AMENDMENT 0004 TO RFQ 26Q1038.pdf

AMENDMENT 0004 TO COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

Combines Synopsis/Solicitation for Dorm Internet Services, Whiteman AFB, MO RFQ No. FA4625-26-Q-1038

1. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:

The purpose of Amendment 0004 is to update and clarify the evaluation criteria found in Addendum to Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

Specifically, this amendment clarifies that Factor 1 (Technical Capability) will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, and the best-value tradeoff will be conducted solely between Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Price).

2. EXTENSION OF DUE DATE:

The deadline for receipt of quotations remains unchanged.

3. REVISED SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS:

The attached/following updated Addendum to 52.212-2 replaces the previous version in its entirety. All other terms and conditions of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation remain unchanged.

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENT:

Vendors must acknowledge receipt of Amendment 0004 by including a statement of acknowledgment in their quotation cover letter or by signing and returning a copy of this amendment page with their submission. Failure to acknowledge this amendment may result in the quotation being rejected.

X Signature of Acknowledgment

Addenda to RFO Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial:

(a) Evaluation Factors The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quotation conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest-priced quotation, or other than the highest-rated technical quotation, if doing so represents the best value to the Government. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only a marginal increase in technical superiority.

The Government will evaluate quotations using a two-step process:

Step 1 (Technical Gate): Quotations will first be evaluated under Factor 1 (Technical Capability) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Quotations evaluated as "Unacceptable" will receive no further consideration for award.

Step 2 (Best-Value Tradeoff): For all quotations rated "Acceptable" under Factor 1, the Government will perform a best-value tradeoff analysis combining Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Price).

For the purposes of the best-value tradeoff, Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. However, as quotations become more equal in their Past Performance risk ratings, price becomes increasingly important. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest-priced quotation, or other than the quotation with the lowest performance risk, if doing so represents the best value to the Government. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only a marginal reduction in performance risk.

1. Factor 1 – Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate the vendor’s demonstrated ability to successfully provide managed internet and wireless network services supporting six dormitory facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

The following elements will be evaluated on a yes/no basis:

- Proposed network architecture and scalability

- Internet Bandwidth and Network Performance

- Wireless coverage, density, and connectivity approach

- Captive portal/authentication solution

- SLA provisions and network reliability

- Cybersecurity and proactive monitoring approach

- Technical support/help desk capability

- Installation and implementation approach

- Ability to meet required performance standards and implementation timelines

Technical Capability will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Quotation clearly demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and Performance Work Statement with an acceptable level of performance risk

Unacceptable Quotation fails to meet one or more material solicitation or Performance Work Statement requirements or demonstrates an unacceptable level of performance risk.

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

For those quotations rated “Acceptable” under factor 1, the Government will evaluate the vendor’s recent and relevant experience providing comparable internet, telecommunications, managed wireless, or network support services.

The Government may consider:

- Recency of experience

- Relevancy of prior projects

- Similarity in scope, size, and complexity

- Experience supporting multi-building or high-density residential environments

- Experience providing managed wireless and captive portal services

- Overall confidence in successful contract performance

Past Performance will be evaluated for performance risk using the ratings below.

Performance Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Risk Vendor demonstrated extensive recent and relevant experience successfully providing comparable services for similar environments. Government has high confidence in successful performance.

Moderate Risk Vendor demonstrated some relevant experience, but experience is less similar in size, scope, or complexity. Government has reasonable expectations of successful performance with some performance risk.

High Risk

Vendor demonstrated limited or no relevant experience providing comparable services. Government has low confidence in successful performance.

3. Factor 3 - Price The Government will evaluate total proposed price for fairness and reasonableness.

The total evaluated price may include:

- Monthly recurring charges

- Installation costs

- Equipment costs

- Option year pricing

- Other associated charges

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Extension of Services. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under RFO 52.217-8 by adding an additional six-months of potential extension based on the vendor's final option period prices to the vendor's total price. Price will be evaluated as Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is the sum of the base year plus all option years, plus the six-month extension of services. The extension of services pricing is calculated as one half of option year 4.

NOTE: Although the price evaluation uses Option 4 prices to calculate Extension of Services Amount, in the event the Government extends services under the authority of RFO 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”, the unit pricing of the last exercised option period, which preceded the extension, shall remain in effect.

(c) Notice of award. A written notice of award or acceptance of a quote furnished to the successful Vendor within the time for acceptance specified in the quote, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the quote’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept a quote (or part of a quote), whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)