36C25519R0075-006.docx

FedBizOpps Amendment to a Previous Combined Solicitation

CLASSIFICATION CODE

SUBJECT

CONTRACTING OFFICE'S

ZIP-CODE

SOLICITATION NUMBER

BASE NOTICE TYPE

RESPONSE DATE (MM-DD-YYYY)

ARCHIVE

DAYS AFTER THE RESPONSE DATE

RECOVERY ACT FUNDS

SET-ASIDE

NAICS CODE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

ADDRESS

POINT OF CONTACT

(POC Information Automatically Filled from User Profile Unless Entered)

DESCRIPTION

See Attachment

AGENCY'S URL

URL DESCRIPTION

AGENCY CONTACT'S EMAIL

ADDRESS

EMAIL DESCRIPTION

ADDRESS

POSTAL CODE

COUNTRY

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

* = Required Field FedBizOpps Amendment to a Previous Combined Solicitation Rev. March 2010 Z Poplar Bluff JOC 66048 36C25519R0075 07-25-2019 N 236220 Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office (NCO) 15 3450 S 4th Street Trafficway Leavenworth KS 66048

AMENDMENT TO SOLICITATION FOR THE JOC IDIQ CONTRACT 36C25519R0075

Page 14 to read as follows.

a. VOLUME I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (NON-PRICE FACTORS) The Technical Proposal will be submitted as a separately bound volume and will be evaluated separately from the Price Proposal. The technical (non-priced) evaluation factors, listed below in descending order of importance, will be used to determine the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The sub-factors within each evaluation factor are equal in importance.

Acceptable

Proposal meets some but not all the RFP requirements, but offers other advantages (strengths). Outweigh their disadvantages (weaknesses). Examples may include little or no experience cited; mimics RFP language rather than expressing offeror’s approach or understanding of the RFP. Probability of success considered less than full confidence (moderate risk).

Marginal

Proposal meets some but not all the RFP requirements. Examples: Proposal does not address all required RFP criteria; weak proposal, little or no experience to the extent that Overall quality cannot be determined because of errors, omissions or deficiencies that may be capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of proposal. Probability of success is questionable without further explanation by offeror. (Unacceptable risk) Unawardable without discussion and proposal revision.

Unacceptable

Proposal demonstrates little to no understanding of the requirements; or approach fails to adequately meet acceptable performance expectations. Proposal contains major errors; omissions or deficiencies and these conditions cannot be corrected without a major rewrite or resubmission. There is an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements. Unawardable as proposed

The Government will rate an offeror's Technical proposal, at the factor level, by use of descriptive adjectives that combines technical merit and proposal risk that most accurately defines the offeror's performance risk considering all sub-factors identified in this section.

Page 23 to Read as follows for this amendment.

Offerors should follow-up and encourage references to get the past performance questionnaires to the Contracting Officer in a timely manner. Do not include copies of the letters or questionnaires in the proposal.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Very Low Risk Performance met contract requirements and exceeded many to the Government's benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely and highly effective manner. Performance was generally current and very relevant to relevant. Excellent probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting Government's requirements.

Low Risk Performance met contract requirements. Good quality. Minor problems may have been identified however; contractor took satisfactory corrective action to resolve where appropriate. Performance was current and generally very relevant to relevant. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements.

Average Risk Performance met most contract requirements. Adequate quality. Problems may have been identified however; contractor usually took adequate corrective action. Performance was current and generally very relevant to semi-relevant. OR Although performance exceeds expectations and was rated excellent to very good the projects submitted were generally semi-relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Fair probability of success with an average degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements.

Above Average Risk Performance met some contract requirements. Fair quality. Problems may have been identified however; contractor sometimes took corrective action, but not always to the owner’s satisfaction. Performance was current and generally very relevant to semi-relevant. Fair probability of success with an overall above average risk in meeting the government’s requirements.

Special Note: Offerors that May Lack Past Performance Information: In accordance with FAR Part 15.305(a)(2), An offeror with no Past Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors. 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 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.