86615622Q00007 Amendment.pdf

(x)

86615622Q00007 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 20410-1000

ROOM 5256

HUD-NPH

451 SEVENTH STREET SW

OFFICER

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT

US DEPARTMENT OF HUD

09/20/20220001

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

09/01/2022

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.)

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING HANDBOOK IMPLEMENTATION

AND SUPPORT SERVICES ************************

The purpose of this Amendment is to (1) provide the Government's responses to industry questions and (2) to revise Solicitation Sections 5.5.(e), and 5.6.(a). The Amendment hereby provides the following:

- (1) Responses to questions are on page 2 herein; and

- (2) Solicitation Sections V, 5.5.(e). Volume I & II and V, 5.6.(a). Factor I & II, Minimal Technical Acceptability & Past Performance are hereby replaced in their entirety.

Period of Performance: 12/06/2022 to 12/05/2027

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)

CHE U. LOGAN

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 .

Solicitation No.: 86615622Q00007 Amendment No.: 0001 Single Family Housing Handbook Implementation and Support Services

CONTINUATION FROM SF 30

Government's Responses to Contractor’s Questions No. Reference Questions Answers

Solicitation, Volume II – Past Performance

Will the government either extend the past performance to within the last 5 years or revise the evaluation factor wording for recency to state: “within the last three (3) years dating from this solicitation’s initial issue date”?

No, the language will remain unchanged.

Attachment 0004, Past Performance

Information

What is required for the Magnitude column in attachment 0004? For recent past performance references provided in Attachment 0004 – Past Performance Information, HUD will assess the degree of similarity in scope, value and magnitude the past performance efforts submitted have to the solicitation requirements to determine relevancy.

Handbook of 1515 pages, 8.47MB, and 458,569 words with approximately 1,500

– 2,000 pages within two weeks (45,500 edited words per year)

Please see amendment 0001, revised Solicitation Section V, 5.6.(a) Factor II - Past Performance, portion highlighted in green, for the definition of magnitude.

Solicitation

Sections V, 5.5(e) and V, 5.6(a)

The RFQ instructions state: "2. Proposed Methodology for Assessing the SFH Websites: The offeror shall submit its proposed methodology for assessing the SFH websites for accuracy, visibility, and usability.

The methodology should be specific in identifying how the contractor will improve accuracy, visibility, and usability. Examples of how the contractor will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov are desired but not required."

Will the government consider rewording to the following: 2. Proposed Methodology for Assessing PWS Section 5 Specific Tasks: The offeror shall submit its proposed methodology for assessing the tasks within section 5 of the PWS. Regarding assessing SFH websites, the offeror shall submit its proposed methodology for assessing the SFH websites for accuracy, visibility, and usability. The methodology should be specific in identifying how the contractor will improve accuracy, visibility, and usability. Examples of how the contractor will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov are desired but not required."

Please see amendment 0001, revised Solicitation Sections V, 5.5(e) and 5.6(a), for changes.

Solicitation

Sections V, 5.5(e) and V, 5.6(a)

The RFQ evaluation factors and criteria section states: 2. Proposed Methodology for Assessing the SFH Websites:

HUD will evaluate each offeror’s proposed methodology for assessing the SFH websites for accuracy, visibility, and usability. HUD will note flaws in the proposal where if finds that the proposed approach is unlikely to identify and improve accuracy, visibility, and/or usability.

HUD may note flaws where it cannot understand the offeror’s methodology. HUD may draw affirmative conclusions from proposals that specifically address how the contractor will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov. HUD will rate each offeror’s proposed methodology as “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” based upon the likelihood that the proposed methodology will identify and improve accuracy, visibility, and usability overall.

Please see amendment 0001, revised Solicitation Sections V, 5.5(e) and 5.6(a), for changes.

5 Attachment 0001, PWS

In section 4.5 Contractor Personnel of the performance work statement the government states: "These points of points of contact shall each be an employee of the Contractor. An employee of a subcontractor is not acceptable for either of these positions."

Will the government consider rewording to the following: These points of contact shall each be an employee of the Contractor. An employee of a Subcontractor is acceptable for either of these positions however they shall meet all requirements concerning full authority, technical knowledge, and ability to receive assignment, guidance, and direction from the COR as previously stipulated.

No, the language will remain unchanged. For the purposes of Key Personnel, when a joint venture (JV) is the offeror, the employees of any JV partner are considered employees of the JV and may fill Key Personnel positions.

Subcontractors of a JV may not fill key personnel positions.

SECTION E - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

5.5. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offeror-- Commercial Products and Commercial Services

(e) Volume Content

VOLUME I— MINIMAL TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY (Shall not exceed 20 pages)

The Offeror shall submit the following:

A technical approach that demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement Tasks 5.1 through 5.5 and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation.

o As part of the technical approach, the offeror shall submit a sample training module on technical topics similar to those found in the SFH Handbook developed by the offeror. The sample should demonstrate the quality of work HUD can expect in execution of this contract. This section is excluded from the page limit for this requirement; however, the module should represent a presentation of approximately one hour and include associated materials.

o As part of the technical approach, the offeror shall submit its proposed methodology for assessing the SFH websites for accuracy, visibility, and usability. The methodology should be specific in identifying how the contractor will improve accuracy, visibility, and usability. Examples of how the contractor will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov are desired but not required. This section shall not exceed 10 pages.

If the offeror is proposing subcontractors, the offeror shall clearly identify what areas of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) that it intends to subcontract as well as its methodology for ensuring work will progress without delay in the event of subcontractor performance issues or unavailability. If the contractor intends to perform the entire effort itself, it should state so. This section shall not exceed 3 pages.

VOLUME II—PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror shall submit the following information/documents:

A completed chart providing the information required by the Past Performance Information chart in “Attachment 0004 – “Past Performance Information”. The chart shall reflect all relevant past performance performed in the three-year period immediately preceding submission of the proposal and all work currently being performed. If the offeror has more than 5 relevant past performance references, then the offeror shall provide the most recent 5 references. As an attachment to the chart, the offeror shall provide a narrative describing the past performance references that reflect the most relevance to the services being obtained under the contract to be awarded. The narrative shall clearly establish the relevancy of the past performance to the current requirements. (Narratives shall not exceed 1 page per reference.)

If the offeror is proposing to subcontract (or use joint ventures/ partners, or other entities other than the prime contractor to perform) more than 20% of the contract value, the offeror shall submit a separate chart and narrative described for past performance above, for the proposed subcontractor(s).

The contractor shall provide the survey contained in Attachment 0005 – “Past Performance Survey” to each past performance reference in sufficient time for the reference to complete and submit the survey directly to the HUD Contracting Officer prior to the date and time for submission of proposals. Offerors are not required to submit surveys for references where past performance is available in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

If past performance for the offering firm does not exist, the Offeror may substitute past performance of key personnel that will be performing major aspects of the work under any resulting contract. If the Offeror chooses to make such a substitution, the offeror must clearly identify the substituted key personnel by name and title proposed. Only the past performance of Key Personnel overseeing the entirety of the proposed project will be considered in substitution for the firm’s past performance under this factor. The contractor shall provide the survey contained in Attachment 0005 – “Past Performance Survey” to each past performance reference with first-hand knowledge of the performance of the substituted Key Personnel in sufficient time for the reference to complete and submit the survey directly to the HUD Contracting Officer prior to the date and time for submission of proposals.

The reference should email the surveys directly to the HUD Contracting Officer at: che.u.logan@hud.gov and the Contract Specialist at: brandon.a.carson@hud.gov. The email subject line for Attachment 0005 – Past Performance Survey shall be: “Name of Offeror Company – Single Family Housing Handbook Implementation and Support Services – 86615622Q00007.”

VOLUME III—PRICE

This is a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) effort, inclusive of all work contemplated under the PWS. Offerors shall propose a FFP for each option year and total contract using their most competitive pricing. Offerors shall submit prices in the format requested in Attachment 0003 – Price Schedule of this solicitation.

5.6. Other Description of Evaluation Factors for Award

(a) Evaluation Factors and Criteria (How the Government will Evaluate Proposals)

The evaluation of this solicitation will not utilize FAR Part 15. Evaluation criteria have been established in this solicitation pursuant to FAR 13.5 in conjunction with FAR 19.8 with the aim of achieving best value.

Award will be made only to a proposal that conforms to the solicitation. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Past Performance, Price, and Minimal Technical Acceptability. The Government will use a Best Value Past Performance/Price Tradeoff (PPT) approach.

FACTOR I - MINIMAL TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The Government will evaluate proposals for minimal technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis using the process identified under the section entitled Best Value PPT Award. All minimal technical criteria must be rated “Acceptable” to be considered overall Acceptable under the Minimal Technical Acceptability factor; failure of a proposal to meet any of the technical criteria will result in an overall Unacceptable rating.

Only those proposals determined to be acceptable under this factor, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The government will evaluate the following regarding the proposed Technical Approach:

The government will evaluate the following regarding the proposed Technical Approach:

Whether the proposal demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in Performance Work Statement/ 5.1 through 5.5 and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation;

HUD will evaluate each offeror’s sample training module and associated material developed by the offeror for lack of typographical errors, clarity in terms of wording and formatting, conciseness, effectiveness as a teaching tool, and general esthetics. HUD will document flaws that fail to meet its expectations in any of the above areas. HUD may determine that well executed sample trainings that are more similar to the subjects addressed in the SFH handbook indicate less performance risk than well executed sample trainings on other matters. HUD will rate each sample training module and associated materials as “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” based upon the likelihood that the sample training module and associated materials will meet or fail to meet HUD’s expectations as outlined above.

HUD will evaluate each offeror’s proposed methodology for assessing the SFH websites for accuracy, visibility, and usability. HUD will note flaws in the proposal where if finds that the proposed approach is unlikely to identify and improve accuracy, visibility, and/or usability. HUD may note flaws where it cannot understand the offeror’s methodology.

HUD may draw affirmative conclusions from proposals that specifically address how the contractor will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov. HUD will rate each offeror’s proposed methodology as “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” based upon the likelihood that the proposed methodology will identify and improve accuracy, visibility, and usability overall.

If the proposal includes subcontractors, whether the proposed approach delineates the technical responsibilities between the prime and the subcontractor(s).

HUD will evaluate the areas of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) that the offeror intends to subcontract as well as the offeror’s methodology for ensuring work will progress without delay in the event of subcontractor performance issues or unavailability for performance risk. Over-reliance on subcontracting or a flawed methodology to ensure that work will progress without delay may constitute increased risk. Offerors who do not intend to subcontract any portion of the effort will not be assigned any risk under this factor and will be considered equal to a contractor that does not over-rely on subcontracting and has an adequate plan to ensure work will progress without delay in the event of subcontractor performance issues or unavailability.

The following table provides the minimum requirements for an offer to be determined acceptable under this factor:

Evaluation Criteria under Technical Approach Minimum Requirement to be Determined Acceptable

Whether the proposal demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in Performance Work Statement Tasks

5.1 through 5.5 and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation;

Proposed approach illustrates a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) that includes all the tasks necessary to successfully complete the project.

The proposed approach is compatible with processes described in the PWS and offers a direct and compelling method for successfully completing the tasks described in the PWS.

Sample training module and associated material developed by the offeror must be free from typographical errors, be clear in terms of wording and formatting, be concise and effective as a teaching tool, provide specific details and must be easy to understand, be more similar to the subjects addressed in the SFH handbook, and must indicate low performance risk.

Wording, formatting, and general aesthetics in the sample training module and associated material must connect the training module and associated material to the readers and better communicate HUD’s messages

Offeror’s proposed methodology for assessing the SFH website must specifically addresses how the offeror will apply its methodology to the SFH presence on www.hud.gov, include criteria for identifying and improving accuracy, visibility, and/or usability, must adequately discuss the criteria for assessing quality of information (i.e., accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, coverage), and must be easily understood.

If the proposal includes subcontractors, whether the proposed approach delineates the technical responsibilities between the prime and the subcontractor(s).

The proposal (and supporting documentation) must include – Thorough information demonstrating the formation, structure, and functions of the teaming arrangement affiliation process.

Address the process for vetting prime and subcontractor(s) personnel.

Evidence of all fully executed binding commitments for all teaming agreements, signed by both the prime and subcontractor(s).

If subcontracting, includes teaming arrangement and the work/work areas in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) that the offeror intends to subcontract must present low performance risk

Offeror’s methodology for ensuring work will progress without delay in the event of subcontractor performance issues or unavailability must present low performance risk

Offeror’s methodology for ensuring that work will progress without delay must not over-rely on subcontracting

Offeror must have an adequate plan for ensuring that work will progress without delay in the event of subcontractor performance issues or unavailability.

Each technical criteria identified under the Minimal Technical Acceptability factor will receive one of the ratings listed below:

Rating Definition Acceptable The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

HUD will consider each of the above technical approach requirements in assigning an overall technical rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Acceptable technical proposals are those that generally meet HUD’s expectations under the three technical approach requirements. “Unacceptable” technical proposals are those that generally fail to meet HUD’s expectations under the three technical approach requirements.

Technical proposals that take express material exception to any of HUD’s requirements are deficient and ineligible for award.

Technical proposals that indicate an unacceptable level of performance risk in general or in one or more technical approach requirements are deficient and ineligible for award.

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

In evaluating Past Performance, HUD will address four components – recency, relevancy, quality, and sufficiency. This factor’s primary emphasis is to assess the past performance of the proposed prime contractor (or in the case of joint ventures or some other teaming arrangement, the primary member of the team) or that of substituted key personnel.

However, if the offeror is proposing to subcontract (or use joint ventures/partners, or other entities other than the prime contractor to perform) more than 20% of the contract value, the past performance history that entity must also be evaluated. Failure to submit past performance for proposed subcontractors in these instances will result in the offer being rated as unsatisfactory/very high risk/very low confidence.

All references will be first assessed for recency and HUD will consider only references performed within the three years immediately prior to submission of the proposal;

Of those determined to be recent, HUD will assess the degree of similarity in scope, value and magnitude the past performance efforts submitted have to the solicitation requirements to determine relevancy. For this solicitation, magnitude is defined as Handbook of 1515 pages, 8.47MB, and 458,569 words with approximately 1,500 – 2,000 pages within two weeks (45,500 edited words per year);

HUD will then assess relevant past performance efforts for quality;

HUD will then determine an overall level of sufficiency of the past performance information and assess the risk of nonperformance based on the degree of relevancy and level of quality of all recent past performance references.

The final rating will range from Excellent (Very Low Risk/Very High Confidence) to Unsatisfactory (Very High Risk/Very Low Confidence). Offerors that have addressed the factor and have no relevant past performance history by the prime, any subcontractors/team members, or substituted key personnel will be rated as Neutral (Unknown Confidence). Offerors that fail to address the factor will be determined to have not complied with the solicitation requirements and will receive the lowest possible rating.

HUD is not restricted to evaluating the information provided by the offeror or the surveys provided by references and may utilize information obtained from any source. HUD will obtain additional information from CPARS, if available.

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for past performance factors:

Rating Definition Excellent/Very Low Risk/Very High Confidence

Offeror provided sufficient quantity of recent, very relevant, high quality references for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors.

Good/Low Risk/High Confidence The combination of recent references provided for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors were of sufficient relevancy and quality to assure performance of the contract requirements.

Satisfactory/Medium Risk/Some Confidence

The combination of recent references provided for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors provides some assurances of future performance, but some risk exists (e.g., overreliance on substantial subcontractors).

Neutral/Unknown Risk/Neutral Confidence

Offeror had no prime or substantial subcontractor references that met the recency test or stated they had no recent, relevant past performance.

Poor/Very High Risk/Low Confidence Offeror had poor references for the prime or substantial subcontractor or provided insufficient references to obtain a higher rating.

Unsatisfactory/Very High Risk/Very Low Confidence

Offeror failed to address the factor or references were recent and relevant but indicated unsatisfactory performance.

FACTOR III - PRICE

1. The Government will estimate the Fair Market Price (FMP) of the work to be performed in accordance with FAR subpart 19.807 and IAW FAR subpart 19.806. An award will not be made if the price of the contract results in a cost to the contracting agency which exceeds the FMP.

2. Price will be evaluated separately from Technical and other non-cost/price factors. The offeror’s firm fixed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. HUD anticipates that price reasonableness will be determined by adequate competition. However, HUD may utilize any other reasonable method to determine price reasonableness in the absence of adequate competition.

3. Unless it is determined not to be in the Government's best interest in accordance with FAR 17.206(b);

offers will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. For purposes of evaluating the price of exercising the potential 6-month extension of services using the clause at FAR 52.217-8, 50% of the final option year (six months) value will be added to the total proposed amount for evaluating pricing only, this amount will not be included in the total aggregate value of the resulting contract. This addition is for evaluation purposes only.