Amendment_3.pdf

250095

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

a) The purpose of this amendment is to add Exhibits F, G and H to the TABLE OF CONTENTS in SECTION 00010, correct language in SECTION

00120, Para 3.3 and to edit the description on Exhibit H.

b) SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR AWARD, paragraph 3.PRICE EVALUATION, (3.3) as reads “A sample can be found in Exhibit I.” is hereby changed to read, "A sample can be found in Exhibit G.”

c) The description on Exhibit H as reads “See sample on Exhibit I.” is hereby changed to read, " See sample on Exhibit G.” Failure to use the updated Exhibit H w ill NOT be construed as non responsive so long as the acknow ledgement of the amendment accompanies the proposal.

d) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Apr-2014

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 W912SV-14-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Apr-2014

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, 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

22-Apr-2014

CODE

W912SV - USPFO FOR MASSACHUSETTS

ATTN: P & C BRANCH

50 MAPLE STREET

MILFORD MA 01757-3604

W912SV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

W912SV-14-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization has changed from

W912SV - USPFO FOR MASSACHUSETTS

ATTN: P&C BRANCH

2 RANDOLPH ROAD

HANSCOM AFB MA 01731-3001

to

W912SV - USPFO FOR MASSACHUSETTS

ATTN: P & C BRANCH

2 RANDOLPH RD

HANSCOM AFB MA 01731-3001

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00010

SECTION 00010 Solicitation Contract Form

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD SF 1442 and SF 1442 BACK

SECTION 00010 - PRICING SCHEDULE, NOTES

SECTION 00100 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00600 – REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Project # 250095 Dated March 2014

ATTACHMENT 2- WAGE DETERMINATION(S)- to be inserted at award. See section 00100 for solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 3- SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT DATED (to be inserted at award)

EXHIBIT A- Performance Relevancy Questionnaire

EXHIBIT B- Subcontractor Information and Consent Form

EXHIBIT C- Reference Questionnaire package

EXHIBIT D-Option information form

EXHIBIT E-Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Form

EXHIBIT F- Forward Pricing Agreement Rates for Modifications

EXHIBIT G- Sample Evaluated Total Offer Method

EXHIBIT H- Evaluated Total Offer Calculation

SECTION 00010 NOTES

NOTES

1. Instructions for the preparation of proposals are located in Sections 00100, 00110 and 00120.

2. Offeror’s attention is invited to the insurance requirement contained in this solicitation (FAR Clause

52.228-5 Insurance – Work on a Government Installation). Certification of the required coverage for the prime contractor shall be furnished prior to beginning work on this contract, and the Contracting Officer may request evidence of the required insurance at any time during the life the contract.

3. Reference DFARS Provision 252.236-7008, Contract Prices – Bidding Schedules. The term “Bidding

Schedule” shall also be construed to mean “Offer Schedule” or “Schedule”. The terms “bid” and “offer”, and “bidder” and “offeror” shall be construed as having the same meaning in this solicitation and resulting contract.

Funds IAW FAR Provision 52.232-18, Availability of Funds. Funds are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract award will be made until appropriated funds are made available.

CLINS 0002 through 0005 are Option Line Items. See FAR Provision 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, Section 00100. The Government anticipates awarding options at time of award, however, reserves the right to award unexercised options after award within the time period provided in the awardee’s accepted proposal. (Reference Exhibit D). The Government reserves the right to include options exercised at time of award in the BASE CLIN 0001 to facilitate and simplify schedule and payment processing.

End of Section 00010

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

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 Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. Please note that the evaluation scheme for this solicitation is unique and is not purely a tradeoff analysis (FAR 15.101-1) or a purely Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable approach (FAR 15.101-2). Rather, the evaluation scheme is a “combination” of these two approaches, which is expressly allowed under FAR 15.101.

Under the evaluation scheme outlined below, it is possible that the award may be made to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror; where the Contracting Officer determines that the merits of the non-price factors of the higher-priced offeror is worth the price premium and attains the best value for the Government.

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 (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) 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 (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) 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 or 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. If the

Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.8. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

1.9. 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 Technical Capability, Past/Present Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal to each other and when combined, are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The evaluation process will follow a sequence in which the Technical will be evaluated first, the Price factor will be evaluated second and the Past

Performance Factor will be evaluated third (and last). The Technical Factor will be evaluated first and will result in an offer being rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” If an offeror is deemed to be unacceptable, it will be set aside and will not continue further in this competition. If the Price is determined to be reasonable and realistic, the offer will continue in the competition for a Past Performance Factor evaluation. Conversely, if the price proposal is deemed “unreasonable,” or “unrealistic,” it will not continue further in this competition.

2.1.1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: Technical Capability will be evaluated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. An offeror shall obtain an “Acceptable” rating to continue further in the competition. Offerors who are deemed to merit an “Unacceptable” rating in the Technical Capability Factor will be removed from further consideration for award. Technical Capability Limited to 10 pages (Resumes or experience cut sheets, NTE 2 pages each are not included in page count.)

2.1.2. Subfactor 1 - Experience and Capability -To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate experience and capability to perform a project of this magnitude and complexity. The proposal also needs to demonstrate that the named key construction personnel, to include but not limited to, Project Manager, Site

Superintendent and Quality Control Manager have experience and required qualifications in assigned roles. If there is no such experience, the onus is solely on the offeror to indicate in detail how the offeror plans to overcome this lack of experience. The Government, in its sole and broad discretion, will analyze the above-referenced plans to overcome the lack of experience.

2.1.3. Subfactor 2- (USGBC) LEED® -To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate experience with building to United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards. The proposal also needs to demonstrate that the named key construction personnel, Project Manager, Site Superintendent and Quality

Control Manager/CQC System Manager, have experience and required qualifications in assigned roles with building to USGBC LEED® standards. If there is no such experience/required qualifications with USGBC LEED® standards, the onus is solely on the offeror to indicate in detail how the offeror plans to overcome this lack of experience/required qualifications. The Government, in its sole and broad discretion, will analyze the above-referenced plans to overcome the lack of experience and/or qualifications with USGBC LEED® standards.

2.1.4. Technical Capability Ratings

ACCEPTABLE: LEED® -Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE: LEED® -Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.2. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Past/Present Performance of offers receiving an “Acceptable”

Technical Capability rating starting with the lowest reasonable and realistic price offered until an offeror is rated

“Substantial Confidence,” which is the best Past/Present Performance rating possible under the terms of the evaluation criteria in this solicitation. If the lowest (reasonable and realistic) price is deemed by the Government to merit a “Substantial Confidence” in Past Performance there will be no tradeoff and that offeror will be selected for award. If the lowest price offeror is not deemed to merit a “Substantial Confidence” the Government will continue to evaluate the Past Performance of offers in price order until an offeror is rated “Substantial Confidence.” By using this method it is possible (and likely) that some offerors’ Past/Present Performance will not be evaluated. At this point, the evaluation is complete and the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated best value assessment using the tradeoff process as described at FAR 15.101-1 of the evaluated offerors. If there are no

“Substantial Confidence” ratings assigned for any of the offerors, the Government will then use a standard tradeoff process as described at FAR 15.101-1 to arrive at the offeror representing the best value in this competition.

2.2.2. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of 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 75% percent. 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.

2.2.3. 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.

2.2.4. 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 “Unknown

Confidence” (Neutral). However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance history, while rated “Unknown Confidence” (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.

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

2.3.1. “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.

2.3.2. “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?

2.3.3. In assessing “relevancy”, of an offeror’s previous contracts the Government may evaluate an offeror's past performance for similarity of the construction methods i.e. steel frame and concrete block (CMU), spread footings, slab on grade, standing seam metal; size i.e. facility square footage; project scope i.e. multi-story building, administration; cost magnitude i.e. $10-$25M; and complexity of work i.e. fire suppression, security alarms, LEED, Asbestos Removal, and HVAC 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. ARNG/ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC)

LEED®. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed may also be considered. Relevancy weight will affect an offeror’s overall Past/Present Confidence Performance rating.

The more relevant the project is weighted the greater confidence there will be in the Past/Present Performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

2.3.3.1. The Government may consider an offeror’s previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s performance on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant or very relevant effort.

2.3.4. Considering all the elements listed above, the following adjectival ratings and descriptions will be used to evaluate the relevancy weight.

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

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

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

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

2.3.4.5. 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.

2.4. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. Of these six, quality control, timely performance and management effectiveness are the most significant subfactors and are of equal value and when combined, are significantly more important than the other three subfactors. The other three subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Evaluation 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);

and/or, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Requirements, (applicable to large businesses only).

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

2.5.1. 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”.

2.5.2. 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.

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

2.5.3.1. 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.

2.5.3.2. 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;

2.5.3.3. 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.

2.5.3.4. 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.

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

2.5.5. Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as:

Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention to Davis-Bacon Act 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 Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition; Use of Recovered Material (Affirmative Procurement); Compliance with

Environmental Regulations.

2.5.6. Compliance with Small Business Concerns Requirements: (Applicable to all offerors)

Generally, offeror demonstrated adequate compliance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”. Past performance included adequate utilization of small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and veteran owned and service disabled veteran owned small businesses, on prior Government contracts.

2.6. Other Past Performance Considerations: Evaluators may also consider the following issues when evaluating an offeror's Past Performance. These issues may help provide additional guidance in deciding a descriptive performance confidence assessment (e.g., "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence") for a specific offeror if there is a question as to which adjective is most appropriate.

2.6.1. Effectiveness of value engineering change proposals on prior Government contracts (impact on reducing cost or schedule, increasing efficiency or improving quality);

2.6.2. Professional/Industry Awards

2.6.3. Letters of appreciation, recognition or commendation, etc., received on behalf of a customer may be submitted. The Government will consider up to five (5) such documents.

2.6.4. Unique skills and accomplishments;

2.6.5. Assessment of liquidated damages (frequency, circumstances, severity of problem, etc.)

2.6.6. Contractor Desirability: Based on the contractor's overall performance, how willingly would a customer re-hire the offeror.

2.7. 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.

2.7.1. 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.

2.7.2. 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.

2.7.3. 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.

2.7.4. 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.

2.7.5. 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.

3. PRICE EVALUATION

3.1. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are reasonable and realistic in relation to the solicitation requirements and demonstrates the offeror understands the proposal requirements. Price is not rated.

3.2. 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.

3.3. The total price evaluation method, an evaluation technique which measures the lowest total overall project cost to the Government will be used to determine the lowest overall cost to the Government. The

Evaluated Total Offer Method considers the Total Price of all CLINs in the schedule (Section 00010) added to the potential remaining value of the contract, plus the Home Office Overhead Rate and subcontractor markup (Exhibit H). A sample can be found in Exhibit G. Offerors shall submit with their Proposal a completed Exhibits H. failure to submit the Forward Pricing Schedule (Exhibit F)

AND a completed Exhibit H may make the offer non-compliant with the solicitation requirements.

3.4. The Government will conduct a price/cost evaluation of each offeror's proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: "Reasonableness", “Realism", and “Affordability”. If there are multiple projects in the solicitation, pricing will address each project as a separate evaluation f or

"Reasonableness" and “Realism" and “Affordability.” Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all of the price/cost criteria may be eliminated from further consideration unless the Contracting Officer determines:

3.4.1. 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

3.4.2. The Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

3.5. 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). For cost (Price) to be reasonable, it must represent a cost (Price) that provides value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market and functional capabilities of the offeror. A price reasonableness analysis is primarily concerned with determining whether or not an offered price is too high.

3.6. Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. For cost (Price) to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. Proposals unrealistically low in price, when compared to the Government estimate, and/or market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection without discussion. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of cost (Price) realism rests solely with the offeror. A price realism analysis is primarily concerned with determining whether or not an offered price is too low.

3.7. Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. However, any offered discount will form part of the award, and will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated in the offer by the offeror. As an alternative to offering a prompt payment discount in conjunction with the offer, offerors awarded contracts may include prompt payment discounts on individual invoices.

3.8. 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:

3.8.1. 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.

3.9. 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.

4. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

4.1. 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.

4.2. Debriefings

4.2.1. 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.

4.2.2. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the

Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.506.

4.2.2.1. Written requests for debriefing will not be accepted by facsimile or email unless specifically authorized by the Contracting Officer in the notice. Submitted means delivered to the Contracting Officer at the location indicated on the SF 1442 for receipt of proposals.

End of Section 00120

(End of Summary of Changes)