MIAMI_Amendment_11_signed.pdf

NSB 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

Page Of Pages

1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

See Block 16C

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

15-ETA-OJC-OATL-0032

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE CODE JC004 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration (ETA) Office of Contracts Management (OCM) 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. N-4643 Washington, DC 20210

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

DOL-ETA-15-R-00103

TO ALL POTENTIAL BIDDERS – FOR THE MIAMI JOB CORPS CENTER FOR

CENTER OPERATIONS.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

January 7, 2016

10A. MODIFICATION OF

CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED:

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 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 your 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 date specified

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if required)

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

DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE 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 one (1) copy to the issuing office.

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

Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide potential bidders any pertinent information to the solicitation.

(a) Revision to RFP DOL-ETA-15-R-00103, corrects the error found on page 104 under SECTION M. - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD within Amendment 5 for the Miami Job Corps Solicitation (DOL-ETA-15-R-00103). As stated at M.1, the order of importance of evaluation factors is Technical Approach, Relevant Experience, Past Performance, Staff Resources, and the Business Management Proposal. The two sentences in M.4 stating otherwise were included in the Solicitation in error and are hereby corrected through this amendment for purposes of clarification.

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 (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

15C.

DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) Joy Fryer-Scott 4/20/17

Joy Fryer-Scott

DOL-ETA-15-R-00103 MIAMI JOB CORPS CENTER Page 2 of 2

M.4 BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE) – TRADEOFF

CHANGES FROM:

The Government anticipates the award of a single contract as a result of this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is responsive to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government. Selection of the best value is determined through the process of evaluating strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein.

In determining the best value, past performance is more important than technical approach, which is more important than staff resources. And, past performance, technical approach and staff resource combined are significantly more important than cost.

The Government is more concerned with obtaining a proposal demonstrating superior past performance, technical approach and staff resources, than making an award at the lowest evaluated cost. Thus, the closer or more similar in merit that the Offeror’s past performance, technical approach and staff resources are evaluated to be; the more likely the evaluated cost may be the determining factor in selection for award. However, the Government will not make an award at a premium in cost that it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated technical superiority of the technical proposal (past performance, technical approach and staff resources). The Government will assess whether the strengths and weaknesses between or among competing proposals indicate superiority from the standpoint of what the difference might mean in terms of expected performance and what the evaluated cost to the Government would be to take advantage of the difference.

CHANGES TO:

The Government anticipates the award of a single contract as a result of this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is responsive to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government. Selection of the best value is determined through the process of evaluating strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein.

In determining the best value, Technical Approach is more important than Relevant Experience, Past Performance, Staff Resources, and the Business Management Proposal. When combined, Relevant Experience and Past Performance are equal in importance to Technical Approach.

The Government is more concerned with obtaining a proposal demonstrating superior past performance, technical approach and staff resources, than making an award at the lowest evaluated cost. Thus, the closer or more similar in merit that the Offeror’s past performance, technical approach and staff resources are evaluated to be; the more likely the evaluated cost may be the determining factor in selection for award. However, the Government will not make an award at a premium in cost that it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated technical superiority of the technical proposal (past performance, technical approach and staff resources). The Government will assess whether the strengths and weaknesses between or among competing proposals indicate superiority from the standpoint of what the difference might mean in terms of expected performance and what the evaluated cost to the Government would be to take advantage of the difference.