Amendment_2.pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

2. AMENDMENT NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

Two March 6, 2017

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

CODE

USDA, AMS, Cotton and Tobacco Program

3275 Appling Road

Memphis, TN 38133

Same as 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code) () 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

AG-4740-S-17-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02/03/2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers , is extended, is not extended.

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 Items 8 and 15, and returning one (1) copy 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS

PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATA SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment yo u desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and data specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

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

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 _1__ copies to the issuing office.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide changes as follows:

1. Add the requirement of a timeline/milestone proposal to be included in the Technical Proposal.

2. Add Section E to include the Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award.

Please let me know if there are further questions BeverlyS.Brown@ams.usda.gov.

Except at 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 (Type or print)

Beverly S. Brown, Contracting Officer

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

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _____________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

03/06/2017

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 mailto:BeverlyS.Brown@ams.usda.gov

Section D.2 Technical Proposal Addition:

Please include a timeline/milestone chart with your technical proposal.

Section E: Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

E.1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

E.1.1 GENERAL

The Government shall evaluate the written proposal submission of each timely submitted proposal. Once the written proposal evaluation has been completed, the Government shall establish a competitive range, if required, and only if award is not made without exchanges/discussions.

E.1.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The criteria are listed in order of importance. The proposals will be evaluated against the following evaluations and factors;

Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Relevant Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Oral Presentation

Cost/Price Evaluation

E.1.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

A. Technical Approach

Evaluation of this factor will include a review of the offerors approach to meeting the requirements stated below:

1. Conveyor specifications given in detail.

a. A complete set of ACAD generated electrical schematics for on-site construction will be provided for use by the selected installer. Four sets of “As

Built” drawings shall be delivered within 3 weeks after customer acceptance.

2. Explanation of how controls will operate conveyors for each tier.

a. PLC program(s) will be fully documented using the PLC manufacturer’s (or equivalent) programming software. All instructions will utilize textual descriptions and rung comments will be used, at a minimum, on functional groupings of associated logic.

b. All developed PLC software programs shall be rendered, as required, in source code and compiled code formats on magnetic media for customer’s storage.

Unless otherwise stated in the Deliverables section above, the PLC manufacturer’s programming software is not included as a deliverable item to the customer.

3. Vendors specifications on air valves and air consumption.

4. Maintenance Manuals

5. Statement verifying proper conveyance of described containers, detail any evidence confirming this claim.

6. Statement detailing what effects cotton lint and fiber is expected to have on the conveyor drive, pneumatics, rollers, etc. Include what corrective action should be taken if problems do occur.

7. Statement verifying top of roller heights.

8. Copy of Warranty.

9. Delivery lead time.

10. Days required to install and test conveyor.

11. Statement verifying service availability within 24 hours.

The conveyor equipment must meet or exceed any applicable OSHA standards pertaining to conveyor equipment and operators working with and around this equipment. Due to the expense of not using the manufacturer's standard dimensions, some deviations in lengths, widths, etc. would be permitted following review and written approval by the USDA. Drawings and details provided in the pdf attachments are not to scale. Upon request, electronic drawing files will be provided with proper scale.

The USDA will review the proposed timeline/milestones proposed.

B. Relevant Experience

Relevant Experience will be evaluated based on Offeror’s relevant experience with similar work of same size and scope.

Offeror who has done similar work of the same size and scope for Federal and State Governments may receive a more favorable rating.

C. Past Performance

a) Evaluation of past performance will allow the Government to determine whether the Offeror consistently delivered quality services in a timely manner. Past performance will be evaluated for contracts performed by the Offeror consistent with the size, scope, and complexity of the SOW. The Government may contact references cited in the Past Performance section of their proposal as well as other information available to the Government.

b) Past performance on contracts that are more technically relevant to the SOW requirements and similar in size, scope, and complexity will receive greater consideration than performance on contracts that are less relevant.

c) In general, past performance will be evaluated on the extent of client satisfaction with the previous performance of the Offeror; the Offeror’s effectiveness in managing and directing resources; the Offeror’s demonstration of reasonable and cooperative behavior in dealing with clients; the Offeror’s quality of previously performed services; the Offeror’s ability to control costs and manage contract activities; and the Offeror’s effectiveness in meeting schedules in providing services and products.

d) If the Government receives, for a given Offeror, no Past Performance Questionnaires or only irrelevant questionnaires, the Offeror will receive a neutral Past Performance evaluation.

D. Oral Presentations

Oral proposals will be evaluated to see how well the offeror understands the USDA requirement. This will include the offeror’s overview of their relevant experience and past performance of work similar in size and scope. Oral presentations will be evaluated based upon the vendors understanding of the project that should include information regarding cotton sample container delivery times for the system and through each of the workstations, conveyance mechanisms utilized for the transition of the cotton sample containers, the RFID tagging system components and methodology, explanation of the RCU mechanical system and software processing and the air conveyance of the sub-sample from the cotton sample container into the HVI for testing. Oral presentations should include any previous experience within the areas that are presented.

E.1.4 COST/PRICE EVALUATION

The cost evaluation will include cost completeness and accuracy and price reasonableness. The Government will consider all costs associated with each proposals part of our best value analysis.

A. Price Reasonableness

An evaluation of the Offeror’s cost proposal will be made to determine if the cost is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the technical proposal.

Reasonableness determinations will be made by determining if competitiveness exists, by comparing bid prices with established commercial or General Services Administration price schedules, by evaluating labor rates, and/or by comparing bid prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

E.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the responsible and technically acceptable Offeror whose proposal provides the greatest overall value to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The best-value determination will be accomplished by comparing the value of the differences in the technical factors for competing offers, based on their strengths, weaknesses, and risks, with differences in their price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management capabilities than with making an award on lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical approach.

The Offeror is advised that evaluation factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price.