Solicitation Amendment FA483020R00010001 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

The Purpose of This Amendment Is: To incorporate revised attachments, remove paragraph 3.3.6 of the Evaluation Factors for Award, and extend the closing date.

Attachment 1c Exhibit 1 Moody Historical High-Use (2 Dec 19) is updated to remove non-compliant items based on the TAA and Country of Origin Requirements.

Moody Attachment K Common COCESS Items Price List (21 Nov 19) is updated to remove hidden rows.

Paragraph 3.3.6 was removed from the Evaluation Factors for Award.

The closing date has been extended from 9 Dec 2019, 2:00PM EST to 16 Dec 2019, 2:00PM EST.

List of Attachments

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Attachment 1 Moody COCESS SOW Rev1 (24 Sep 19)

Attachment 1a SOW Appendix A Off-Line Transaction Form

Attachment 1b SOW Appendix B Monthly Summary Report

Attachment 1c Exhibit 1 Moody Historical High-Use (2 Dec 19)

Attachment 1d Exhibit 2 Moody Common U-Fix-It Item Stock List

Attachments CDRL (A0001-A0011)

Attachment K Common COCESS Items Price List (21 Nov 19)

Attachment Y PDC Table (24 Sep 19)

Attachment Q Past Performance Questionnaire

Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

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

(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) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(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) plus the 52.217-8, 6 month extension of service.

(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.

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

FA483020R00010001

1.1 This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning 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 chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

1.2 By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.3 The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals

(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 discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.4 Although discussions are not intended, if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.4.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror's opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations.

Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION

2.1 The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/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 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 proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

2.2 The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and order all responsive proposals by overall total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The TEP shall be the sum of:

(1) The total price of Solicitation Attachment K - Common COCESS Items Price List with the Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient discounts reflected, this includes the base requirement and option years as identified in 52.217-8.

2.3 The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In the third step, the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. In the event that the first three (3) evaluated proposals do not yield at least two (2) offers with an acceptable technical rating and at least one (1) of these offerors with a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until these conditions are met or until all proposals are evaluated. The contracting officer shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The contracting officer may also make the determination it is in the best interest of the Government to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and past performance prior to rendering the best value award decision.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors, which are (I) Price (II) Technical, and (III) Past Performance. All offeror cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non- responsive.

Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

3.1. FACTOR 1: PRICE

Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

3.1.1. TEP = the sum of Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List with the Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient discounts reflected, this includes the base requirement and option years as identified in 52.217-8. If an offeror chooses to propose different discount prices in Attachment Y, Database Pricing Discount for option years, a separate Attachment K, Market Basket must be completed for each option year. The separate option year lists may be included on the same spreadsheet utilizing different tabs or "sheets." If the offeror does not complete separate pricing discounts for option years, it will be assumed the proposed pricing discounts in Attachment Y will extend to all available option years and will be evaluated accordingly. Prices will be evaluated for the base plus option year pricing, to include the 52.217-8, 6 month extension of services. The six month extension of service prices will be the prices utilized during the option year in which the 52.217-8 clause is exercised.

3.1.2. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List shall be completed utilizing the discount coefficient percentages proposed in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table. Discrepancies in prices between Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List and Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table may render an offer as unacceptable.

3.1.3. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List is for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded as an attachment to the resulting contract. However, Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table will be placed on the awarded offeror's contract and will be strictly enforced to determine not-to-exceed prices for corresponding items (see SOW para 1.4.2).

3.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the SSA determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

Technical evaluations will start with the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals. If at least two (2) of the first three (3) lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until two (2) offerors are found technically acceptable or until all offers are evaluated or the SSA opens discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

3.2.1 The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror's proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror's technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror's understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical sub factor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

3.2.2 Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

3.2.3. Technical Sub Factor 1: Store Management Plan

Offerors shall submit a Store Management Plan that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the management and staffing requirements of the SOW. The Store Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

3.2.3.1 Offeror shall submit a Store Management Plan that:

a. Identifies workforce composition (to include seasonal hiring if proposed) showing labor category, experience, contractor manning equivalents (CMEs), and associated number of hours for each functional area to meet all COCESS SOW requirements for the base period and all option years.

b. Includes an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager, alternate contract manager(s), and all other personnel offerors propose to manage and staff this requirement.

c. Offeror submits a staffing plan that details how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform as required in the

COCESS SOW.

d. Identify how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc. without any degradation in services provided.

3.2.4 Technical Sub Factor 2: Transition Plan

Offerors shall submit a transition plan that clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required tasks within thirty (30) days after contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the SOW on the first day of the performance period without degradation in services from the previous contract.

3.2.4.1 Offeror shall submit a transition plan that:

a. Identifies plan for obtaining base and Common Access Card (CAC) access for personnel.

b. Identifies plan to stock the COCESS store with recommended store stock items.

3.3. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offers evaluated for technical acceptability will also be evaluated for past performance. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror's past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

3.3.1 Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as "meets" or "does not meet."

Any past performance evaluated as "does not meet" will not be evaluated for relevancy.

3.3.1.2 Recent Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of COCESS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation.

3.3.1.3 Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements based upon the offeror's past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Table C-2. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offerors 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

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 a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance.

3.3.4 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.

3.3.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(End of provision)

CP 229 257 2737

4380 B ALABAMA RD BLDG 932

MOODY AFB, GA 31699-1700

United States Jessica Owens, Email: jessica.owens.5@us.af.mil Telephone: 460-3690

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE

Email: trish.bryan@us.af.mil Telephone: 460-4706