70FB8024R00000028 Amendment 003.pdf

(x)

70FB8024R00000028

x x

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 electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 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.

x

WASHINGTON DC 20472

70FB80

3RD FLOOR

500 C STREET SW

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

FEMA-COMMUNITY SURVIVOR ASSISTANCE

09/29/2024

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

08/03/2024

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

Jason Morgan

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

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

x 1

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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph M.5 Factor 5: Price, to include Contract Phase-In and Contract Phase-Out costs in the calculation of the total evaluated price. Section M has been restated below, and the revised section highlighted for clarity.

M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES APPLICABLE TO THIS SECTION

The following clauses applicable to this section are included in the solicitation and any resultant contract (as applicable) including those clauses incorporate by reference in accordance with FAR 252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE in Section I.

M.1 METHOD OF AWARD

The Government will make one or more awards to the responsible Offerors whose Proposals conform to the solicitation and are most advantageous to the Government (i.e., those which represent the best value to the Government), price and other factors considered. The award decision will be based on the assessment of Offerors’ relative capability as measured against the evaluation factors identified herein:

FACTOR 1: Scenario Response FACTOR 2: Personnel Recruitment and Onboarding FACTOR 3: Management Approach FACTOR 4: Past Performance FACTOR 5: Price The non-price factors, when combined, are of equal importance as price. The non-price factors, FACTOR 1, FACTOR 2, FACTOR 3, and FACTOR 4, are listed in descending order of importance.

The Government will make award to the offeror or offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government. This best value determination will be made on a best value trade-off basis, in which the Government will give appropriate consideration to both price and non-price factors, which are of equal importance.

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to two (2) Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to make fewer or more than two (2) awards, should it be determined that is in the Government’s best interest.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will be using an Advisory Down-Select during Phase I (Technical Factor 1: Scenario Response). Phase II will be an oral presentation and will include Technical Factor 2, Personnel Recruitment and Onboarding, and Technical Factor 3, Management Approach. Factor 4, Past Performance and Factor 5, Price will be submitted in writing as part of Phase II.

M.2.1 PHASE I – WRITTEN PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: ADVISORY DOWN-SELECT

M.2.1.1 FACTOR 1: SCENARIO RESPONSE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s written response to scenarios involving PRS Section SSPA #2.G, Option 1: Peak Activity and Option 3: Assessor Deployment.

Factor 1.a, Scenario 1: For Factor 1a, the scenario encompasses a category IV hurricane striking the south-western side of Baton Rouge, LA on September 15th, affecting a population of nearly 350,000 people, while displacing residents and disrupting electrical, water and sewage services. The availability of lodging within 25 miles of Baton Rouge is limited to non-existent, with lodging in this area occupied by first responders and displaced residents. Cellular telephone service remains operable, but many roads are impassible for the first 7 days after landfall. The initial task order will be awarded within 24 hours of the storm passing through the affected area. The Government will evaluate the offerors capability, resources and methodology to respond to a single task order in response to this event requiring the return of 225,000 onsite damage assessments in 60 days, when meeting the requirements contained in PRS section SSPA#2.G, Option 1: Peak Activity. The Government’s evaluation will include, but not necessarily be limited to, review of the following:

· Evidence of sufficient personnel and resources to perform the required number of damage assessments in the timeframe provided.

· Methodology for estimating the number of assessors required to perform the required number of damage assessments in the timeframe provided.

· Anticipated assessor productivity

· Staging methodology and assessor deployment projections to meet the required production metric(s).

Factor 1.b, Scenario 2: For Factor 1b, the scenario encompasses a flash flooding event in the Bucks County, PA region, affecting a population of 85,000 people on August 15th, displacing residents within the immediate and surrounding communities. FEMA requires immediate deployment of 300 assessors, with task order award within 24 hours of disaster declaration. The Government will evaluate the offerors capability, resources and methodology to respond to a single task order requiring the return of 75,000 onsite damage assessments in 60 days, when meeting the requirements contained in PRS section SSPA#2.G, Option 3: Assessor Deployment, whereby FEMA requires 300 assessors for initial deployment and transitions to a peak production capacity meeting the requirements of PRS section SSPA#2.G, Option 1, on day eight (8) of the task order. The Government’s evaluation will include, but not necessarily be limited to, review of the following:

· Evidence of sufficient personnel and resources to deploy the number of assessors required by FEMA for initial deployment.

· Methodology for estimating the number of assessors required to maintain peak production capacity upon transition to the peak production capacity model.

· Anticipated assessor productivity

· Staging methodology and assessor deployment projections required to meet the required production metrics upon transition to the peak production capacity model.

M.2.1.2 EVALUATION RATINGS FOR FACTOR 1:

Rating Definition

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some

The Government has some confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government

Low

The Government has low confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s scenario responses and assess its confidence that the offeror will successfully perform all requirements.

M.2.2 ADVISORY DOWN-SELECT: After the Government completes evaluation of Phase I submissions, Offerors will receive Advisory Down-Select notification via email from the Contracting Officer. The Government does not intend to conduct discussions under Phase I.

• Offerors who are rated most highly for Factor 1 will be advised to proceed to Phase II of the proposal submission process.

• Offerors who were not among the most highly rated will be advised that they are unlikely to be viable competitors, along with the general basis for the Government’s advisory recommendation.

The intent of this advice is to minimize proposal development costs for those Offerors with little to no chance of receiving an award. The Government does not intend to provide debriefings after the completion of the Advisory Down-Select Notifications.

M.3 PHASE II – ORAL PRESENTATIONS

M.3.1 FACTOR 2 – PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT AND ONBOARDING

The government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to recruit and onboard, in accordance with the requirements of the PWS, PRS and relevant technical exhibits (including badging, background investigations, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) management and distribution, and training), sufficient personnel to meet the PWS and PRS requirements to return 10,000 damage assessments per day within 15 days of award of a potential damage assessment task order. The government will evaluate the offeror’s projected count of assessors required to be recruited and onboarded annually to maintain sufficient resources to meet the 10,000 assessment per day production metric. The government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to identify and overcome any impediments to recruiting and onboarding sufficient personnel.

M.3.2 FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Technical Subfactor 3.a, Organizational Structure – The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed or existing organizational structure, to include how the functions, roles and responsibilities are defined within the organization and the use of any joint ventures, significant subcontractor relationships, or partnering arrangements.

Technical Subfactor 3.b, TOPR Response – The Government will evaluate the contractor’s identification of the necessary personnel and the proposed workflow necessary to respond to a task order proposal request (TOPR) within four (4) hours of receipt of the notice from FEMA.

M.3.3 EVALUATION RATINGS FOR FACTORS 2 AND 3:

Rating Definition

High

The Government has high confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government

Some

The Government has some confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government

Low

The Government has low confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government

The Government will assess its level of confidence that the Offerors will successfully perform all requirements in regard to the recruitment and onboarding of personnel, and their management approach.

M.4 PHASE II - WRITTEN PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

M.4.1 FACTOR 4 – Past Performance The Government will use relevancy, recency, and performance quality to evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s three past performance references/questionnaires (Attachment 6 Past Performance Form will be provided as part of Phase II of the acquisition) and whether Offerors consistently delivered quality products and/or services in a timely manner with a reasonable degree of customer satisfaction.

Recency is a time period during which past performance reference are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency is past performance information that is within five (5) years of the due date provided for the written past performance submittal.

Relevance is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired though the source selection. The factors to establish relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: a.

Similarity in scope to the requirements of the RFP, b. Complexity, c. Dollar value, d. And whether the work was performed as the prime contractor, subcontractor, or as part of a joint venture or teaming arrangement.

Work performed as a prime contractor, key subcontractor, or primary partner in a joint venture will be considered more relevant than work performed in other roles or contracting arrangements.

Past Performance that is found to be both recent and relevant will be evaluated as follows:

Quality of Services is the third aspect of the past performance evaluation to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. All past performance information is collected and reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, to determine the past performance confidence assessment. The Government may also use past performance information obtained from sources other than the provided references, including, but not limited to, the government's Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

M.4.2 EVALUATION RATINGS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

Rating Definition

High Confidence

The offeror has verified and relevant past performance that provides high confidence the offer will successfully perform the requirement of the SOW with low performance risk.

Some Confidence

The offeror offer has some verified and somewhat relevant past performance that provides some confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the requirement of the SOW with moderate performance risk.

Low Confidence

The offeror has a record of poor past performance that provides low confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the requirement of the SOW. Level of performance risk is high.

Neutral No relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment ratings can be reasonably assigned.

The final technical rating will be based on the evaluation of the individual non-price factors. The final rating will be determined by weighing all of the technical factors. The final technical rating will be given using the same rating scale as Factors 1 through 3.

M.5 FACTOR 5: PRICE

Price will be evaluated separately from the technical proposal. Price proposals will not be point scored, assigned a numerical weight, nor adjectivally rated. The Government will evaluate prices to determine whether the offered prices are fair and reasonable and reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements. The total evaluated Price will be based upon the quantities and assumptions listed in the solicitation. Offerors should note that the Pricing Schedule will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Price will also be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award.

The reasonableness of the prices proposed may be determined on the basis of adequate price competition by comparing the proposed prices among offers. The prices may also be compared against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (ICGE). The government reserves the right to use additional methods, as necessary and as outlined in FAR 15.404, to determine prices are fair and reasonable. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be the total of the following:

• Contract Phase-In Costs. (CLIN 0001)

• Fixed price recurring operational costs (CLIN X005) for the base year and all options (including options under FAR 52.217-8).

• Time and materials recurring operational costs (CLIN X006) for the base year and all option years (including options under FAR 52.217-8).

• The proposed damage assessment unit price (CLIN X002) for the base year and all option years (including options under FAR 52.217-8), multiplied by FEMA's estimate of the average number of required annual damage assessments.

• Contract Phase-Out Costs. (CLIN 0002)

The Government may choose to exercise the Option to Extend Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods). Prices for the base and option periods, including the 6-month option available under FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated to ensure that they are fair and reasonable for performance of the requirements established in the solicitation and as proposed in the technical submission. The price for the effort associated with FAR 52.217-8 will not be included in the total awarded value at contract award.

If, at the end of the contract’s/order’s period of performance (the end of the base period or any option period) and within the time period established in the clause, the Government chooses to exercise this option, the pricing will be pursuant to the rates specified in the contract for the preceding performance period. To account for option periods possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum of six months) the Government will evaluate the option to extend services by doing the following:

· Adding six months of the offeror's fixed price recurring operational costs for the final option period to the total of fixed price recurring operational costs for the base year and four (4) option years.

· Adding one half of the time and materials recurring operational costs for the final option period to the total of the time and materials recurring operational costs for the base year and four (4) option years.

· Multiplying the damage assessment unit price for the final option year by one half of FEMA's estimate of the average number of required annual damage assessments, then adding that dollar amount to the product of the proposed damage assessment unit price and FEMA's estimate of the average number of required annual damage assessments for the base and four (4) option periods.