36C26018Q0198-00001000.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) 00001 03-16-2018 692-18-3-661-0024 N/A 36C260 Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 20 960 Broadway Ave, Suite 460 Boise ID 83706 36C260 Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 20 960 Broadway Ave, Suite 460 Boise ID 83706 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C26018Q0198 03-07-2018

X X 03-19-2018 1:00 p.m. MT 692-3680162-661-855100-2580 010055590 X The purpose of this amendment is to post questions and answers to the solicitation.

Diana D. Curl Contracting Officer

Questions and Answers: Solicitation 36C26018Q0198: Legionella Testing, White City, OR Q1: Can a prime contractor that is CDC ELITE currently and close to acquiring other required accreditation satisfy the technical acceptance criteria stated on page 40 E.8 52.212-2 section (ii) by sub-contracting work to a laboratory that currently has NELAP or another equivalent accreditation provided that outsource does not exceed 51%?

A1: Page 40, Section E.8, 52.212-2 states: Offeror will provide proof of accreditation through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) or other accreditation body that validates the Laboratory’s competence/proficiency under the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 in addition to the CDC Elite certification.

The NELAC Institute (TNI) is the organization that establishes requirements for the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). The TNI standards for laboratories ensure that laboratories are meeting specific industry standards, quality assurance and are proficient/competent.

The VA performs sampling on site and ships to the laboratory. The lab conducts the analysis and provides a report. We are contracting for lab analysis. While a subcontracted NELAP accreditation will be accepted, the prime contractor still must perform at least 50% of the work. Therefore, to be technically acceptable, the prime contractor must explain how they are performing 50% of the work in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-14, if they are not collecting the samples or analyzing the samples, and how they will meet the required turn-around times listed in the Statement of Work.

Q2: Regarding page 40, E.8, 52.212-2 section (ii) appears to be the only criteria used for evaluation of technical acceptance. Is satisfying criteria stated in (ii) sufficient to establish technical acceptability?

A2: Page 40, Section E.8, 52.212-2 section (ii) states:

• Offeror shall describe in a Service Management Plan, how they will meet the requirements of the Statement of Work for Legionella Testing within a CDC/ELITE Laboratory. Offeror will place emphasis in the plan on how they will meet the required turn-around times listed in the Statement of Work.

• Offeror will provide specific timelines associated with each phase of work as outlined in SOW to show evidence they will perform at least 51% of the work. Describe how long it will take to perform each phase of the SOW, and who will be performing the work.

• Provide proof of accreditation through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) or other accreditation body that validates the Laboratory’s competence/proficiency under the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 in addition to the CDC Elite certification.

The evaluation team will evaluate each technical quote on its merits and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. The quotes received must meet all the above listed standards to receive an acceptable rating and be determined technically acceptable. A quote found to not meet all the above listed standards will be assigned an unacceptable rating and be determined not technically acceptable.

Q3: Regarding page 40, E.8, 52.212-2 section (iii) is past-performance used in any way to determine technical acceptance?

A3: Page 40, E.8, 52.212-2 section (iii) states:

• Provide at least one, and not more than three, most recent and relevant references within the last three years. Include a point of contact who can speak on behalf of the company, the company name, address, telephone number(s), email address, contract number, and dates of performance, place of performance and description of the contract scope.

Past performance information is an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1 Regarding responsibility, past performance allows the Government to assess whether the offerors are deemed responsible in accordance with the requirements of FAR 9.104-1 and FAR 9.104-3. A prospective contractor that is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance shall be presumed to be non-responsible, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control, or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action. Past failure to apply sufficient tenacity and perseverance to perform acceptably is persuasive evidence of non-responsibility. Failure to meet the quality requirements of the contract is a significant factor to consider in determining satisfactory performance. The contracting officer will consider the number of contracts involved and the extent of deficient performance in each contract when making this determination.

An offeror can be deemed technically unacceptable based on past performance.

Q4: Regarding page 40, E.8, 52.212.2 section (iii) if past-performance is used in any way to determine technical acceptance what objective criteria is used for determining that past performance is ‘Satisfactory’?

A4: Past performance information is an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. Past performance is used to determine the confidence level of the contractor’s ability to perform the work.

Regarding responsibility, a prospective contractor will not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely because of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2. Also, in accordance with FAR 9.104-6, the contracting officer shall review the FAPIIS before awarding a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

In accordance with FAR 9.105-1 (c), all of the information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) (FAR 9.104-6), including information that is linked to FAPIIS such as from the EPLS and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and any other relevant past performance information (see FAR 9.104-3(b) and (c) and FAR Subpart 42.15, will be used in determining responsibility. However, past performance will still be used to determine the confidence level of the contractor’s ability to perform the work.

In accordance with FAR 9.104-6(b), sound judgment will be used in determining the weight and relevance of the information contained in FAPIIS and how it relates to the present acquisition. Since FAPIIS may contain information on any of the offeror’s previous contracts and information covering a five-year period, some of that information may not be relevant to a determination of present responsibility, e.g., a prior administrative action such as debarment or suspension that has expired or otherwise been resolved, or information relating to contracts for completely different services.

If the Lowest Priced contractor is determined to be technically acceptable in all areas, but technically unacceptable based on past performance, the matter will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency.

Q5: What objective criteria is used to establish that past performance is neutral or un-satisfactory? What grading system is used here? Is Unknown-Neutral considered Satisfactory?

A5: A Neutral or Unknown rating is considered Satisfactory. Past performance will be evaluated on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis. If there is no relevant past performance, the contractor will be assigned a satisfactory rating.

If the lowest price evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a satisfactory risk rating, then that offer represents the best value to the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

Q6: If no past performance is submitted does this in anyway affect the technical acceptance (Pass/Fail) of the proposal? If it does what objective method is used to determine technical acceptance incorporating past-performance determination?

A6: See answers A4 and A5.

Q7: What weight is given to past-performance if it used to determine technical acceptance?

A7: See answers A4 and A5.

Q8: Is there an incumbent for this work?

If so, who is the incumbent company?

What is the value of the previous contract?

VA260-17-P-1266 was awarded with a base year only with a Period of Performance of May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. The total award amount for 800 samples for the year was $62,400.00.

NOTE: The government pays for shipping with the incumbent’s contract. The new contract requires the contractor to pay for shipping.