Amendment01.docx

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

2 AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05/19/2016

6. ISSUE BY CODE

7.ADMINISTERED BY (if other than item 6) CODE

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1550 Dewey Ave, Suite A Baker City, OR 97814

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

9A.Amend Solicitation. AG-04M3-S-16-0053

9B.Dated 05/13/2016

10A.Mod Contract/Order #

10B.Dated (see Item 13)

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

[x] The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in the item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended [x ] is not extended. Offerors 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 items 8 and 15 and returning 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 telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegam or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. This change order is issued pursuant to; (specifiy authority) The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract/Order # in item 10A.

B. The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) set forth in item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103(b)..

C. This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

D Other: (Specify type of modification and authority):

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] is not [ ] is required to sign this document and return _ Original to the issuing office.:

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

Sled Springs Power System, Wallowa Whitman National Forest

1. This amendment addresses the following in Section L and M of the solicitation in order to clarify the technical proposal instructions and evaluation criteria (factors). See attached addendum for changes, 5 pages.

By signature in Block 15B Contractor releases the Government from all claims relating to this modification. This settlement is complete accord and satisfaction. 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 (Type or print)

16A.NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Andrea Stanbro, Contracting Officer

15B.CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

By ______________________________ (Signature of person authorized to sign)

By_/s/ Andrea Stanbro______________ (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C.DATE SIGNED

05/19/2016

Standard Form 30 Prescribed by GSA FAR (48CFR) 53.243

ADDENDUM TO AMENDMENT 01

I. REPLACE ALL OF SECTION L-7 WITH THE FOLLOWING:

L-7. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

General

Proposals shall be submitted in two parts: a technical proposal and a price proposal. Each part shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of the other. The price proposal shall be submitted with the solicitation forms.

Offerors are cautioned that sufficient and detailed information must be presented in their proposals to enable the Government to evaluate their proposals fully in accordance with the evaluation and award criteria contained herein. The Government is not obligated to ask for additional information and in the absence of appropriate information, the proposal will be rated deficient.

Technical Approach

Also, the offeror shall submit information that illustrates a technical understanding of the work to be performed.

a) All offerors should show a high level of unsderstanding of the work to be performed. This can be accomplished by submitting with the proposal the following information:

(1) Description of work to be performed

(2) Preliminary design and construction schedule

(3) List of equipment to be used

(4) Description of how the work will be performed

b) Construction Schedule

(1) Offerors shall submit a proposed work schedule detailing how they will accomplish the work items. The schedule will cover the work items to be worked from week to week.

Relevant Past Performance

Offerors shall submit past performance information for their firm and any proposed major subcontractors. Performance information may be obtained from references provided.

a) List all similar contracts and subcontracts completed during the past five years and all similar contracts and subcontracts in progress. The list should include, but is not limited to, contracts and subcontracts similar in nature and complexity to that required by this solicitation. In this case, similar projects may include those that were performed in remote settings at off-the-grid locations, handling and installing sensitive electronic equipment, installing photo-voltaic panels and supports, and designing off-the-grid power systems. Include contracts with the Federal Government, agencies of state and local governments, and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities, without prior contracts as an entity, should list contracts and subcontracts completed by all key personnel. Firms with no experience in the type of work described should show similar type projects which demonstrate their ability to perform in a timely manner, experience, and past performance of their employees, or their work as a subcontractor.

b) Include the following information for each contract/subcontract:

(1) Name of contracting activity

(2) Contract number

(3) Contract type

(4) Total contract value

(5) Completion date, or anticipated completion date if in progress

(6) Contract work

(7) Contracting Officer

(8) Project manager or Contracting Officer's Representative

(9) List of major subcontractors

NOTE: Provide name, address, telephone, and FAX number for items (7), (8), and (9).

At the option of the offeror, this listing of performance references may be provided prior to the date set for receipt of offers. However, listings must be provided no later than the required offer date.

The offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts listed and the corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. The Government may obtain information from existing contract files. Because discussions may not be held, the offeror may refute any problems in the original offer.

The offeror may include letters of appreciation for contracts and subcontracts previously completed and any value engineering finance awards.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has authorized Federal agencies to collect past performance information under OMB clearance number 9000-0142.

BioPreferred Products

Offerors shall submit a list of the biobased products to be purchased and used under this contract. For each biobased product, the offeror shall specify the percentage of biobased content, and for the USDA-designated biobased content products, the offeror shall demonstrate that the products to be used under this contract contain the percentage specified in the USDA recommendations or the highest level of biobased material practicable, consistent with USDA’s recommended percentages of biobased content.

The offeror shall document prior experience in specifying, purchasing, using, and installing biobased products by providing a list of all relevant contracts over the past two years involving the specification, purchase, and/or use of biobased products including a list of the biobased products specified, purchased, used, and installed.

Price Proposal A completed schedule of items with pricing information completes this requirement.

RATINGS

Each sub-factor will be given a rating of either Excellent, Good, Neutral, Poor . Plusses and minuses will be added as required to differentiate between offerors that rate similarly. Excellent will be the highest rating given and Poor will be the lowest. When the sub-factor ratings are completed each factor will be given an overall rating. Then the Technical Evaluation Criteria will be given a composite rating that is the weighted average of the factors. Remember, the factors are listed in decsending order of importance.

The following outlines how each rating will be applied.

Technical Approach

Excellent:

The Technical Approach portion of the Technical Proposal will receive an excellent rating if it is well written and explains according to the above instructions how the contractor will perform the work encompassed by this project. It will address each work component and will include a preliminary timeline of events based on the estimated start work date. An excellent technical approach write-up will include extra detail in the areas where work is expected to be more complex or has special challenges. A detailed, active, and accelerated schedule will receive an excellent rating if the contractor can show how they will accomplish the work items in the allotted time. An excellent schedule will show weekly accomplishments and how the contractor plans to meet those accomplishments.

Good:

The Technical Approach portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a good rating if it is well written and explains according to the above instructions how the contractor will perform the work encompassed by this project. A good rating will be applied if there is enough detail to determine that the contractor knows how to complete the work, but not enough detail to understand the specific sequence of activities and how those events relate to dates given in this contract. A schedule showing how the contractor will meet the deadlines but lacks week-by-week detail or doesn’t explain how the contractor plans to accomplish the work.

Neutral:

The Technical Approach portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a neutral rating if it explains according to the above instructions how the contractor will perform the work encompassed by this project. A neutral rating will be applied if there is little detail to determine that the contractor knows how to complete the work or if little information is provided about schedule and sequence of construction activities. A schedule of major work accomplishments but lacks how the contractor will meet the required timelines or only reports basic dates.

Poor:

The Technical Approach portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a poor rating if it does not explain according to the above instructions how the contractor will perform the work encompassed by this project. A poor rating will be applied if there is no information provided to determine that the contractor knows how to complete the work or if the information provided is irrelevant to the project. A poor rating will be applied if the technical approach contradicts project specifications or does not adhere to the required timeline. A schedule that is neither detailed enough to determine if a contractors timeline is realistic, or doesn’t meet the required deadlines will receive a poor rating.

Past Performance

Excellent:

The Past Performance portion of the Technical Proposal will receive an excellent rating if the contractor has performed at least 2 similar and relevant projects, as defined by the evaluation criteria below, in the last 5 years. To achieve an excellent rating for this factor, a brief description of the work and contact information for a project administrator must be included. In addition to the information provided by the bidder, an excellent rating will only be achieved, if after calling references, reviewing internal contractor evaluations, or utilizing any other source of pertinent information for relevant past performance, it is determined that the contractor has consistently exceeded expectations in each of the sub-factors (quality of services, cost control, business relations and timeliness of performance).

Good:

The Past Performance portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a good rating if the contractor has performed at least 1 similar and relevant project as defined by the evaluation criteria below in the last 5 years. To achieve a good rating for this factor, a brief description of the work and contact information for a project administrator must be included. In addition to the information provided by the bidder, a good rating will only be achieved if, after calling references, reviewing internal contractor evaluations, or utilizing any other source of pertinent information for relevant past performance, it is determined that the contractor has performed satisfactorily in each of the sub-factors (quality of services, cost control, business relations and timeliness of performance).

Neutral:

The Past Performance portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a neutral rating if the contractor has not performed at least 2 similar and relevant projects as defined by the evaluation criteria below in the last 5 years. Alternatively, a neutral rating may also be given if the contractor has relevant past performance. Under this scenario, a neutral rating will be given if the bidder provides a brief description of the work and contact information for a project administrator. In addition to the information provided by the bidder, a neutral rating will be achieved if, after calling references for relevant past performance, it is determined that the contractor has performed satisfactorily in at least 4 of the sub-factors (quality of services, cost control, business relations and timeliness of performance), and it is determined that the deficiencies have either been mitigated or pose a minimal risk to the government.

Poor:

The Past Performance portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a poor rating if, after calling references for relevant past performance, it is determined that the contractor has not performed satisfactorily in at least one of the sub-factors (quality of services, cost control, business relations and timeliness of performance), and it is determined that there is a high risk to the government as a result of these past deficiencies.

Bio Preferred

Excellent:

The Bio Preferred portion of the Technical Proposal will receive an excellent rating if the bidder states specifically how it will meet the requirements of the bio preferred clause and include a statement describing how the use of the products will benefit the specific project area as well as the environment as a whole.

Good:

The Bio Preferred portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a good rating if the bidder states specifically how it will meet the requirements of the bio preferred clause and include a statement describing how the use of the products will benefit the specific project area.

Neutral:

The Bio Preferred portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a neutral rating if the bidder states specifically how it will meet the requirements of the bio preferred clause.

Poor:

The Bio Preferred portion of the Technical Proposal will receive a poor rating if the bidder’s proposal does not meet the bio preferred clause.

II. REPLACE ALL OF SECTION M-1 WITH THE FOLLOWING:

M-1. Award Determination

The Government will issue an order, as a result of this Request for Proposals, to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, based on relevant past performance, capability, bio-preferred use, and price. The Government is not obligated to request additional information, and in the absence of appropriate information, the Government may rely on personal knowledge of the firm. All evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

The Government may award to other than the lowest proposed price, waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received, or elect to not award at all. If necessary, the Government may or may not conduct discussions with any or all offerors. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offerors best terms.

III. REPLACE ALL OF SECTION M-2 WITH THE FOLLOWING:

M-2. Evaluation Criteria

Technical proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors:

Technical proposals will be evaluated and rated by a Technical Evaluation Panel. Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the proposal preparation instructions. The following factors and their associated sub-factors will be used in the technical evaluation process and are listed in descending order of importance.

1) Technical understanding and approach of work to be performed

a) Understanding of Proposed Work: Offeror demonstrates a technical understanding of the proposed work including but not limited to preliminary scheduling, equipment requirements, site conditions and location, project challenges, and material requirements. A week by week breakdown of how the contractor will meet the timelines associated with the pertinent work items.

2) Past Performance

a) Each offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts of a similar nature. In this case, similar projects may include those that were performed in remote settings at off-the-grid locations, handling and installing sensitive electronic equipment, installing photo-voltaic panels and supports, and designing off-the-grid power systems. Only similar projects performed in the last five years will be evaluated. References other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government, with the information received used in the evaluation of the offerors's past performance.

b) Firms lacking a past performance record (e.g., new firms or those with no relevant experience within their organization) will be treated as an unknown performance risk, receiving a neutral rating in this criteria. A neutral rating will be established as the average of all other competing offerors, or the average of the total rating available, whichever is less.

c) The Government will focus on the following information to determine the final rating of each offeror for the past performance criteria. All of the following subfactors are of approximately equal importance.

i) Quality of Services: Offeror demonstrates ability to perform services in accordance with contract specifications. Conformance to good standards of workmanship.

ii) Cost Control: Ability to complete contracts within budget (at or below); reasonableness of price change proposals submitted; providing current, accurate, and complete billings.

iii) Business relations: Effective management; working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives; reasonable/cooperative behavior; willingness to be flexible; effective contractor recommended solutions; businesslike concern for Government's interests; ability to complete contracts within budget (at or below); reasonableness of price change proposals submitted; Current, accurate, and complete submittals (Certifications, plans, shop drawings, payrolls, invoices, etc…).

iv) Timeliness of performance: Compliance with delivery schedules; reliability; responsiveness to technical direction, no assessment of liquidated damages.

3) Designated BioPreferred Items

a) Identification of all biobased products to be acquired, used, and installed in the performance of operations, maintenance, and construction;

b) Identification of past contracts performed using biobased products and experience with the product(s).

Price Evaluation Criterion

This criterion will include consideration of cost information provided to support pay item prices entered in Section B, Schedule of Items. It is the Government's intent to assess the unit prices to determine reasonableness and offeror's understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract.

The importance of price may become greater as the differences between technical proposals decrease. Where technical proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price may control award