FA9301-13-R-0007-0004.pdf

F1S3AP3044A001

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

See Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Nov-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 FA9301-13-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Oct-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

06-Nov-2013

CODE

AFTC/PZIOC - FA9301

CINDY KEIM - 5 S. WOLFE AVE

EDWARDS AFB CA 93524

FA9301 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA9301-13-R-0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of this amendment is to correct erroneous language in provision 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commerical Items paragraph 5(e). See below:

(e) Recent and Current Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent or current. Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Recent/current contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of the last amendment to this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one year from the date of issuance of the last amendment to this solicitation). Past performance information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

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) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated.

(b) The government will evaluate an offeror’s Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan and Government Property Plan and on a Technically Acceptable/Technically Unacceptable basis.

See 52.212-2 Addendum.

(c) 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). If, after award, the contract is extended in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, then the contract price for the extension will equal the last option year’s pricing.

(d) 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.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive selection in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price.

By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical submissions and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. Price: Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price (low to high), including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each.

3. Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan: Next, the government will evaluate that the contractor adequately addressed plan elements as outlined in paragraph 3 of the plan template in Attachment 6 of this document. If the plan is found technically unacceptable, proposal evaluation stops and the government will begin evaluating the proposal of the next, higher-priced offeror.

4.. Government Property Plan: Next, the offeror’s Government Property Plan (PP) will be evaluated. Offerors must illustrate that their overarching property management procedures will meet the government-desired outcomes outlined in FAR 52.245-1, paragraph f. The PP will be Technically Acceptable if it adequately addresses the requirements of FAR 52.245-1 paragraph f and does not simply parrot-back or copy FAR language. If the plan is found technically unacceptable, proposal evaluation stops and the government will begin evaluating the proposal of the next, higher-priced offeror

5. Past Performance Assessment Methodology:

(a) Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes present/past performance of efforts involving Base Supply Services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than this solicitation requires. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating.

(b) With respect to Predecessor Companies, Prior Teaming or Joint Venture Arrangements, Key Personnel, or Major Subcontractors the relevancy consideration will review the relation of this past performance information to the Edwards PWS. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. However, teaming partner’s and major subcontractor’s relevant experience will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. If key personnel are proposed the relevancy will also review the duties which relate to the PWS tasks they will perform on the awarded Edwards AFB contract. Moreover as to any proposed Major Subcontractor/Teaming Partner in addition to having to propose to meet the relevancy floor of 20 percent of the cost of the awarded contract of the major subcontractor/teaming partner, the offeror must also spell out the PWS tasks by paragraph citation that the Partner will be performing on the awarded Edwards contract. Partner past performance will only be evaluated for the tasks the Partner will be performing on the awarded Edwards contract.

(c) Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

(d) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below.

(e) Recent and Current Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent or current. Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Recent/current contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of the solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one year from the date of issuance of the solicitation). Past performance information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated.

(f) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all current or recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the Base Supply Services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the Edwards AFB requirement. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are considered to be of the type that are similar in scope;

magnitude/complexity; contract type, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the

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

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

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.

aforementioned considerations. 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 whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The relevancy considerations in descending order of importance are as follows:

i. Scope

ii. Magnitude/Complexity

iii. Contract Environment

iv. Contract Type

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing current or recent, and relevant contracts:

Table 1 – Relevancy Definitions Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Scope (Reference Performance Work Statement (PWS))

Responsible for Supply Services where performance is essentially the same as or greater than tasks as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for Supply Services where the performance involved tasks which were very similar to those outlined in the

PWS

Responsible for Supply Services where performance involved some similar tasks outlined in the PWS

Magnitude / Complexity

Responsible for Supply Services with a workload the same as or greater than the historical workload as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for Supply Services with a workload similar to the historical workload as outlined in the

PWS

Responsible for Supply Services with a workload somewhat less than historical workloads as outlined in the

PWS

Contract Environment Contract performance on an Air Force installation

Contract performance on a DoD installation

Contract performance at any other U.S. location.

Contract Type Performance under a DoD Firm-Fixed Price Contract

Performance under a Fixed Price Contract

Any other contract type other than Fixed Price

6. Performance Quality Assessment:

(a) The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent or current. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, the references provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

(b) 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 solicitation.

(c) If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, 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 offerors.

(d) If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. This integrated assessment best value decision could mean that the government decides to award to a more affordable lowest-priced offeror judged to have a performance assessment rating of “Satisfactory Confidence.” The government could also award to the lowest-priced “Satisfactory Confidence” offeror if no offeror receives a performance rating of “Substantial Confidence.”

(e) Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and 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 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.

(f) The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(End Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation)

(End of Summary of Changes)