Amendment_0003_to_Solicitation_FA5215-13-R-7005.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

This Amendment is issued to incorporate the follow ing changes, w hich are indicated in highlighted print:

1. Section M, Paragraph M-3.B.1. FACTOR 1 Technical Acceptability

The last sentence is revised to read, "The technical proposal shall be evaluated for the offeror’s technical ability against the follow ing tw o

(2) subfactors:"

2. Section M, Paragraph M-3.B.2. FACTOR 2 - Price Evaluation: Deleted the follow ing text from the sentence:

"(and Unacceptable offers w ith correction potential)"

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Jun-2013

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 FA5215-13-R-7005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jun-2013

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 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 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

25-Jun-2013

CODE

647TH CONTRACTING SQUADRON - FA5215

ATTN: RYAN TRUONG

90 G ST., BLDG 1201

JB PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM HI 96853-5230

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA5215-13-R-7005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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

A single award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and who is responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. 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 evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS:

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

FACTOR 1: Technical Acceptability (TA)

SUBFACTOR 1: Staffing and Management Plans

SUBFACTOR 2: Mobilization Plan

FACTOR 2: Price Evaluation

FACTOR 3: Performance Confidence Assessment

B. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating Offerors’ proposal:

1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of

Acceptable or Unacceptable. Definitions for Acceptable and Unacceptable ratings are given below:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY / UNACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Evaluators will rate each Subfactor. Proposals must receive an acceptable rating under each subfactor to be rated acceptable under the technical capability factor. The technical proposal shall be evaluated for the offeror’s technical ability against the following Two (2) subfactors:

Note: Company Past Performance will NOT be evaluated as part of the Technical Evaluation; it will be considered as a separate factor.

SUBFACTOR 1: Staffing & Management Plans

This subfactor is met when the Offerors provides a staffing and management plan which addresses Offeror’s manning approach to staff a qualified and capable workforce which complies with the requirements of the PWS. At a minimum, the proposed plan shall:

1) Include an organizational structure to recruit and staff positions with no gaps in coverage in accordance with the PWS.

2) Include a staffing plan which addresses the Offeror’s ability to hire, train, retain and manage a qualified workforce that meets the requirements of PWS.

3) Include Labor category and skill level qualifications to demonstrate compliance to the

PWS labor requirements.

4) Include description of employee compensation and benefits.

SUBFACTOR 2: Mobilization Plan

This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a plan to manage Temporary Duties (TDYs) associated with requirements in the PWS and the Exercise Life Cycle. At a minimum, the plan shall include:

1) An approach for employees to attend exercise related conferences, event executions and additional meetings, fulfilling the requirements for ‘presence at work’ described in the PWS. The plan should address leave and sick days for employees.

2) An approach for dividing PWS requirements between the employees in order to de-conflict and attend conferences and exercise execution(s), as required.

3) An approach for minimizing TDY travel expenses and remain within the travel CLIN budget.

2. FACTOR 2 - PRICE EVALUATION.

Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable offers by price, including any option prices if applicable.

1) The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price.

Prices/costs must be compatible with proposed scope of effort and operations. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism review to determine whether the price proposed is feasible in relation to the technical proposal and the requirements of the Performance Work

Statement. Reasonableness for the type and quality of services being provided will be determined based upon, but not limited to, prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and the independent Government estimate. Any individual item, which is unreasonable, may cause the entire proposal to be determined unreasonable, and may result in elimination from consideration for award.

2) The proposed price for the Phase-In/Transition Period CLIN 0003 will be included in the total evaluated price. However, the proposed price will be assessed for reasonableness based on, but not limited to phase-in personnel outlay.

3) 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 or Subcontract Line

Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. In order to meet the requirements of

FAR Part 6 and 17, the price of the 6 months extension of services authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services will factored as part of the total evaluated price for award and will be calculated on the basis of potential maximum 6-month extension using the following formula:

i. CLIN 0001 Unit Price x 6 months

ii. CLIN 1001 Unit Price x 6 months

iii. CLIN 2001 Unit Price x 6 months

iv. CLIN 3001 Unit Price x 6 months

4) An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. FACTOR 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT. Using the Past Performance

Questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

1) See Table 1 below for definitions of relevancy. Relevant performance includes performance that involved similar scope, magnitude and complexities to the effort this solicitation requires. 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 Table 2, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Definitions. Past performance information based on the experience of proposed key personnel and/or any subcontractors will not be be considered as past performance information for the principal offeror. For joint ventures the Government may consider the relevant past performance history of the individual joint venture partners of the prime contractor. 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).

i. Recency: within 3 years of the date of solicitation issuance. Past performance references beyond 3 years will not be considered.

ii. Relevancy: similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements specified in the PWS for this solicitation as defined below.

Table 1, Relevancy Definitions

Rating

Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 2: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT TABLE

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

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 no expectation that the Offeror will be able to

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.

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

3) 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.

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

Offeror’s 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.

5) 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.

M-4 EVALUATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT

Evaluation and award will be made in accordance with FAR Provision 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors

– Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004). Since the Government may award a contract without discussions, Offerors are cautioned to review carefully all terms and conditions and the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) in the solicitation prior to proposal submission and to submit their best prices in the initial offer.

(End of Summary of Changes)