Painting Solicitation Amendment No.4 FA330024R00240004.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

A. Update Section M Table 3 as shown in the Summary of Changes below.

B. Re-establish the proposal response time to 27 August 24 at 10am Central time and allow for the submittal of electronic proposals, hand delivery or mail. Note: If resubmittal of a proposal is not received, the initial proposal submitted during the previous submittal timeframe will be used for further evaluation.

C. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full effect.

D. POC(s): Contract Specialist Mrs. Shamekia Williams Phone: (334) 953-5552, Email: shamekia.williams.1@us.af.mil or Contracting Officer Mr.

Eldrae Perdue Phone: (334) 953-3518.

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Time 12:00 PM 10:00 AM Response Due Date 12 Aug 2024 27 Aug 2024

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This competitive acquisition will be conducted using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3,DFARS 215.3 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors' past performance information will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations.

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. All such offers shall be treated equally for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance except factor and the price factor. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another Offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

FA330024R00240004

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II below.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor I - Past Performance Proposal (Volume II)

Factor II - Price Proposal (Volume III)

II. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows: Proposal Evaluation:

A. Volume II, Factor I - Past Performance

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on an offeror based on

(i) the references provided by the offeror and any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment ), and (ii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government's System for Award 5 Management (SAM)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L does not submit a survey /questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference Point of Contact (POC), but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 20% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror's performance meets contract specification requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror's adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

(B) The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

(C) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(D) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

- The total value must $150,000 over the life of the contract. >

- Performance duration must be 120 days. >

- Performance must include experience accomplishing all five (5) of the following five (5) factors: (a) Interior Painting (b) Exterior Painting (c) Pressure Washing (d) Site Preparation (e) Lead Based Paint Removal.

Relevant complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

- The total value must $100,000 over the life of the contract. >

- Performance duration must be days. > 90

- Performance must include experience accomplishing at least four (4) of the following five

(5) factors: (a) Interior Painting (b) Exterior Painting (c) Pressure Washing (d) Site Preparation

(e) Lead Based Paint Removal.

complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

- The total value must $75,000 over the life of the contract. >

- Performance duration must be days. > 75

Somewhat Relevant

- Performance must include experience accomplishing at least three (3) of the following five

(5) factors: (a) Interior Painting (b) Exterior Painting (c) Pressure Washing (d) Site Preparation

(e) Lead Based Paint Removal.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: "Very Relevant", "Relevant" or "Somewhat Relevant."

(E) Sources. The Government may seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation may take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and /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:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(F) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's past performance meets the specification requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as: the offeror's history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(G) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

Neutral Confidence

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

B. Volume III, Factor II -Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all offers by price. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(A) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The offeror's TEP will be determined as the sum of CLIN0001 for the initial Task Order.

(B) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears 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.

(C) 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. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness;

therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). 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 maybe required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror's price, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP. Next, the Government will conduct Past Performance Evaluation for the offeror with the lowest TEP. If an offeror with the lowest TEP is assessed a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be considered.

If the offeror with the lowest TEP, does not have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest TEP offer will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating or until all offerors are considered. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the offeror with a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment rating (if found) and all offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating; unless it is in the Government's best interest to conduct discussions.

For example: Five offers are received; the offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Section)

50 LEMAY PLAZA S, ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY NO REQUISITIONS

MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112-6334

UNITED STATES

SHAMEKIA WILLIAMS, Email: shamekia.williams.1@us.af.mil Telephone: 334-953-5552 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: