Solicitation Amendment FA302224R00110001 SF 30.pdf

R

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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER 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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price and past performance from among those that are technically acceptable.

1.2 Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Discussions

1.3 If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS 2)

The Sources Selection Process for this acquisition is lowest price technically acceptable(LPTA). Evaluation factors and significant sub factors that establish the requirements of acceptability are listed below. All contractors that submit a proposal shall have their CAGE code verified in SAM.gov to ensure they are registered and do not have any active exclusions. After Those contractors with active exclusions shall not be considered for award.

this process is completed, the proposal with the lowest price shall be subjected to the evaluation price and non-price factors below.

FA302224R00110001

EVALUATION FACTORS:

1. Technical Evaluation:(non-cost/price factor)

a. Technical. The term "technical," as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. More than one "technical" factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror' s proposal will satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. Some of the aspects affecting an offeror' s ability to meet the solicitation requirements may include technical approach, key personnel and qualifications, facilities, and others. Once the minimum requirements are established, the team shall evaluate the offeror' s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 1-B.

Table 1-B. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirement of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meets the requirement of the solicitation

2. Past performance: (non-cost/price factor)

a. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror' s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror' s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

b. Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304( c )(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an "acceptable" or" unacceptable" basis using the ratings in . Table 2

c. Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror' s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror' s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical sub factors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical sub factors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Consideration will be given to technical sub factors. Therefore, past performance will be rated on a "relevant" or "not relevant" basis using the ratings in . Table 2-1

d. Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror' s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

e. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts in Table 2-2.

f. Recency: Past performance will be limited to work performed in the last three years from the issue date of the solicitation.

g. Relevancy: Relevancy is defined as a stand-alone project comparable to this type of renovation and add-on requirement and magnitude (dollar threshold greater than $1 Million). Contractor's performance on projects completed within the last three years from the issuance date, not completed but over 30%, and/or past CPARS ratings will determine acceptability. If the contractor has no ongoing projects, no CPARS ratings, or no relevant past performance, the contractor's past performance will be acceptable.

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. For this acquisition, past performance will be considered relevant when it demonstrates essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so NOTE:

sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown(or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

Table 2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectiv al

Rating Description

Acceptab le

Based on the offeror' s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror' s performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Unaccept able

Based on the offeror' s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 2-1 - Past Performance Relevant/Not Relevant Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

TABLE 2-2 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality As sessment

Rating /Color

Description

SATISFA

CTORY

(S)

/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATIS

FACTORY

(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVA

ILABLE

(N)

/WHITE

Quality and/or performance information is not available; therefore, no rating is assigned

Assigning Ratings. Asa result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

Sources are as follows:

- Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

- Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (F APIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency;

and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

3) Price Factor (price factor)

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2)reasonableness, and (3) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

3.2 Reasonableness: The offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

Technical Analysis:

IAW FAR 15.404-1(e), the contracting officer should request that personnel having specialized knowledge, skills, experience, or capability in the associated factors in the type of work set forth in the statement of work shall determine the need for and reasonableness of the proposed resources, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. At a minimum, the technical analysis shall examine the types and quantities of material proposed and the need for the types and quantities of labor hours and the labor mix. Other data that may be pertinent to an assessment of the offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements or to the cost or price analysis of the service or product being proposed should also be included in the analysis.

4) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Any drawings, diagrams, CADs, etc. provided for this requirement are accurate to the Government's best knowledge. However, offerors are ultimately responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information.

If there are any exceptions to the statement of work within the proposal, such exceptions shall be clearly stated. Offerors are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to attend the site visit. Site visit date and time will be Posted in SAM.gov. Offerors shall maintain an active SAM.gov registration with no active exclusions to be eligible for award. See SAM.gov for site visit details.

5) DEFINITIONS:

Responsible (IAW FAR 9.104-1): Before the contracting officer can award a contract, he/she must ensure the contractor is "responsible." A responsibility determination signifies that the Government has judged the contractor to have the means and ability to complete the contract in question.

Communications: Shall be held with offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being placed within the competitive range. Such communications shall address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond.

Clarifications: are limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated

Technically acceptable proposal: Meets or exceeds the Government's Evaluation Factors and all requirements as outland in the SOW.

CP 662 434 7802, 495 HARPE BLVD

COLUMBUS, MS 39710-0001

UNITED STATES

Daniel Stilts, Email: daniel.stilts@us.af.mil Telephone: 662-434-3740 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS:

1. Make administrative corrections to Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.

2. No other changes have been made.