FA4417-16-T-0003-0001.pdf

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 revise FAR Clause 52.212-2 by:

- Incorporting the attached updated 52.212-2 Addendum to the Solicitation.

- Extending the proprosal due date from 4:00 PM Central Standard Time 4 Mar 16 to 4:00 PM Central Standard Time 9 Mar 16

See Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Mar-2016

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 FA4417-16-T-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Feb-2016

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

03-Mar-2016

CODE

1 SOCONS

350 TULLY ST.

HURLBURT FIELD FL 32544

FA4417 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4417-16-T-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 04-Mar-2016 04:00 PM to 09-Mar-2016 04:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 (ADDENDUM)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, “EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

THIS SECTION IS INCLUDED FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM THE RESULTANT AWARD.

A. This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.”

B. The Government will review the prices submitted for unrealistically low prices. Failure to provide realistic prices may result in a proposal being rated unawardable on the basis that unrealistically low prices are an indication that the Offeror does not understand the requirement. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or negotiation may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1 st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350

Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL.

C. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written offer (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute an award with discussions.

D. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award one contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to the Request for Quote (RFQ) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFQ and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the requirements.

E. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make award without discussions however, the contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their quote IAW the solicitation requirements. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance and price standpoint.

F. EVALUATION PROCESS.

1. The first (1 st ) step of the evaluation process is to review the SF 1449 and cover page for completeness and if applicable, any proposed Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. Teaming arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and including all elements stated in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors quote non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

2. Price Evaluation. The second (2 nd

) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive offers by price from lowest to highest. Offerors' prices submitted in the Offer Schedule will be evaluated for completeness and fair and reasonableness. All offerors will be evaluated based on price and placed in order from lowest to highest price.

2.1. The Total Evaluated Price for each offer will be calculated as follows.

Total Evaluated Price = (Total Evaluated Price for Base Period CLINS 0001-0010) + (Total Evaluated Price for

Option Period 1 CLINS 1001-1010) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 2 CLINS 2001-2010) + (Total

Evaluated Price for Option Period CLINS 3001-3010) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 4 CLINS 4001-

4010) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 CLINS 5001-5010).

2.1.1. Total Evaluated Price for Base Period and Option Periods 1 through 4. Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period. Unit prices will be used to calculate the extended price in the event that there is a discrepancy between the unit prices and extended prices.

2.1.2. Total Evaluated Price for the Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8:

Offerors shall not submit pricing for the Option to Extend Services, CLINS 5000-5010. The Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated by multiplying the CLIN extended amounts proposed by the offeror for Option Period 4 by 50 percent. The Option to Extend Services is not considered part of the contract period of performance and resultantly these totals shall not be included in the contract, however the

CLINS will be added as information only. If the government exercises FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the extension will not exceed the 50 percent total evaluated and the information only CLINS will be changed to priced CLINS at unit prices equal to the preceding period of performance’s most current unit prices.

2.1.3. The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. An award will be made based on offerors’ total proposed prices.

G. Technical Evaluation. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3 rd

) step. The first three (3) of the lowest priced responsive offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the first three (3) evaluated offers do not yield an offer with an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue in increments of the next three (3) lowest priced responsive offers until a technically acceptable quote is identified.

The government may make a final determination as to the rating of an offer based on the quote as submitted without requesting any further information.

1. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical volume of the quotes on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. The Technical factor will receive an overall rating of either “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” using the rating and descriptions in Table 1 below. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire quote unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable.

2. Only those technical quotes determined to be “acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial quote, as received, without discussions.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3. Evaluators shall assign an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described above according to the degree to which the offeror meets the minimum technical requirements described below:

a. Inspection and Preventative Maintenance schedule. The offeror’s inspection and preventative maintenance schedule will be rated “Acceptable” if it demonstrates a reasonable approach for scheduling inspections and preventative maintenance of all overhead doors and gates listed in Appendix A in accordance with paragraph 1.3 of the PWS.

b. The offeror’s descriptive methodology demonstrates a reasonable approach for performing inspections, preventative maintenance, and repairs on all overhead doors and gates listed in Appendix A and in accordance with commercial standards or manufacturer’s instructions, whichever is more stringent. The offeror’s methodology may include excerpts from the manufacturer’s written instructions with their submission when available.

H. After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4 th

) evaluation step begins. For those offerors deemed technically acceptable, past performance will be evaluated for the lowest priced technically acceptable offer. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial

Confidence rating that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

1. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors’ provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases. For those offerors deemed technically acceptable, past performance will be evaluated for the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

1.1 RECENT. Past Performance will be evaluated for recency. Recent is defined as performed within five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Performance prior to five (5) years from the issue date of the solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated;

1.2 Past Performance will be evaluated for relevancy and rated as relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant:

1.2.1 RELEVANCE.

Definitions of relevancy are as follows:

1.1.1.1 RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of contracts requiring of inspection, maintenance, and repair of

425 or more overhead/automatic doors and electric gates per year will be considered relevant.

1.1.1.2 SOMEWHAT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of contracts requiring inspection, maintenance, and repair between 301-424 overhead/automatic doors and electric gates per year will be considered somewhat relevant.

1.1.1.3 NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of contracts requiring inspection, maintenance, and repair of less than 300 overhead/automatic doors and electric gates per year will be considered not relevant.

1.2 The Government will evaluate the quality of each offeror’s past performance information and assign one of the following overall performance confidence assessment ratings. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood for the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information.

1.2.1 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;

1.2.2 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;

1.2.3 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;

1.2.4 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; and

1.2.5 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:

1.2.6 In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

2. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of Joint Ventures will be considered in accordance with the member’s share of the prospective contract;

I. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a

Substantial Confidence rating, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers; and

J. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offer is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the past performance of the next lowest priced technically acceptable offer will be evaluated and the process will continue in order by price until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

(End of Addendum)

3 Attachments:

1. Performance Work Statement (Oct 2015)

2. Wage Determination 2005-3033 Revision 17 (29 Dec 15)

3. Past Performance Questionnaire

(End of Summary of Changes)