FA3047-13-R-0026_Amendment_0003.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The Acquisition Set Aside has changed from Emerging Small Business to Small Business.

The following have been added by full text:

JBSA CLAUSES (LACKLAND 0009) (NOV 13)

Smoking in AF Facilities

Contractors are advised that the AF has placed restrictions on the smoking of tobacco products in AF facilities. AFI 40-102, Tobacco Use in the Air Force, outlines the procedures used by the commander to control smoking in our facilities. Contractor employees and visitors are subject to the same restrictions as government personnel. Smoking is permitted only in designated smoking areas.

Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Traffic Code

All applicable Traffic Codes will be enforced and apply to all personnel operating vehicles on a JBSA installation. The governing instruction for all Traffic Codes is AFI 31-218(I) and AFMAN 31-116. For a complete listing of all JBSA Traffic Codes and all other applicable traffic policies and procedures, please contact the Contracting Office.

Cell Phone Usage Contractors are advised that DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6055.04 prohibits cellular telephone usage when approaching, entering or exiting any installation gate. Cell phone usage by drivers on installations is prohibited in moving vehicles unless used with a hands-free device. The installation Security Forces Squadron (SFS) is strictly enforcing this regulation. Those found in violation of this regulation are subject to be ticketed.

Base Fire Prevention Program The contractor will be required to comply with the applicable Fire Prevention Program, for JBSA Lackland the applicable directive is AFI 91-203. Contact the Contracting Office for a copy of AFI 91-203.

The following have been modified:

FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1—Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items

1. This Requirement is solicited and awarded as a commercial item under procedures of FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items”, FAR Part 13, “Simplified Acquisition Procedures”, and under FAR Part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”.

2. Site Visit and Questions.

a. A Site Visit will be offered. Interested parties will meet at 502d Contracting Squadron, 1655 Selfridge Ave (Bldg 5450), JBSA-Lackland, TX 78236 on Tuesday, 21 January 2014, 10:00am CST and proceed to specified facilities under escort of Government personnel. All parties interested in attending shall submit their request for base access not later than Thursday, 16 January 2014, at 1:00 pm CST to venetia.shaw.1@us.af.mil. Requests shall include each individual’s: NAME, COMPANY REPRESENTED, DATE OF BIRTH, DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER (INCLUDING STATE OF ISSUE). All information submitted shall be protected in accordance with the provisions under the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.

b. Questions regarding this Request for Proposal are to be in writing and directed only to the 502d Contracting Squadron personnel, venetia.shaw.1@us.af.mil or cathy.garcia@us.af.mil. All questions must be submitted by 1:00 PM Central Time, Wednesday, 22 January 2014. Responses to all questions will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website by 3:00 PM Central Time, Thursday, 30 January 2014. Questions or discussions with other contractors and other than contracting Government personnel may render a proposal invalid.

3. Quoting Requirements and Award Information.

a. Submittal shall provide all information and all fill-ins required in the below clauses and provisions:

i. 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan1999)

ii. 52.212-3 – Alt I. (Apr 2011) – Offeror Representations and Certification – Commercial Items (Apr 2012)

iii. 52.219-1 Alternate I (April 2011) – Small Business Program Representations. (Apr 2012)

iv. 52.219-28 – Post-Award Small Business Program Representation (Apr 2012)

v. 52.222-22 – Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports (Feb 1999)

vi. 252.212-7000 – OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2005)

4. Submit proposals no later than 10:30 am CST, Tuesday, 11 February, 2014. To be considered, the complete proposal must be received by 502 CONS – Front Desk not later than 10:30 am CST on February 11, 2014; 502 CONS/JBKAA, Attn: Venetia Shaw, 1655 Selfridge Avenue, JBSA-Lackland, TX 78236-5253. Proposals received after 10:30 am CST on February 11, 2014 will be late and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 paragraph (f). All proposals must be in English. Faxed or emailed proposals will not be considered.

5. The 502d Contracting Squadron’s Contract Specialist for this requirement is Venetia Shaw, (210) 671-1896, venetia.shaw.1@us.af.mil.

6. The 502d Contracting Squadron’s Contracting Officer for this requirement is Cathy Garcia, (210) 671-1717, cathy.garcia@us.af.mil.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award. Taking exception to any provision in the solicitation will render the proposal ineligible for award. Staples or other bindings shall not be used. Consolidated parts are acceptable provided tabs separate them. A cover sheet shall be included with in each submission, clearly marked as to title, RFP identification and the Offeror’s name.

The proposal in response to this solicitation shall consist of two (2) separate parts:

· Part I – Price Proposal

· Part II - Past Performance Information.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.403-3 to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine a fair and reasonable price.

C. Specific Instructions:

a. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL – Submit one (1) hard copy

i. This section is to assist you in submitting pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high-proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject a proposal. Proposals should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

ii. Complete blocks 12, 17 and 30 a, b, c of the RFP Section A, SF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. This constitutes the model contract.

iii. Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Schedule B of SF 1449 – CONTINUATION SHEET for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including all option periods. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. The proposal must be submitted for a base plus three (3) option years.

iv. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in the applicable clauses in Section SF1449, 52.212-3, Alt I.

v. Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

b. PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION – Limited to no more than 7 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit one (1) hard copy.

i. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts completed in the Past Three (3) years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

ii. Statement of Relevancy: Provide a complete description of the work involved to include dollar value. Include rationale as to why and how the acquisition meets the relevancy definitions for this acquisition.

iii. Teaming Arrangements: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. Past experience of one team member will be considered past experience of all team members for purposes of evaluation. Maximum 3 past performances allowed per team.

iv. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide, with the proposal, a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. (See attached Sample Subcontractor Consent Letter)

D. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

a. Requirements of the RFP (CLINs and PWS) and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

b. Evaluation Factors for Award IAW FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, of this RFP.

c. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in paragraph b, Part II - Past Performance Information of the Specific Instructions section will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

d. Format for proposal Part II shall be as follows:

i. The proposal will be on 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

ii. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

iii. Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch

iv. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. However, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Government will consider for award only those proposals that comply with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum and with prices determined to be reasonable in the absence of discussions.

Failure to comply with the instructions in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum or proposals with unreasonable prices will render the offeror ineligible for award in the absence of discussion.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. PRICE EVALUATION: Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offerer’s price proposal, as required Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph C, and as described below. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 will not be considered or evaluated. Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

B. PRICE REASONABLENESS: The price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by Addendum to FAR52.212-1 will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 (which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following proposal analysis techniques listed below) based on each offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

a. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

b. The Government may also use cost analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) to determine price reasonableness.

c. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of additional cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

C. TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE: A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes. The offeror’s TEP will be determined by multiplying the estimated quantities identified in the Bid Schedule by the proposed unit price for each FFP Contract Line Item Number (CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, X007, X008, X011, X012, X014, X015, X016, X018, X019, X020) to confirm the extended amount for each CLIN. The TEP will include the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) cost re-imbursement CLINS (CLINs X009, X010, X013, X017), offeror will insert pricing provided by the Government on the Bid Schedule. The extended amounts for each FFP CLIN will then be totaled to obtain the estimated TEP for each performance period. The estimated total for the Basic Performance Period will then be added to the estimated total for each Option period to confirm the Total Evaluated Price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

D. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the type of effort and type of requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

a. The Government will accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts.

b. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the offeror to their selected sources) and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent of affiliated division will meaningfully after performance of the instant acquisition.

i. Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three(3) years of the date of this solicitation, except that ongoing programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government will not further evaluate any performance efforts determined not recent.

ii. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy, and will not further evaluate any performance efforts determined not relevant.

iii. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Very Relevant performance must meet all of the following criteria: (1) Dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $1.5 Million, (2) Machines furnished, serviced, maintained meets or exceeds 1,500, (3) Performance in a campus environment with multiple dormitories and (4) performance includes at least two of the following elements: (a) dryer duct cleaning, (b) service/maintenance of both gas and electric dryers, (c) experience maintaining/managing Government Furnished Equipment.

Relevant performance does not meet all requirement for Very Relevant performance but meets all of the following Criteria: (1) Dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $1 Million, (2) Machines furnished, serviced, maintained meets or exceeds 1,000 (3), Performance in a campus environment with multiple dormitories and (4) Performance includes at least one of the following performance elements: (a) dryer duct cleaning, (b) service/maintenance of both gas and electric dryers, (c) experience maintaining/managing Government Furnished Equipment.

Somewhat Relevant performance does not meet all requirement for Very Relevant or Relevant but meets all of the following criteria: (1) Dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $500,000, (2) Machines furnished, serviced, maintained meets or exceeds 500, (3) Performance in a campus environment with multiple dormitories

Not Relevant performance does not meet one of the three relevancy categories listed under Somewhat Relevant.

iv. Performance information may be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources. The Government will evaluate all recent and relevant performance to determine the quality of performance for that effort.

1. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs (if applicable), adhering to schedules, (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

2. Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

3. The following performance definitions will be used in the assessment of performance.

c. The Government will integrate the recency, relevancy and performance on all recent and relevant efforts assigned a quality rating for the offeror; the integration will result in a performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below for the offeror. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a rating of “Unknown Confidence” and will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance.

E. After initial evaluation of each offeror’s proposals, and assessment of each offeror’s past performance, the Government will rank all offers by price from the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the highest TEP. Then, if the lowest reasonably priced offer (by TEP) is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, award will be made to that offeror without entering into discussion as this represents the best value to the Government.

F. If the lowest reasonably priced, responsible offer (by TEP) does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest reasonably priced and responsible offer will be considered and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until the Government reaches an offer with a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all offers are considered, whichever occurs first. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision which will include all offerors with TEPs lower than the offeror with Substantial Confidence as well as the offeror with Substantial Confidence unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions. For example, a source selection receives five offers. The first and second lowest TEP offerors have less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has Substantial Confidence. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment of those three lowest priced offerors.

G. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms.

H. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the contracting officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

I. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final proposal revisions, the Government will rank all offers by TEP. If the lowest reasonably priced offer (by TEP) is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assess rating, award will be made to that offeror as this represents the best value to the Government. If the lowest reasonably priced, responsible offer (by TEP), does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest reasonably priced, responsible offeror will be considered, and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until the Government reaches an offer with a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all offers are considered, whichever occurs first. The Source Selection Authority will then make and integrated assessment best value award decision which will include all offerors with TEPs lower than the offeror with Substantial Confidence as well as the offeror with Substantial Confidence. For example, a source selection receives five offers. The first and second lowest TEP offerors have less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has Substantial Confidence. The source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment of those three lowest priced offerors.

J. OPTIONS: The contract will include three 1-year option periods and FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six months beyond the awarded contract performance period. Base and option year pricing will be evaluated . In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services. Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes)