36C10E18R0165-0004000.docx

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE

OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

VA

3235-000043 00101 Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Administration Office of Acquisition 1800 G. Street N.W.

Washington

DC

20006 00101 Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Administration Office of Acquisition 1800 G. Street N.W.

Washington

DC

20006 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C10E18R0165 09-07-2018

X X X 13 Sep 2018 at 10:00 AM EST X The purpose of this amendment is to:

a. Extend the solicitation to the time and date as specified in section 11 above.

b. Update the past performance evaluation criteria to correct a clerical oversite. This changes the relevancy assessment guidelines within the basis of award under Evaluation Factor #2 – Past Performance from “The Government has defined relevance as experience in fully compliant mold remediation within an active office environment or Government facility.” to “The Government has defined relevance as experience in installing Air Handling Units with Air Purification Systems in an active office environment or Government facility.”

(See continuation page below)

Scott Russell Contracting Officer

VBA16L2-81124

CONTINUATION PAGE

BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection. Award will be made to a single Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria, represents the best value offer. Trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. Unreasonably high, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal analysis techniques). Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305. Should the Government conduct discussions, the procedures prescribed at FAR 15.306 (c) and (d) will be utilized. The Government reserves the right to forego discussions if the Contracting Officer determines it to be in the best interest of the Government to award without discussions. As a result, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In the event discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made.

EVALUATION CRITERIA.

The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors: Factor 1 (Technical; Approach), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Price).

Relative importance of factors: Factor 1 (Technical Approach) is equally important to Factor 2 (Past Performance) and when combined is slightly more important than Factor 3 (Price). In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are approximately equal to Factor 4 (Price).

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Evaluation Factor #1: Technical Approach

1) The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. If the contractor proposal exceeds the requirement they shall fully explain the cost benefit of utilizing the approach. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Assessment criteria includes: adequacy and feasibility of the approach and demonstrating complete understanding of the requirement.

2) Each offeror shall submit a technical approach narrative which demonstrates how the offeror intends to accomplish the requirements as stated in the SOW. The narrative shall also describe how the offeror will ensure adequate air supply is provided to each floor of the facility during the dismantling and replacement of each air handler to ensure no unreasonable loss of conditioned air to the office personnel during their scheduled work hours. The building must be fully operational at all times with no unscheduled interruptions. The offeror shall provide a list of the specific proposed equipment to be supplied, which shall include the specifications, and how the equipment meets the standards as listed in the SOW. The offeror shall also provide a critical path method schedule for accomplishing the project phases in accordance with the SOW.

Definitions:

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, which enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Project Approach Rating Scheme - The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following Table

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Evaluation Factor #2 - Past Performance.

1) The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance in PPIRS to be reviewed in the evaluation process include:

• Business Relations

• Quality of Service

• Schedule

• Customer Satisfaction

These projects shall be either performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance data from other sources than those identified by the Offeror in evaluating past performance. This includes, 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers,; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate the Offerors past performance. The Contracting Officer may also evaluate past performance based on direct knowledge of the Contractor’s performance on current or recent contracts. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors. All past performance received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. 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 assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Performance Confidence Assessment Overview. The Government will perform a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined as relevant in Section M. The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance based on following:

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be further evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size and complexity. The Government has defined relevance as experience in installing Air Handling Units with Air Purification Systems in an active office environment or Government facility. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size and complexity to the project being procured under this solicitation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Offerors 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 assigned, 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 acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ Neutral.

Past Performance Ratings

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Evaluation Factor #3– Price. Price will not be scored or rated. The techniques and procedures described under FAR Part 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of assessing price. The objective of price analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

1) Offerors shall provide an electronic copy of an Excel workbook with a spreadsheet depicting each labor category, the proposed number of labor hours, and the total price for the work to be accomplished for each labor category. In addition, the spreadsheet will list each major component and include the proposed Brand Name and Model Number and price for the component. The total price for all trades, plus the major component, G&A, overhead, and profit should reflect the offerors total evaluated price. All pricing shall be good for 120 days from proposal due date.

Definitions:

Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Unbalanced: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

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 part. Before the Offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.