Amendment_3.pdf

EXCEPT ION T O SF 30

30-105-04

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84 Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

J

P AGE OF P AGES

1 7

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Apr-2014

4. REQUISITION/P URCHASE REQ. NO. 5. P ROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE FA5215 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

766 SPECIALIZED CONTRACTING SQUADRON

ATTN: RICKIE SHIFLET

90 G ST., BLDG 1201

JB PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM HI 96853-5230

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT AT ION NO.

FA5215-13-R-7001

X 9B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 11)

05-Mar-2014

10A. MOD. OF CONT RACT /ORDER NO.

10B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 13)

CODE FACILIT Y CODE

11. T HIS IT EM ONLY APPLIES T O AMENDMENT S OF SOLICIT AT IONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X 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 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 P LACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIP T OF OFFERS P RIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED 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. ACCOUNT ING AND APPROPRIAT ION DAT A (If required)

13. T HIS IT EM APPLIES ONLY T O MODIFICAT IONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONT RACT /ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN IT EM 14.

A. T HIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT T O: (Specify authority) T HE CHANGES SET FORT H IN IT EM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN IT EM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED T O REFLECT T HE ADMINIST RAT IVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORT H IN IT EM 14, PURSUANT T O T HE AUT HORIT Y OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INT O PURSUANT T O AUT HORIT Y OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORT ANT : Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPT ION OF AMENDMENT /MODIFICAT ION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise Section M, Paragraph M-3 B. 2. Price Evaluation first sentence to read: "The Government w ill rank all Technically Acceptable offers, including those w ith correction potential, by price, including any option prices if applicable."

2. Revise Section M, paragraph M-3 B. 2. fourth paragraph formula.

3. Post additional Questions and Answ ers.

The closing dates and times remain unchanged.

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 T IT LE OF SIGNER (T ype or print) 16A. NAME AND T IT LE OF CONT RACT ING OFFICER (T ype or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DAT E SIGNED 16B. UNIT ED ST AT ES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DAT E SIGNED

15-Apr-2014

FA5215-13-R-7001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. Question: Will future school employees (hired to support the awarded solicitation) abide by US Federal law ref Human Resources in the particular country they are to work?

Answer: School employees will abide by US Federal laws.

2. Question: After the PACOM awardees are selected and announced in Feb ‘15, is there a “follow-on” contract to be signed (or is the solicitation proposal (and subsequent awarding) it)?

Answer: A contract will be issued to each awardee.

3. Reference: Section L, Page 139, Paragraph L-9, C. 3 (b) and (c) Question: Please clarify the difference between sections L-9 C. 3. (b) and (c). Are they meant to be addressing the same past performance contracts? Meaning, is each contract that will be used for past performance to have its own Information Sheet and Performance Survey or are the Information Sheets and Past Performance Surveys two separate requirements? If the Information Sheets and Performance Surveys are meant to be addressed as two different sections, can the same contracts be used for each since they both ask to detail contracts similar in scope to the solicitation?

Answer: Yes, they are addressing the same past performance contracts. Each contract that is used for past performance is to have its own Information Sheet and Past Performance Questionnaire.

4. Reference: Attachment J-1, Section 4, Page 12, Paragraph 4.1.1 (d)

Question: Do we have to provide resumes of key personnel and instructors as part of the proposal submission? If yes, will the resumes count against the page limit?

Answer: Resumes of key personnel and instructors are not required as part of the proposal submission.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M-1 GENERAL INFORMATION

This section outlines factors and subfactors the Government will consider in evaluating offerors’ proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The evaluation factors are intended to cover the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, defines the submission requirements from each offeror for this evaluation.

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. 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 or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government may award more than one contract from this solicitation. The Government intends to make a best value award for each of the Section B Contract Line Item Numbers X001- X013. Offerors may submit offers on one or more of the CLINs but need not offer on all CLINs contained in this solicitation. However, CLINs X001 (High School/GED Certificate Preparatory Program), X002 (Academic Skills), and X003 (Lower Level Division College Program) must be proposed as and will be evaluated and awarded as a consolidated group.

Also, CLINs X009 (Lower Level Education), X010 (Upper Level Education), and X011 (Graduate Education) must be proposed as and will be evaluated and awarded as a consolidated group. Offerors who propose on a CLIN that contains SubCLINs must submit a unit price for each SubCLIN within the respective CLIN. Failure to submit unit prices for all SubCLINs under a CLIN will be cause for rejection of the offer on that CLIN.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

A. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Support Services Subfactor 3: Management/Staffing

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

B. The evaluation process shall consider:

1. Technical Acceptability. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Program Management: Program Management will be evaluated for completeness in conveying the offeror’s ability and methodology used to comply with requirements in providing program management of the education program at each site.

(1) Clearly described residency requirement and degree progression in annual and term schedules with various delivery formats and course schedule coordination with local ESO to permit degree completion for irregular/changed military schedules.

(2) Clearly outlined its marketing plan and strategy publicizing available educational opportunities and programs to include a unique Pacific Theater website and described its procedures to coordinate the marketing information with the installation ESO prior to implementation.

(3) Clearly described procedures to ensure no less than 50% of undergraduate and graduate and 25% of technical programs will be delivered by full time faculty and that courses will be offered via face-to-face/traditional format to include how student surveys will be utilized each term to improve course and instructor delivery as well as when a summary of the surveys will be shared with the ESO.

(4) Clearly explained the diagnosis procedures for placement of a first time

Undergraduate student at the appropriate course level and method of decision relating to student enrollment in class format.

b. Subfactor 2 - Support Services: Support services will be evaluated for completeness in conveying the offeror’s ability, methodology, and actions taken to provide support services at multiple installations.

(1) Clearly explained approach for providing required service at multiple overseas military installations within the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) region to include a full time field representative at each required installation with additional employees depending on enrollments and specifically addressed the technology that will be used to provide the services while adapting to distance between installations, the regional office, and home campus.

(2) Clearly described a plan for providing internet access for instructional, administrative/management, and student support services to include internet access to home campus library system, posting of grades at the academic institution’s website, providing student requests for transcripts, and information on available financial aid.

(3) Clearly described how support services will be provided to students from the information gathering stage to graduation. Approach included an explanation of academic program counseling/advisement schedules that meet population needs, student federal assistance guidance, credit transfer procedures and formal degree plans, and a process for providing students with an official evaluated degree plan after completion of six credits with the Contractor.

(4) Explained how students obtain textbooks/course material or other resources to ensure textbooks/course material are available by the first day of class.

c. Subfactor 3 - Management/Staffing: Management/staffing will be evaluated for completeness in conveying the offeror’s ability and methodology for management of faculty and support staff.

(1) Clearly described organizational structure and rationale for that structure and explained how the structure impacts its approach to managing offices at multiple installations. Identified specific home campus support services that will maximize reach-back capability and efficiently size in-theater program staff.

(2) Clearly described strategy for faculty and staff recruitment, retention, and plans for maintaining a pool of certified substitute faculty members to ensure continuity of required services at all locations.

(3) Clearly described plan for providing annual professional development/training to maintain a qualified faculty and support staff that is comparable to home campus development/training plans and conducting new staff/instructor orientation training.

Technical acceptability will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings defined in the below table.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY/UNACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Each subfactor will be rated as pass/fail. A rating of fail in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially or as a result of discussions will be considered for award.

2. Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all Technically Acceptable offers, including those with correction potential, by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The evaluated price shall not include any amount for Quantity Adjustment Rates (QARs). However, the QAR will be reviewed to determine whether it is unbalanced and/or reasonable. The Government will not make an award to the offeror if the adjusted rate is unbalanced and/or unreasonable.

The price evaluation will determine if the proposed prices are fair and reasonable utilizing one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

If the proposal analysis techniques used in FAR 15.404-1 are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or if the CO determines that adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.403- 1(c)(1)(i) no longer exists, the CO may request certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 to make a determination of price reasonableness.

The price of the 6 months extension of services authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be factored as part of the total evaluated price for award and will be calculated on the basis of a potential maximum 6 months extension using the following formula:

Base Period = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.25* Option Year 1 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5* Option Year 2 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5* Option Year 3 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5* Option Year 4 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5* Option Year 5 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5*

Note: * 0.25 and 0.5 is the multiplicative factor used to derive the 6 months quantity value

Pricing is only provided for evaluation purposes. Offeror will not be entitled to any direct reimbursement from the Government under this contract.

3. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror, subcontractors, teaming or joint venture partners and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Recency: Recent performance is defined as contracts/agreements consisting of a minimum of five (5) years of performance within the last seven (7) years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation.

The following relevancy definitions apply:

PAST PERFORMANCE REVELANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Past/present performance involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT-RELEVANT Past/present performance involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving education services that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required for the program(s) proposed.

Similar education services encompass providing instructional academic (high school/academic skills, post-secondary, credit and non-credit) services required for the program(s) proposed. Relevant performance includes simultaneous work at multiple sites (CONUS or OCONUS). This includes past or current experience providing traditional Face-to-Face, Distance Learning and Hybrid instruction to adult learners.

Past performance will be assigned one of the ratings defined in the below table.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

LIMITED Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government

CONFIDENCE 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 successfully perform the required effort.

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.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in the Performance Confidence Assessments table above. Past performance information for the subcontractors, teaming and joint venture partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as the past performance for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts or agreements deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

4. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

5. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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 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.

6. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The

Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)