FA4690-11-R-0001-0002 Amendment 2.doc

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 30-Mar-2011 12:00 PM to 14-Apr-2011 12:00 PM.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1 Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are Significantly More Important than Price.

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

(c) 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.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Technical

Past Performance

Price

2. Basis for contract award: The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of past performance and price for proposals determined to be technically acceptable, with technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government intends to award one contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposals (RFP) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the Government reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s past performance 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 discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). While the Government’s evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance, and price standpoint.

All offerors’ proposals will be evaluated first for technical acceptability followed by a past performance price tradeoff (PPT) evaluation with past performance evaluated as significantly more important than price. The evaluation process will be conducted as follows:

a. An Evaluation of Technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal shall be made. IAW FAR 15.306(a)&(b) prior to establishing the competitive range of proposals for this acquisition, the contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements.

b. The rating-basis for evaluation of technical proposals is described in paragraph 3. below. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussion, clarifications, and/or communications, will be considered for further evaluation and award.

c. All technically acceptable large business offerors will have their Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluated as described in paragraph 4. below.

d. All technically acceptable offerors determined to pass the technical (and Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as appropriate) evaluations will then be ranked by total price. Prices will be evaluated IAW Para 5 below.

e. The three lowest reasonably priced offerors determined to be technically acceptable will then receive a Performance Confidence Rating in accordance with the evaluation approach described in paragraph 5. below.

f. If the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest reasonable total price also has received a past performance rating of Substantial Confidence, this offeror’s proposal represents the best value for this acquisition and may be determined to represent he best value, subject to a positive responsibility determination.

g. If none of the three lowest reasonably priced offerors have a past performance confidence assessment of “Substantial Confidence,” the Government will evaluate the next lowest reasonably priced offeror’s past performance. This process will continue (in order by price) until the next lowest reasonably priced offeror’s past performance is rated “Substantial Confidence” or until all offerors are evaluated and, at this point, an integrated assessment based on tradeoff between past performance and price will be conducted.

h. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the technically acceptable, lowest evaluated price offeror if that offeror is judged to have other than a Substantial Confidence past performance evaluation rating. In these cases, the source selection authority shall make an assessment of the price proposed, the past performance evaluation rating assigned and, based upon the requirements of the acquisition, trade the past performance rating against price to determine the best value for the government.

3. Evaluating Technical Proposals: Offerors must demonstrate the ability to provide a fully functional web-based purchasing system (Reference Statement of Work section 1.5) by providing access to an Internet web address. The Government evaluation team shall evaluate technical proposals against the following evaluation factors:

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to transmit/receive transactions via the Internet, primarily through a point and click method.

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to provide user access to purchasing functionality via a web browser without requiring client software.

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to provide the Government the actual price paid by the contractor.

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to view order history, live order tracking/status and modify/cancel orders not shipped yet by individual work order number.

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to attach notes to the purchase order (for internal use only, not transmitted with the purchase order).

· The standard is met when the offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to delete purchase orders either singularly or by “batch” prior to release.

a. The evaluation team will evaluate each technical proposal on its merits and assign a Pass or Fail rating. The proposal must meet all of the above listed standards in order to receive a Pass rating and be determined technically acceptable. A proposal found to not meet all of the above listed standards or failed to respond to any or all of the above listed standards will be assigned a Fail rating and be determined not technically acceptable.

b. Only proposals assigned a Pass rating, either initially or after exchanges with offerors (see FAR 15.305) will be considered for further evaluation.

4. Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required from large businesses only). The policy of the Government is to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business concerns. The Government plans to annually assess the contractor's efforts to proactively seek small business subcontracts. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan will focus on whether the plan provides for proactive minimum small business subcontracting goals, includes sound and effective methods to determine and meet those goals, adequately encourages small business participation, and provides for implementation of policies that meet the requirements of FAR Part 19 and its supplements. The Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated and assigned a rating of acceptable, reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or unacceptable.

5. Price Criteria: For award purposes, the Government will evaluate both individual and total prices from the sampling of items found in EXHIBIT A of this solicitation. The total price is the sum of the extended unit prices for all items listed in EXHIBIT A and will be used for ranking of offerors. The Government may determine an offer unacceptable if the proposed prices are materially unbalanced, which is defined as significantly understated or overstated in relation to the actual cost of the item or when the price is determined not to be fair and reasonable. The offeror shall submit complete pricing data for all items listed in EXHIBIT A; substitutions are not acceptable for any items for this evaluation. Proposed prices will become fixed prices on the contract base year and all option years.

a. The Government will use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. It is expected that the competitive nature of this acquisition will drive price reasonableness and fairness; however, the Government reserves the right, if it deems appropriate, to make these determinations by means of one or more price analysis techniques. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

ii. Comparison of previously proposed prices and Government and commercial contract prices.

iii. Comparison with competitive published price lists.

iv. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

v. Comparison of proposed prices obtained through market research.

vi. Analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

b. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost/price information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.

6. Evaluating Past Performance: The evaluation team will assess past performance, specifically information on relevant and recent contracts obtained from the results of past performance surveys. Using questionnaires, the evaluation team shall seek performance information on the offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

a. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to make an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

b. Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation, except that ongoing programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP.

c. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires ( attachment 3), which are forwarded by the offeror to their selected sources and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, subcontractors, or teaming contractors 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 it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and 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 performance of the instant acquisition.

(i) 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. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this RFP. 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.

(ii) Relevant past performance is defined as contracts that required the offeror to operate a supply store for resale using a similar complexity of effort as provided in the Statement of Work contained in this solicitation. To be considered very relevant, at a minimum, previous efforts must have supported a multi craft facility maintenance operation that provided building supplies, repair parts and system components to carpenters, electricians, heating, ventilation and air conditioning mechanics, plumbers, and entomologists. Total occupied square footage of facilities supported must equal or exceed a minimum of 4.5M square feet with annual expenditures greater than of $2.5M dollars expended on a minimum of 500 separate and distinct commodities. Recent past performance is defined as contracts performed within the last three years, but limited to the most relevant/ recent 10 contracts. Past performance information regarding other divisions, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, subcontractors, or teaming contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be taken into account when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

The following table provides relevancy definitions that will be used:

RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

(iii) Performance information may be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources.

a. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history, adhering to schedules, (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

b. Where a 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 projects or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

c. The following performance definitions will be used in the assessment of performance.

d. The assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance evaluation is accomplished through the assignment of a confidence assessment rating based on assessing offerors’ relevant past performance history focusing in and targeting performance that is relevant to the solicitation. Each proposal will be assigned one of the following performance confidence assessments. Note that these assessment ratings are subjective based on the past performance information collected.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

e. A past performance questionnaire (Attachment 2) is provided with the solicitation so that offerors may send them to the references of their choice. Past performance references who have returned the questionnaires will be used in the past performance assessment. The evaluation team may follow-up on any non-responses to surveys. Upon receipt of the past performance surveys, the evaluation team will screen the information provided for each of the referenced contracts to make an initial determination of its relevance to the current requirement. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant record of past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

f. In analyzing survey information gathered, the evaluation team may find some problems are singular and site-specific. Provided all other reports are favorable, isolated problems may not carry as much weight in the confidence assessment as when there is an identifiable trend of questionable performance, whether overall or in a particular area. When finding negative trends, the evaluation team will strive to gather additional performance information to support a meaningful confidence assessment.

g. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS: Teaming arrangements are defined as two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of the contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities and offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members. All past performance information submitted by the teaming partners will be considered during the evaluation process, but since only one business may represent the teaming entities, an overall past performance rating for only the primary representing business will be assigned during the evaluation process.

h. JOINT VENTURES: Joint ventures are defined as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract. In a joint venture, past performance for both businesses will be evaluated equally.

i. Disclosing Past Performance Information to Offerors: The Contracting Officer will provide offerors with the opportunity to comment on negative past performance information on which they have not had a previous opportunity to comment. The validation process is particularly important when the negative information is provided by only one reference, or when there is any doubt concerning the accuracy of the information. Note that while the Government must disclose past performance problems to offerors, it shall not disclose the names of the individuals who provided information about an offeror’s past performance.

7. Notice of Award: A written notice of award or acceptance of any offer (a copy of the Standard Form 1449 signed by the Contracting Officer), 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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Addendum) (End of Summary of Changes)