75N94025R00001_-_Amendment_2_-_ARCR_Services_0002.pdf

(x)

75N94025R00001 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

NICHD

Bethesda, MD 20892-7511 National Institute of Child Health National Institutes of Health

11/19/20240002

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

11/19/2024

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.

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

Solicitation Title: "Managing, Editing, and Publication of Alcohol Research: Current

Reviews" (ARCR) Services.

The purpose of this Amendment 02 is to provide clarification to Amendment 01's question #8 and question #10, and make the following revisions listed below:

PLEASE NOTE: The date and time for receipt of proposals remain unchanged.

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)

LISA L. SCHAUPP

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 .

1) Clarification: The technical proposal shall not exceed 30 pages. Past Performance may be included as an addendum and not counted towards the 30 page limit. The following documents will not be part of the page count: Cover, Cover Letter, Table of Contents, Commitment Letters, Resumes/CVs, VPAT, and Past Performance.

2) Section M, paragraph C, Technical Evaluation Criteria Table, Factor 3, Past Performance is removed from Factor 3 and will be evaluated separately. Table is as follows:

The criteria below are listed in the relative order of importance.

Technical Evaluation Criteria Table

Level of importance

Technical Factors

1* Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach 1* Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications 2 Factor 3: Organizational Experience

* The Government considers Technical and Management Approach and Personnel Qualifications as equal in importance.

3) At the bottom of page 84, Factor 3, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Factor 3: Organizational Experience Organizational history of successful completion of management, editing, and online publication support for projects of a similar nature, including the quality of technical performance and adherence to schedule and budget.

4) On page 85, Past Performance is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:

PAST PERFORMANCE

Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation.

However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable.

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance.

The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be a product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror's performance on a list of contracts but rather the product of subjective judgment by the Government after it considers relevant information.

When assessing performance risks, the Government will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror's record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror's record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings.

Past Performance Adjectival Evaluation Rating Definitions Table

Rating Symbol Definition Neutral N No past performance available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding O Based on the Offeror's record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror's experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good G The Offeror's record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror's experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable A The Offeror's record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror's experience indicate the

5) The "Technical Evaluation Rating Definitions" Table in Section M is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following table:

The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival rating and risk scale.

Technical Evaluation Rating Definitions Table

Adjectival Description/Definition

Outstanding (O) Significantly exceeds most or all solicitation requirements for this factor or subfactor or overall. Response exceeds a "Good" rating. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

Good (G)

Fully meets all solicitation minimum requirements and exceeds many of the solicitation requirements for this factor or subfactor or overall; OR exceeds a small number of the minimum requirements but to a significant degree or in a valuable way for this factor or subfactor or overall. Response exceeds an "Acceptable" rating.

The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

Acceptable (A) Fully meets all solicitation minimum requirements for this factor or subfactor or overall.

Areas where the proposal exceeds the minimum solicitation requirements, if any, are of little or no value to the Government. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

Marginal (M)

Less than "Acceptable." Does not meet all solicitation minimum requirements for this factor or subfactor or overall. The proposal indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules and/or other aspects essential to contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

Unacceptable (U)

Technical proposal has many or significant deficiencies and/or substantial omissions for a factor or subfactor or overall AND/OR the proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of the program goals, methods, resources, schedules and/or other aspects essential to contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Risk Level Description/Definition

Very Low Risk The proposal contains no deficiencies or weaknesses. Based on information provided, there is no doubt that the offeror demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services required to meet or exceed most contract requirements. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated.

Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror's record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.

Low Risk The proposal contains no deficiencies and only a few minor weaknesses that do not require discussions. Based on the information provided, there is little doubt that the offeror demonstrates a high quality of understanding of the services required to meet or exceed some contract requirements.

Moderate Risk The proposal contains no deficiencies and some weaknesses. Based on the information provided, the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the services required to meet contract requirements.

High Risk The proposal contains deficiencies and significant weaknesses. Based on information provided, there is doubt that the contractor understands the services required to meet the contract requirements. Requirement/services can be met only with major changes to the proposal.

Unacceptable Risk

Technical proposal has many deficiencies and/or gross omissions; failure to understand much of the scope of work necessary to perform the required tasks; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the government's requirements; failure to meet many personnel requirements in the solicitation. (When applying this adjective to a proposal as a whole, the technical proposal would have to be so unacceptable in one or more areas that it would have to be completely revised in order to attempt to make it other than unacceptable.)

END OF AMENDMENT 2