FA5613-12-R-0006-0001 Amendment 1.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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the content/w ording of paragraph (a)(3)(iii), Relevancy, of Addendum to Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) provision 52.212-2 "EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)."

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Mar-2012

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 FA5613-12-R-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Feb-2012

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, 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 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

02-Mar-2012

CODE

700TH CONTRACTING SQ

KAPAUN AIR STATION, GEB. 2767

KAISERSLAUTERN D-67661

FA5613 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA5613-12-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

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

(a) The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation. This source selection is a limited tradeoff (performance and price) source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 12 and 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, the Air Force FAR

Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 and the Air Force Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of the Technical Proposal, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with

FAR 9.104, as supplemented; meet all requirements of the solicitation and conform to all required terms and conditions. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides the best value of past performance and price in meeting the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. Past Performance, of a technically acceptable proposal, is approximately equal to price. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government may award without discussions, reserving the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the CO.

The Evaluation Factors are:

i. FACTOR 1 – Price

ii. FACTOR 2 – Technical

iii. FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

(1) FACTOR 1 – Price. The offer will be evaluated on the total price of all CLINs. The offeror shall complete pricing for each labor category per location per month on Attachment 2, EDIS Pricing Schedule. Attachment 2 shall become the binding price schedule used to price all future task orders. The matrix with the offeror’s pricing per labor category for each location will be evaluated. Prices for CLINS whose price or value has been set by the

Government will be included in the offeror’s total evaluated price (CLINS X008 for Training and Travel).

Unrealistically high, low or unbalanced prices may serve as a basis for rejection of the proposal. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and completeness of the total evaluated price. The offeror shall price each option period, although the exercising of the options is at the sole discretion of the Government and not guaranteed. Task orders issued may include any combination of CLINS.

(i) Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of offers, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the bidding schedule as submitted by the offeror.

(A) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

(B) Discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

(C) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

(D) Apparent errors in extended prices per CLIN will be corrected.

(ii) For the purpose of offer evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the

Offeror intends his/her offer to be evaluated on the basis of the unit price. The totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies listed above will be so reflected on the abstract of offers. These correction procedures shall not be used to resolve any ambiguity concerning which offer is low.

(2) FACTOR 2 – Technical. The ratings applied to the Technical Proposal will be Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Offerors must submit a program management plan demonstrating how the offeror plans to successfully manage and perform the contract. The plan shall, at a minimum, address the requirements stated at Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-

Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 4.1.1. Offerors must have an Acceptable rating on the Program Management

Plan in order to receive an overall acceptable rating for the Technical Proposal.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The proposal has one or more deficiencies.

(3) FACTOR 3 - Past Performance. Past Performance will be evaluated based on the subjective assessment of how well the offeror performed on recent and relevant work similar to Educational Developmental Intervention Services.

The offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance information on a minimum of two (2), but no more than five (5) contracts. In evaluating present/past performance, the Government will first make a recency determination, followed by an evaluation of relevancy of the present/past performance submitted, and finally, a performance confidence assessment will be made. Based on recency, relevancy and quality, offeror will receive one of the following Performance Confidence Assessment ratings:

(i) The Past Performance information may be obtained from the following sources:

(A) Reference List (provided by the offeror in the Past Performance Volume)

(B) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). The Government expects the offeror to provide the

PPQ to their references as identified in the Past Performance volume, for their direct submission to the PCO upon completion. However, the Government may provide PPQ’s to additional references as deemed necessary.

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 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 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.

(C) Past performance information available from other sources such as Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS), and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

(ii) Recency: Recency is defined as contracts completed or ongoing within the past three (3) years

(from the date set for receipt of proposals) covering a period of at least one year.

(iii) Relevancy: The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine the degree of relevance of each past performance reference. Relevancy is outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 at paragraph 5.3.

(iv) Assessments of Relevancy will be based on the following:

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.

(v) Adverse Performance Information: When recent and relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. If adverse performance information is provided to the Government, and the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment on the finding, then the offeror will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications concerning the adverse information. For this acquisition, adverse past performance is defined as “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” rating. Each offeror will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse present and past performance information obtained by the Government, which the offeror did not previously have an opportunity to address.

(vi) Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will consider the offeror’s past performance record with regard to timeliness, responsiveness, performance results, customer satisfaction, interaction with other contractors, subcontract management, cost/price control, adequate staffing, recruiting and retention of personnel, adherence to schedules, as well as any other aspects which appear important to the overall success of the contract. The Government will assign one of the performance confidence ratings at paragraph (3) above, to each recent and relevant present/past performance reference submitted.

(vii) Confidentiality of Sources: Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources, are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the Contracting Officer only and not to any other individuals.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

(4) Award process: The evaluation process is as follows; discussions may or may not be held, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions at any point during the evaluation:

(i) Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to total price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by totaling all labor categories for each location and then multiplying them by 12 months to arrive at the extended total for each location. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated under the following subparagraph (ii), the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

(ii) Technical Acceptability. Next, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors (initially only the lowest priced proposal) on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the Technical Factor in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.1.1. Proposals must be rated

“Acceptable” for the Program Management Plan in order to be determined technically “Acceptable.”

(iii) Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the Contracting Officer shall seek relevant performance information on the lowest priced offerors (initially only the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer) based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial

Confidence performance confidence assessment.

(iv) If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial

Confidence performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

(v) 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.

(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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)