FA3047-13-R-0026_Amendment_0004.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

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.

Unless specifically identified inyour proposal, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. 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).

(End of Summary of Changes)