ithin the Amendment #1 RFI Period. RFI's received after this period w ill be answ ered on Amendment #2 or a future Amendment.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Apr-2017

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 W912KC-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jan-2017

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

10-Feb-2017

CODE

W912KC - 171 ARW/MSC

300 TANKER ROAD #4204

CORAOPOLIS PA 15108-4204

W912KC 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912KC-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The contractor period of performance end date has increased by 100 days from 900 days to 1000 days.

The following have been modified:

BID SCHEDULE

BID SCHEDULE TABLE

Offeror’s Price Proposal and Acknowledgment of Amendments

PLEASE REVIEW, COMPLETE AND INCLUDE COMPLETED FORM WITH

VOLUME 1

Item Number Description Amount

CLIN 0001 Repair Hangars B301 & B302 CLIN 0002 Communications $_________________ CLIN 0003 Option 1 – Urethane Coating Hangar Floors $_________________ CLIN 0004 Option 2 – Window Blinds, Display Boards $____________________

NOTE: This proposal form shall be used for evaluating the offeror’s proposed price and determining price reasonableness. SF1442 CLINs will be populated at the time an award decision is made relative to the Options to be exercised (if any). For each CLIN the overall Quantity shall be “1” and the Unit shall be “Job”.

Offerors are directed to provide a price breakdown for CLIN 0001 by CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SET, by DIVISION. While offerors may make final price revisions to any CLIN, these price breakdowns by Drawing Set, by Division are for CLIN 0001 only.

B301 DRAWING SET

Repair Hangar B301 price breakdown by Division:

01 General Requirements $_______________

02 Existing Conditions $_______________

03 Concrete $_______________

04 Masonry $_______________

05 Metals $_______________

06 Wood, Plastics, and Composites $_______________

07 Thermal and Moisture Protection $_______________

08 Openings $_______________

09 Finishes $_______________

10 Specialties $_______________

12 Furnishings $_______________

14 Conveying Equipment $_______________

21 Fire Suppression $_______________

22 Plumbing $_______________

23 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning $_______________

26 Electrical $_______________

27 Communications $_______________

28 Electronic Safety and Security $_______________

31 Earthwork $_______________

32 Exterior Improvements $_______________

33 Utilities $_______________

41 Material Processing and Handling Equipment $_______________

CLIN 0001 – B301 - TOTAL $_______________

B302 DRAWING SET

Repair Hangar B302 price breakdown by Division:

01 General Requirements $_______________

02 Existing Conditions $_______________

03 Concrete $_______________

04 Masonry $_______________

05 Metals $_______________

06 Wood, Plastics, and Composites $_______________

07 Thermal and Moisture Protection $_______________

08 Openings $_______________

09 Finishes $_______________

10 Specialties $_______________

12 Furnishings $_______________

14 Conveying Equipment $_______________

21 Fire Suppression $_______________

22 Plumbing $_______________

23 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning $_______________

26 Electrical $_______________

27 Communications $_______________

28 Electronic Safety and Security $_______________

31 Earthwork $_______________

32 Exterior Improvements $_______________

33 Utilities $_______________

41 Material Processing and Handling Equipment $_______________

CLIN 0001 – B302 - TOTAL $_______________

Offerors are directed to provide a price breakdown for CLINs 0002, 0003 and 0004 by CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SET.

B301 DRAWING SET

CLIN 0002 $_______________

CLIN 0003 $_______________

CLIN 0004 $_______________

B302 DRAWING SET

CLIN 0002 $_______________

CLIN 0003 $_______________

CLIN 0004 $_______________

END OF BID SCHEDULE TABLE

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

Section 00100 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. SCOPE

1.1. You are invited to submit a proposal in response to our Request for Proposal W912KC-17-R-0001 for Project Nos. JLSQ132013 and JLSQ132014 at 171st Air Refueling Wing, Coraopolis, PA. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.

1.2. This solicitation is set-aside 100% for small businesses.

2. NOTICE OF PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

2.1. A pre-proposal conference will be conducted on 6 February 2017 at 1000 for the purposes of briefing on the proposal requirements and answering questions regarding this solicitation. This conference will be held at 171st Air Refueling Wing, 300 Tanker Road, Coraopolis, PA 15108. Interested Contractors are highly encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference. A site visit will be held following the conference on 6 February 2017. A secondary site visit will be held 21 February 2017 at 1000 at the same location.

2.2. Due to security conditions, all offerors must register to attend this conference and site visit. Email the following information for all attendees to michael.w.boyd2.mil@mail.mil AND jeremy.k.ketter.mil@mail.mil.

Visitor’s Name Last Four Digits of Social Security No.

Driver’s License No., State Issued and Expiration Date Date of Birth Citizenship

2.3. This information must be provided in advance, not later than 2 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.

2.4. Visitors must pick up their passes at the Installation’s Main Entry Gate prior to arrival. You will be required to present the following information upon arrival: (1) Vehicle Registration, (2) Valid Driver’s License, (3) Proof of Insurance for Vehicle, and/or (4) Safety Inspection and 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.

2.5. 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.

2.6. A record of the conference shall be made and furnished to all prospective offerors via posting to www.fbo.gov. The record will include minutes of the meeting, including questions (on a non-attribution basis) and answers.

3. FORMAL COMMUNICATION, OFFEROR EXPLANATIONS

3.1. Submit all questions via email to the contracting office at the address shown below. Do NOT contact the A-E or Engineering personnel directly. Doing so will only delay the response to your question.

Subject Line: Reference No. W912KC-17-R-0001 Email: michael.w.boyd2.mil@mail.mil AND michael.m.hancock.mil@mail.mil.

INQUIRIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL AND INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

Date of Proposal Inquiry:

From: ______________________________

Company Name: ___________________________

Phone Number: ____________________________

Email address: _____________________________

Proposal Inquiry: Be specific as to part of solicitation you are questioning.

3.2. Any explanation desired by an offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the solicitation, or proposals, drawings, specifications, etc. must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach offerors before the submission of their offer.

3.3. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to address questions received after the fifth day prior to solicitation closing with those offers deemed compliant and/or in the competitive range after closing. All questions and requests for information (RFI) must be received NOT LATER THAN the fifth working day prior to closing and will be posted not later than two working days prior to closing. OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED

TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS EARLY IN THIS PROCESS.

3.4. Any interpretations made will be in the form of an amendment of the solicitation, drawings, specifications, etc., and will be furnished to all prospective offerors via posting to www.fbo.gov.

3.4.1. Receipt by the offeror must be acknowledged in the space provided on the SF 1442 or by returning a signed copy of the amendment by the time set for receipt of proposals. Explanations or instructions given in a form other than an amendment to the solicitation shall not be binding. Questions (on a non-attribution basis) and answers shall be furnished to all prospective offerors via the web site.

3.4.2. For security reasons, all technical and engineering data related to this solicitation will be distributed using the Federal Business Opportunities (www.FedBizOpps.gov or www.fbo.gov) system. FedBizOpps is a web-based dissemination tool designed to safeguard acquisition-related information for all Federal agencies. Interested bidders/offerors must register with FedBizOpps before accessing the system.

Registration instructions can be found on the FedBizOpps website at https://www.fbo.gov/?s=getstart. (Please note the registration for access to the secure site takes approximately 15 business days, so plan accordingly.)

3.4.2.2. Interested offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). To register go to:

www.sam.gov. You will need your DUNS number to register. Instructions for registering are on the web page.

4. AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

4.1. The right is reserved, as the interest of the Government may require, to revise or amend, the specifications or drawings or both prior to and/or after the date set for receipt of proposals as necessary. Such amendments, if any, will be announced by an amendment or amendments to this Request for Proposal. All information relating to this RFP, including pertinent changes/amendments and information prior to the date set for receipt of proposals will be posted at www.fbo.gov.

4.2. Offerors are strongly cautioned to check this site frequently and to “refresh” their web page to ensure they have the lasted information.

5. HAND CARRIED PROPOSALS/INVITATIONS

5.1. A proposal repository is provided for hand carried proposals and is located at:

171 ARW Contracting, Bldg. 110 300 Tanker Road Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108

5.2. Hand carried proposals must be deposited in the repository prior to the time established for receipt of proposals.

5.3. Offerors are cautioned that approval to enter the base must be obtained prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. Follow the procedures outlined above in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 for entry. Delays are probable at the entry point and should be accounted for. Late receipt of proposals due to base entry delays may not be deemed excusable and the Contracting Officer may declare the proposal late and remove it from consideration.

6. WAGE DETERMINATION

6.1. The Construction Wage Rate Requirements formerly known as Davis Bacon Wage Rates are applicable to this project. Current prevailing wage determination(s) at time of issuance of solicitation are PA170001, Modification 1, dated January 13, 2017 for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

In the event the current prevailing Wage Determination is changed by the Department of Labor prior to the closing date of the solicitation, the most current wage determination is in effect. Should the wage rate change after closing, but prior to award, 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.

If the wage determination modification does not change any affected wage rates, then the provisions of FAR 22.404- 5(c)(4) will apply.

6.2. Applicable wage rates can be found at http://wdol.gov/dba.aspx.

7. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

This RFP does not commit the Government to pay costs incurred in preparation and submission of initial and subsequent proposals or for other costs incurred prior to award of a formal contract.

8. REMOVAL OF SECTIONS AT TIME OF AWARD

Sections 00100, 00110, 00120, 00600 and all exhibits will be physically removed as a result of an award, but will be deemed to be incorporated by reference in that award.

9. DISPOSITION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS

In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will destroy extra copies of unsuccessful proposals. No destruction certificate will be provided.

10. INFORMATION REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF UTILITY SERVICES

It has been determined that all reasonable amounts of electricity, where/if physically available, used in connection with this project will be furnished to contractor without cost. The offerors will take this into consideration when computing its offer. (FAR Clause 52.236-14, Availability and Use of Utility Services)

11. EXCEPTIONS

If the offeror takes exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify each such exception and include a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements (Sections 00010 through 00800) and supporting rationale shall be included in an addendum to the proposal and clearly labeled "Exceptions". An addendum is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation. (The Addendum does not have a page limitation, but shall only include information relevant to exceptions taken to the solicitation requirements.) The

Government will assume an offeror takes no exceptions to any solicitation requirement if the offeror does not submit an Addendum identifying exceptions. Offerors are advised that solicitation requirements are not necessarily negotiable and such exceptions may render an offeror's proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

12. CLAUSES

12.1. Clauses and provisions from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and supplements thereto are incorporated in this document by reference and in full text. Those incorporated by reference have the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.

12.2. Clauses and provisions in this document may not appear in consecutive order.

13. BRAND NAME REQUIREMENTS

1) Siemens APOGEE Insight System

2) BEST Lock seven pin Type A, Peaks, keyway B7

3) Must match existing King span 300 A Azteco insulated metal wall panels and not void existing warranty

4) Must match existing Versico, Versiguard 0.60 white EPDM roof membrane and not void existing warranty

SECTION 00120

SECTION 00120

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price Contract. The Government intends to award a single contract to a qualified Small Business Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to all the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation scheme set out in this solicitation. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. 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.

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. 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, 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 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.

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.

2.1.1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. 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.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which 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 task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

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 five (5) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. The subfactors 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.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance and normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2.2. Subfactor 1 Experience and Capability Proposal: The Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 10 single pages, exclusive of table of contents, tabs, and dividers. Pages in excess of the limit will not be evaluated.

The elements in subfactor 1 are of equal importance.

2.2.2.1. Using the information in Technical Proposal, and the projects/contracts discussed and listed in the Exhibit A’s the Government will evaluate the extent of related experience, and determine to what degree the offeror has the experience and capability to manage a complex multi-disciplined construction project comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation. Accordingly, higher ratings can be achieved by offerors whose projects more closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of this solicitation’s requirements.

2.2.2.2. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements, and determine to what degree their technical and administrative capabilities, proposed organization and management plan are adequate to meet contract requirements. To be considered adequate the Experience and Capability proposal will address the full spectrum of activities involved in the management of a resulting contract in a manner that gives the Government confidence that the offeror understands all of the requirements. An adequate proposal will include the information necessary to give the Government confidence of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform complete project management of the scope requirements.

2.2.2.3. Proposal must demonstrate adequate quality control processes to give the government confidence of the offeror’s ability to successfully manage the material submittal process, and ensure subcontractor compliance with contract documents.

2.2.2.4. Proposal must demonstrate, as a minimum, that the following key personnel: Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Control Manager (on site), and Safety Representative, have experience in managing projects/contracts of the same/similar dollar magnitude, size, complexity and scope, in the capacity in which they are proposed for this project. See Section 01000 of the specification, paragraph 36, for additional minimum qualification requirements for key personnel.

2.2.3. Subfactor 2. Safety Activities

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

Training and documentation.

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).

There is an adequate discussion of steps taken to promote safety during construction during the past three

(3) years.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3. Construction Schedule. The Schedule itself is not subject to page limits. The offeror shall provide information on the schedule using a critical path scheduling approach considering a Notice to Proceed date of April 10, 2017 that demonstrated an offerors understanding of the requirements. The Construction Schedule is an integrated and networked multi-layered schedule of program/project tasks. It identifies project events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. These dates are based on the calendar dates provided as the starting point and the logical flow of dates provided by calculating the addition of duration of all tasks using typical schedule networking tools. Each major task will be directly traceable to the requirements of the project. The NTP date for the schedule is for the purpose of evaluation only.

2.2.5. Subfactor 4: Quality Control. The proposal narrative demonstrates that the quality control staff, with lines of authority, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements. 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).

2.2.6. Subfactor 5: Experience with building to United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards. Experience with building to United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards. The

Government will evaluate the number and magnitude of previous projects that achieved USGBC LEED® certification, or 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 is indicated, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for overcoming the lack of experience. For any intended personnel who are not part of the contractor’s organization at the time of proposal submission, the Government will verify submission and proper completion of Exhibit B, “Subcontractor Information and Consent Form”.

2.3. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.3.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans and Specifications. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “relevancy” rating and a “confidence” rating. Although there are subfactors listed below, the “confidence” ratings will be at the factor level only. Stated differently, the subfactors will be considered, but they will not receive individual confidence ratings. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance complete to 70% percent.

Projects currently in progress for the National Guard will also be considered regardless of percentage complete. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources; from any 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; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

2.3.2. The evaluation may take into account Past/Present Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing, contracts.

2.3.3. An offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors provided the offeror clearly states in the proposal that the information provided about predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors is for the purposes of enhancing the offerors past performance proposal. These ratings may not have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. The weight that will be afforded for this type of past performance is within the sole discretion of the Government. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as Neutral. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance history, while rated Neutral in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors.

2.3.4. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past/present performance information and adverse past/present performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2.3.5 Current, Trends and Relevancy: Evaluators will consider the performance information for currency, relevancy as well as trends in the performance as explained further below.

2.3.5.1. “Current” means performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning five years prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period.

2.3.5.2. “Trends” in performance will be considered and may include the following but not limited to: more current performance having greater weight than older performance; patterns or trends in performance issues as relates to, but not limited to, types of projects, work, personnel and similar elements; and does performance show a pattern of improvement or decline over time.

2.3.6. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. The Government will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® certification achievements. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed will also be considered. Relevancy will affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating.

2.3.6.1. In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts the Government may evaluate an offeror’s past performance for similarity of the construction methods, size, project scope, cost magnitude and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED®. The location at which work was performed may also be considered.

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.

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

2.3.7.1. VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

2.3.7.3. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT- Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.7.4. NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.7.5. Offerors who otherwise have satisfactory performance on previous construction projects may be rated 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.

2.3.8. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. The six (6) sub-factors are of equal importance. An overall evaluation for Past Performance will be at the factor level.

� Quality Control

� Timely Performance

� Management Effectiveness

� Compliance with Safety Standards

� Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

� Compliance with utilization of small business concerns requirements (applicable to all offerors); including small business concerns. Reference FAR 19.702.

2.3.9. The elements that may be considered under each subfactor are described below:

2.3.9.1. Quality Control (QC): Evaluators may consider such things as: Quality of Workmanship; Adequacy of the Contractor QC; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Suggested solutions and displayed initiative to implement solutions; Adequacy of Materials; Use of specified materials; Adequacy of Submittals and Adequacy of "As-Builts”.

2.3.9.2. Timely Performance: Evaluators may consider such things as: Met established progress schedule;

Timely submission of updated and revised progress schedules; Resolved delays in an expeditious manner;

Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Provided submittals in a timely manner; Completed all contract work prior to requesting final inspection; Timely completion of punch-list items; Left no major discrepancies; Timely submission of close out documents, i.e., “as builts”, “red lines”; Contractor provided timely and satisfactory response to warranty issues after project completion.

2.3.9.3. Management Effectiveness: Evaluators may consider such things as:

2.3.9.3.1. 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.

2.3.9.3.2. 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;

2.3.9.3.3. 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.

2.3.9.3.4. 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.

2.3.9.4. Compliance with Safety Standards: Evaluators may consider such things as: Adequacy of implementation of safety plan; Acceptable safety history.

2.3.9.5. Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as: Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention to Construction Wage Rate Requirements including, but not limited to: Submitted payrolls in a timely manner; Payrolls were complete and correct; Compliance with Drug Free Work Place requirements; Compliance with Execute Order 16393—Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.

2.3.9.6. Compliance with utilization of small business concerns requirements (applicable to all offerors);

including small business concerns. Evaluators will consider if the firm was in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

2.3.10. Reserved.

2.3.11. 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.

2.3.11.1. 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.

2.3.11.2. 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.

2.3.11.3 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

2.3.11.4. 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.

2.3.11.5. 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.

2.4. PRICE EVALUATION

2.4.1. This contract is a firm fixed price contract. Price is not rated. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are determined to be fair and reasonable in comparison to the competition, the current market conditions and/or recent prices for the same or similar requirements. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4).

2.4.2. The RFP requires firm-fixed prices for the individual contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINS or Options is not occurring.

2.4.3 The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of a “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

2.4.4. The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price (cost) as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. No proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions.

Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions. If a minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process or the Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

2.4.5. In the event the Government does not award a contract pursuant to this solicitation within 90 calendar days after receipt of proposals and award will be made without discussions, the following will apply:

2.4.5.1 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. If a minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process or the Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

2.4.6. 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.

3. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

3.1. Award: A written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall be deemed to result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

3.2. Debriefings

3.2.1. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.505.

3.2.2. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in…