AMENDMENT 1 12-0261-20-R-0002 GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ-1.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 7

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applic.)

Amendment No. 1 April 6, 2020

6. ISSUED BY: CODE: 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than 6.): CODE:

USDA, Forest Service

SW Idaho/Nevada Acquisition Center

1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200

Boise, ID 83709-1663

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

[ X ] 12-0261-20-R-0002 9B. DATED (see item 11) 03/31/020

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (see item 13)

CODE FACILITY

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY 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 Offers [ ] is extended, [X] is not extended. Offers 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 copy(s) 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 amend-ment 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 applicable) N/A

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

[ ] A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS PURSUANT TO: FAR 52.243-4 Changes

The changes set forth in Item 14 are made in the Contract Order Number 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: 52.243-1

[ ] D. OTHER (specify type of modification and authority)

E. Contractor [ X ] is, [ ] is not required to sign this document and return ___1__ ___ copy(s) to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

REFER TO SOLICITATION NO. 12-0261-20-R-0002, GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ and amend as follows:

1. Page 51: Change Size Standard to $20.5 million

2. Page 51 Remove requirement for thumb drive and to send proposals traditional mail. All proposals must be submitted by email ONLY due to COVID 19 limitations

3. Please submit Past Performanc form that is incorporated into this amendment. See attached.

4. A prebid conference call is planned for: Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1000 MDT. See attached.

5. List of potential discussion topics for conferenc call is attached.

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (type or print)

KAREN L. MORTHLAND , Contracting Officer 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

__________________________ BY:________________________

(Signature of authorized person to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 SF 30 (REV. 10/83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA/PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Past Performance Questionnaire

Your assistance is requested in support of a Source Selection for 12-0261-20- R-0002 Please complete the Questionnaire and email to Karen Morthland;

karen.morthland@usda.gov.

Response date: April 17, 2020

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,

ADDRESS, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY):

NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY,

ADDRESS, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED

CONTRACT NUMBER

mailto:rebecca.martinez@usda.gov

The following ratings are provided for your use in completing the questionnaire.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

Exceptional (E) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good (VG) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

To justify a Very Good, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory (S) Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Marginal (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report of letter).

Unsatisfactory (U) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Not Applicable (N)

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive or negative

Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Other

Technical Performance

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH

Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

Did the contractor demonstrated an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? Did the contractor effectively collaborate with the client on issues and offer sound resolutions?

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

Was the contractor able to obtain the right mix of qualified personnel resources required to complete the project in a timely manner? Were the required workforce stable throughout the term of the contract or project?

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?

Quality

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE

Was high quality work delivered with little to no rework in a timely manner? Was proactive quality control and problem resolution evident?

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, addressing poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables or other management issues?

7. COMMUNICATION

Did the contractor work and communicate well and in proactive manner with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, the public, other contractors, subcontractors, and stakeholders?

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate

YES NO

9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

Additional Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below.

The Forest Service is interested in input from the public, contractors, and suppliers in the refinement of specifications and contract requirements for the mulching and seeding requirements. These items will be discussed in the informational meeting on Friday, April 10. Specifically, the Forest Service would like input on the following items:

1. Do you have any suggestions that would improve Forest Service efficiency during implementation of mulching and seeding projects?

2. Do you have any suggestions to the specifications and contract documents that would reduce costs without compromising the quality of the final product?

3. Are there any items in the specifications and contract documents that you think are onerous with little value added to the final product?

4. What are your thoughts on the best ways to determine acceptance of the final product?

5. Is there anything in the specifications or contract documents that you think may give one contractor a competitive advantage over another contractor that may be unfair?

6. Do you have any suggestions that could improve the timeliness of the application from when the task orders are issued and when the application on the ground occurs?

7. Do you think the evaluation criteria is complete and fair and are there particular areas for improvements?

8. Do you have any other suggestions to improve the solicitation?

12-0261-20-R-0002 GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ

INFORMATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 2020 1000 MOUNTAIN DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME

Call in number: 888 844 9904

Participant code: 7216692