FA3016-15-R-0003-0004.pdf

F2MRAH3316A001

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to correct FAR Provision 52.212-2 Addendum, Section 1, Para f.1), to read consistently w ith Para c. (of the same section); thereby, complying w ith the requirements set forth in the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

Offerors may revise any portion of their original proposal, or nothing at all. Proposal revisions are due NLT 12 March 2015/4 p.m. CST. If your f irm is not revising its proposal, a w ritten statement is required by the deadline noted above stating such and a request for the

Government to consider your original proposal dated {Insert Original Proposal Due Date}.

POC: Randy Allen, 210-295-4929, randy.d.allen10.civ@mail.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Mar-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA3016-15-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Dec-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 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 you 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 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 copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Mar-2015

CODE

502 CONS CL (FA3016)

2250 ENGINEER STREET, BUILDING 4196

JBSA FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-7584

FA3016 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA3016-15-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum

1. General. This procurement will be conducted pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA), 20 U.S.C. §

107, et seq., – Operation of Vending Facilities and 34 CFR § 395.33 – Operation of Cafeterias by Blind which establish priority for blind persons recognized and represented by the State Licensing Agency ( SLA), in the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on federal facilities. Accordingly, although the solicitation is set aside 100% for small business, the Texas State Licensing Agency will also be permitted to submit a proposal in accordance with 34 CFR § 395.33(b). Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing offerors, including the responsible SLA. The Government will award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the Technically

Acceptable, responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the

Government or to the SLA under the Randolph-Sheppard Act priority pursuant to the procedures outlined below in this provision. For purposes of this evaluation, the Performance Price Tradeoff approach will be used. Past performance is approximately equal to importance as price considerations. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and sub factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined

Technically Unacceptable.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Evaluations will be conducted in the following manner:

a. The Government evaluation team will evaluate all proposals against all factors in the solicitation using the same evaluation criteria in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 applied to each proposal. After the evaluation of each proposal is complete, each proposal will receive a technical rating, a performance confidence rating, and a total evaluated price. Based on these ratings and the total evaluated price, the

Government will then establish the competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals at a fair and reasonable price. Even if it is determined discussions are not required to address specific evaluation issues, a competitive range determination will be completed.

b. If discussions are required, the Government will hold discussions with all offerors in the competitive range and Final Proposal Revisions will be requested. If, after discussions have begun, the

Government 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 exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful offerors.

c. After receipt of the Final Proposal Revisions, a best value determination will be accomplished in accordance with the source selection criteria. If the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated reasonable price has an overall Satisfactory Confidence performance rating, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the best value evaluation process stops at this point.

Subject to a determination of contractor responsibility, that offeror will receive award unless preempted by application of the SLA priority in accordance with Paragraph f below.

d. If the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated reasonable price does not have an overall Satisfactory Confidence performance rating, the Technically Acceptable reasonably priced proposal with the next lowest evaluated price will be considered and the process will continue (in order by total evaluated price) until the Government reaches a Technically Acceptable reasonably priced offer with a Satisfactory Confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all

Technically Acceptable reasonably priced offers remaining in the competitive range are considered, whichever occurs first.

e. At this point, the Government will conduct an integrated best value assessment of all offerors remaining in the competitive range that were considered. If tradeoffs are deemed necessary, tradeoffs will be considered and applied. The offeror who is then selected is the offeror who represents the best value. Subject to a determination of contractor responsibility, that offeror will receive award unless preempted by application of the SLA priority in accordance with paragraph f below.

f. If the best value offeror as determined under Paragraph c or d is not the SLA, the Government will determine if award to the SLA shall preempt the best value offeror using the following criteria:

1) If the SLA is within the competitive range, is found to be technically acceptable, has a performance confidence assessment rating of Satisfactory, and demonstrates through its proposal that it can provide such operation at a fair and reasonable price as determined by the Government after applying its source selection criteria contained in the solicitation; then priority/award will be given/made to the SLA subject to a determination of contractor responsibility. If the SLA proposal does not meet all criteria listed above, award to the SLA will not preempt the best value offeror and award will then be made to the best value offeror subject to a determination of contractor responsibility subject to consultations with the Department of Education.

2. Evaluation Criteria.

A. Technical. The Government will evaluate the technical acceptability of all offers. To be eligible for award, an offer must be Technically Acceptable. To be acceptable, all technical sub factors must be rated

Technically Acceptable. The overall technical proposal will receive the rating of the lowest rated technical sub factor. If award is to be made without discussions, the agency will not further evaluate or consider for award any proposal not receiving an overall rating of Technically Acceptable.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the requirements of the technical factors to determine whether the proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions in the following table:

TABLE #2 Technical Ratings Descriptions

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The following technical subfactors will be evaluated:

(1) Technical Evaluation Sub Factor 1: Mobilization Plan

Description: The government will evaluate the plan to determine if the offeror demonstrates a commitment to the timely and orderly start of the work by providing a Mobilization Plan, which covers the first 30 days of the contract period. In making this assessment, the government will evaluate the details pertaining to how the offeror intends to mobilize its workforce and initiate key functions such as human resources, office administration, project controls and shall identify the specific activities to be completed during the mobilization period.

Standard: the proposed plan demonstrates the technical knowledge and the ability to perform mobilization operations and activities in a logical and effective manner that facilitates the continuation of performance without disruption to the usual operation of facility and meals.

(1) Technical Evaluation Sub Factor 2: Staffing Plan

The government will evaluate the staffing mix proposed by the offeror to determine if it is sufficient to meet all requirements of the performance work statement. In making this assessment, the government will evaluate the numbers, types, and skills of the personnel proposed in the supplied staffing matrix template against the requirements of the performance work statement. The government will measure the proposed resource mix against the estimated quantities in the bid schedule as the projected level of work.

Standard: a proposed staffing mix has sufficient numbers, types, and skills of personnel to accomplish the estimated workload in the bid schedule in accordance with the performance work statement.

(3) Technical Evaluation Sub Factor 3: Quality Control

The government will evaluate the quality control plan proposed by the offeror to determine if it is sufficient to ensure compliance with all requirements of the performance work statement. In making this assessment, the government will evaluate the proposed inspection system, inspection process, and quality control management structure to determine if it will ensure compliance with all requirements of the performance work statement.

Standard: a quality control plan that ensures compliance with all requirements of the performance work statement.

(4) Technical Evaluation Sub Factor 4: Contingency Plan

Description: The government will evaluate the plan to determine if the offeror clearly demonstrates how it will meet the requirements of the PWS during emergencies, crisis, or, natural disaster situations

(i.e. strike, ice storm, epidemic, lights or gas outage, surge in unplanned customers, unexpected new unit arrival) that could possibly hinder production and serving of a meal. In making this assessment, the government will evaluate the proposed management capabilities to ensure a smooth transition with no loss of services.

Standard: the proposed plan demonstrates the technical knowledge and the ability to perform contingency operations and activities in a logical and effective manner that facilitates the continuation of performance without disruption to the usual operation of facility and meals.

B. Price Evaluation. Price evaluation. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis and unbalanced pricing. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness and the Contracting Officer (CO) has determined that this requirement meets the definition of a commercial item per FAR 2.101; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) and (3). However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

Prices will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be calculated by multiplying the quantities for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs by the CLIN’s unit price. The total amounts for FFP CLINs only

(EXCLUDING the cost reimbursable not-to-exceed (NTE) CLINs) for the base period plus all option periods will then be summed to equal the TEP.

The contract will include 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. In the event the

Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref.

FAR 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment.

Past Performance Evaluation. Using past information provided by the offeror (maximum of five (5) will be evaluated) and major/critical subcontractors (maximum of three (3) will be evaluated), past performance questionnaires, and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the contracting officer will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information, and using this information, will develop a performance confidence assessment.

The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror's past work record to assess the

Government's confidence in the offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including price and schedule. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on, and targeting performance, which is relevant to the technical sub factors and the price factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy definitions apply:

Table #3 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort.

The team will, as deemed necessary, confirm past performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. Other Government sources may include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor

Performance and Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with program managers, contracting officers, and fee determining officials; and the Defense Contract

Management Agency.

When 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 contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

The Government may consider the offeror’s past performance (including subcontractors/teaming/joint ventures) in aggregate in addition to a contract-by-contract basis.

As a result of an analysis of those positive and negative aspects indicators identified, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical factors and the price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror's evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable).

Each offeror will receive one of the ratings described below for the Past Performance factor.

Table #4 Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P121_5471 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an Unknown Confidence rating for the Past Performance factor.

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. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, 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. The Government reserves the right to reassess an offeror's performance based on the offeror's responses to or clarifications to certain aspects of their proposal and make our own determination on the performance confidence assessment.

(End of Provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)