19GE5020R0051 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE RATING

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07/01/2020

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

FRANKCODE

AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL FRANKFURT

GIESSENER STRASSE 30

ATTN: RPSO

FRANKFURT, D60435

David D. Machen

NAME

TEL.

machendd@state.gov

EMAIL

6. ISSUED BY FRANKCODE

AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL FRANKFURT

GIESSENER STRASSE 30

ATTN: RPSO

FRANKFURT, D60435

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

19GE5020R0051

CONTACT DUNS

CODE FACILITY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, country, state and ZIP Code) (X)

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06/03/2020

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X XThe above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, 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__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 ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE 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.__1__X

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of the amendment is to:

A. Extend the Proposal Due Date to Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 15:00 CEST;

B. Provide Questions and Answers #2;

C. Correct the numbering of the Technical Capability evaluation subfactors in 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL

ITEMS;

D. Change the Management Plan evaluation subfactor to read "proposed a project team; in Japan and/or the United States."

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

Eric N. Moore

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED

By (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

19GE5020R0051

Section 4- Evaluation Factors

Clause 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS was deleted or updated.

52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to responsible offerors (as determined within the meaning of FAR Part 9, paragraph 9.104), whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation shall include the following:

• Compliance Review.

• Technical Capability Evaluation

• Past Performance Review

• Price Evaluation

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The Government’s evaluation of offeror’s proposals will be conducted utilizing the evaluation factors of: 1. Technical Capability, 2. Price. Evaluation of these factors will utilize a tradeoff process in accordance with FAR Part 15; whereby the Government seeks to award on the offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government. Technical Capability and Past Performance, when com-bined, are more important than price. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. Upon completion of the Govern-ment’s initial evaluation of proposals, exchanges with offerors may occur, for purpose of clarifications and communications in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors for the purpose of negotiations at any point during the evaluation if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Once discussions, if conducted, have been concluded, the Contracting Officer will request Fi-nal Proposal Revisions from each of the offerors remaining within the competitive range.

A. Compliance Review. The Government will perform an initial review of proposals received to determ-ine compliance with the terms of the solicitation. The Government may reject as unacceptable proposals which do not conform to the solicitation.

• Pricing Schedule

• Representations and Certifications

• SAM Registration

B. Technical Capability

1. Strategic Plan

2. Management Plan

C. Past Performance Review

D. Price Evaluation

Evaluation of these factors will utilize a tradeoff process, whereby the Government seeks to award on the offer-or whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government. Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than price..

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

a. Technical Capability. The government will evaluate technical proposals and the below listed sub-factors on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Technical Capability shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors where all sub-factors are considered equal:

Subfactor 1: Strategic Plan

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror has thoroughly and successfully demonstrated the ability to meet all the requirements identified in 52.212-1 Addendum, Strategic Plan paragraphs a through f.

The successful offeror shall have:

• Demonstrated Ability to perform these of services in the Japanese market, including;

+ Demonstrated ability to develop and produce high quality visual content in both Japan and the United

States.

+ Demonstrated ability to shape content and messaging to effectively reach Japanese consumers, and applic-ability of those tools to this project.

+ Demonstrated ability to distribute visual content effectively to targeted demographic audiences in Japan.

• Proposed project methodology (including evaluation methodology) and timeline.

• Prepaired a professional strategic plan without any gramatical errors

Subfactor 2: Management Plan

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror has thoroughly and successfully demonstrated the ability to meet all management activities identified in 52.212-1 Addendum, Management Plan paragraphs a through f.

The successful Offeror shall have:

• Proposed a project team; in Japan and/or the United States.

• Demonstrated knowledge of and experience in the Japanese market

• Identified a capable and experienced project manager

• Prepaired a professional management plan without any gramatical errors

b. Past Performance.

Past performance information that is independently obtained, by the U.S. Government, from other government and commercial sources shall also be used during past performance evaluation. Based upon feedback from re-spondents to the questionnaires and information gained from other government and commercial sources, past performance evaluation will assess the recency and relevancy of collected information in accordance with 52.212-1. If found recent and relevant, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror successfully demon-strated an ability to perform. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past per-formance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition. The overall rating of the offerors will reflect appropriately, if the Government finds docu-mented issues of complaints due to poor work performance, unacceptable and/or unprofessional conduct during previous contract. In addition, the Contracting Officer may use past performance information in making a de-termination of responsibility.

Note that the past performance evaluation performed in support of this requirement does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past per-formance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a maximum of five (5) cus-tomer references for whom services have been or are being performed that meet the regency and relevancy re-quirements and demonstrate the offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS.

The evaluation of past performance information will result in an overall assessment of acceptable or unaccept-able as follows:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Govern-ment has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offer-or’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Govern-ment has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably as-signed, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, “unknown” shall be considered acceptable.

As a result of the government’s evaluation of the aforementioned technical sub-factors of Transition Plan, Stra-tegic Plan, Management Plan, and Past Performance and all associated elements accordingly, a determination of acceptable or unacceptable will be assigned for this factor of Technical Acceptability using the following rat-ings and descriptions

c. Price Evaluation. The offeror's price will be determined by multiplying the offered prices times the estim-ated quantities, and arriving at a grand total, including all options. The Government reserves the right to reject proposals that are unreasonably low or high in price.

d. Responsibility Determination. The Government will determine contractor responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful offeror complies with the requirements of FAR 9.1, including:

• adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them;

• ability to comply with the required performance period, taking into consideration all exist-ing commercial and governmental business commitments;

• satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

• necessary organization, experience, and skills or the ability to obtain them;

• necessary equipment and facilities or the ability to obtain them; and

• otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Award Selection:

Each proposal shall be evaluated according to the evaluation factors stated above. The award selection will go to the responsible offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government. Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with part FAR 15.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the op-tion prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an of-fer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received be-fore award.

(End of Provision)