A0001(Guide).pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions ofthe 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 A0001 is to incorporate changes to the solicitation and provide responses to questions from prospective offerors.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jul-2009

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 HE1254-09-R-0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jun-2009

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 ofOffer 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 ofthe following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies ofthe amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt ofthis amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegramwhich 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. Ifby virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegramor letter, provided each telegramor 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.(Ifapplicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Jul-2009

CODE

DOD EDUCATION ACTIVITY

ATTN: PROCUREMENT DIVISION

4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1635

HE1254 7. ADMINISTERED BY (Ifother than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HE1254-09-R-0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTRACT FORM

CLIN 0003

The CLIN description has changed from Web Design Development to Hypertext Mark-up Language

(scripting).

SECTION III - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - (Jan 2005)(FAR 52.212-1)(TAILORED)

1. Proposal Preparation: Fill out Standard Form (SF) 1449 Supplies/Services without deviation.

Offerors' proposal submissions shall include:

a. Signed copy of the SF1449, with blocks 17 and 30 completed.

b. Price. Price proposals shall reflect per unit pricing by CLIN. A price must be entered for each

CLIN.

c. Completed Certifications and Representations: FAR Clauses 52.212-3 and DFARS Clause 252.212- 7000.

2. Submission Instructions:

a. The original copy and one copy of the completed solicitation package as required by block 28 of the solicitation

b. Four copies of your written technical proposal as described in Attachment A, paragraph 3.3

c. Resumes for key personnel as described in Attachment A, paragraph 3.3

d. Two to three samples of printed materials on K-12 educaton in the United States as described in

Attachment A, paragraph, 3.2.1

e. Three to five past performance as described in Attachment A, paragraph 3.4 shall be received not later than July 30, 2009 at 2:00PM, Eastern Standard Time (EST) at the following address:

DoDEA Procurement Division 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, 4th Floor ATTN: Summerlin Walker Arlington, VA 22203-1635

3. Formal Communications:

a) Formal communications such as requests for clarifications and/or information concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing by fax (703) 588-3713 or e-mail to Summerlin Walker, Contract Specialist at Summerlin.Walker@hq.dodea.edu.

b) No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided in response to telephone calls. Inquiries will be answered and provided to all potential offerors via amendment to the solicitation.

c) No inquiries will be considered if received more than twenty (20) calendar days after the issue date of this solicitation.

(End of Addendum)

SECTION V - PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENT A

Evaluation Factors and Criteria

1.0 PASS-FAIL CRITERIA

1.1 508 Compliance

Pass: The Offeror self certifies that products developed for DoDEA will be fully 508 compliant.

Fail: The Offeror does not self certify that its products developed for DoDEA will be fully 508 compliant.

2.0 EVAULATION FACTORS

3.1 Criteria for Factor 1—Technical

3.2 Factor 1 shall be evaluated by the TEB members’ assessment of each Offeror’s written proposal and sample materials. The written proposal is considered more important than the samples provided.

3.3 Sub-factor 1: Written Proposal—The Offeror’s written technical proposal shall:

Describe how it will satisfy the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in paragraph 4 and 5.

Describe its experience, as it relates to the statement of work, in developing content, providing materials in a HTML format, and producing/shipping printed materials and CD-ROMs.

Present a 3-4 page plan that outlines the approach the Offeror proposes to ensure that the guide contains accurate and up-to-date K-12 educational information and fosters a deeper understanding of the educational areas to the stakeholders: military leadership, school leadership, and parents. The plan should also explain the Offeror’s approach to including pictures and graphics.

Provide a 1-2 page resume for both the key K-12 educational content expert and the key technical expert, showing their experience as it relates to this project.

3.2.1 Sub-factor 2: Content and Design: The Offeror shall provide 2-3 samples of printed materials on K-12 education in the United States. Each sample’s content and design will be evaluated.

The samples are written in a clear and concise style.

At least one sample is written for laymen, explaining educational topics, such as No Child Left Behind or Adequate Yearly Progress, in easy to understand language.

The samples have colorful, easy-to-read visuals and graphs.

The samples are printed in an easy-to-read font size.

3.4 Criteria for Factor 2, Past Performance

3.4.1 Offerors shall submit 3-5 relevant past performance references vis-à-vis its work in content and design within the past three years. A questionnaire will be used to verify and evaluate the references against the following factors:

1. Quality of Product or Service – compliance with contract requirements, accuracy and relevancy of reports and data, appropriateness of personnel, technical expertise.

2. Customer Service – courteous interactions, satisfaction of end users with contractor’s service, initiative and proactive solutions, approaches and improvements.

3. Program Effectiveness – Evidence of the program’s effectiveness.

4. Overall Satisfaction – of performance, service, and training, if applicable.

3.5 Criteria for Factor 3, Price

3.5.1 The Price proposals will be evaluated to ensure price reasonableness for the services being provided to the Government, considering the specific terms and conditions and relevant commercial practices.

4.0 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

4.1 Factor 1 and Factor 2 are significantly more important than Factor 3.

5.0 RATING METHODS

5.1 Ratings for Factors 1: One of the following ratings will be assigned:

Exceptional: The proposal exceeds stated requirements, as reflected through an innovative, comprehensive, outstanding approach. The response is complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. The resumes of the key K-12 education content expert and technical expert indicate that highly qualified and experienced people will oversee the development of the guides. There is a high probability of success for standards-based teaching and/or learning and no risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. Minor weaknesses, if any, need not be corrected to make award.

Acceptable: The proposal meets the stated requirements. The response is considered complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. The resumes of the key K-12 education content expert and technical expert indicate that adequately qualified and experienced people will oversee the development of the guides. There is a reasonable probability of success for standards-based teaching and/or learning and little risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. Minor weaknesses, if any, may not need to be corrected to make award.

Unacceptable: The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements. The response is considered deficient in terms of basic content and support for standards-based teaching and/or learning the Government seeks for evaluation. The degree of risk is so high that there is little or no likelihood of success; regardless of price.

5.2 Ratings for Factor 2, Past Performance: One of the following ratings will be assigned:

Satisfactory: Indicates that the Offeror’s qualifications are at a level that would normally be expected in the commercial marketplace, for example, the Offeror demonstrates its experience in working with the US Department of Education. The Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the elements sufficiently. The past performance record represents that the Offeror is capable of adequately performing the requirement. This rating indicates a low level of performance risk to the Government.

Neutral: Indicates that the Offeror’s references could not be verified or that the Offeror lacks relevant past performance experience.

Unacceptable: Indicates that the Offeror has historically failed to perform in a satisfactory manner in the fulfillment of like or similar requirements. This rating indicates an unacceptable level of performance risk.

5.3 Evaluation of Factor 3, Price: Price proposals will be evaluated to ensure price reasonableness considering the specific terms and conditions and relevant commercial practices.

SECTION VII - EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

DoDEA Comprehensive Educational Guide

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

1. Question: When preparing materials for different user groups e.g., parents, school staff, and local education agencies we allocate time to get feedback from the different users on draft versions so that we can best create a meaningful and engaging piece/product for the intended user. We are concerned that with the delivery date of January 7, 2010 there is no time to share versions of the products with the users and thus will not be able to benefit from their critical feedback. Is there flexibility in the time line for delivery of product? If so, could the product be delivered in July of 2010?

Answer: No

2. Question: We observe that you request three specific products: a written guide, a CD ROM, and a web site. Given the nature of the content you wish to include in the guide are you planning to have the web site be interactive? We encourage this as it will allow us to maximize the utility of this tool to best serve the needs of users state by state.

Answer: No, CLIN 0003 is for the HTML format for the Comprehensive Educational Guide (scripting language) not the creation of a website. See 4.1.1 of the Performance Work Statement

3. Question: In the Performance Work Statement you ask us to provide explanations of “tests and assessments commonly given in K-12 public schools” as well as “how to interpret state report cards”.

Information in these areas varies widely from state to state. Are you interested in a guide that provides information at a national level or are you asking specifically for information state by state?

Answer: Both national and state by state levels are appropriate and necessary.

4. Question: What is the expected level of effort for this contract?

Answer: This is not a level of effort contract. The contractor is expected to provide a complete product that meets the governments’ requirements.

5. Question: How many copies of the proposal and samples should be delivered on July 30?

Answer: See Summary of Changes amended Submission Instructions paragraph 2.

6. Question: In light of changing education legislation in the coming years, most notably the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act currently reauthorized as No Child Left Behind, and the ever changing education landscape of resources and research, is the contractor expected to update the guide, CD Rom and Web site in the option years of the contract (thereby creating newer editions of the work), and propose appropriate pricing of such work accordingly? Or, is it the DoDEA’s intent to only ask for reprints in the option years of the original guide and CD Rom completed in the base year, and keep the Web site unchanged?

Answer: Reprints only in the option years for guide and CD-ROM.

7. Question: Is DoDEA open to using a content management system (CMS) for the Web site? If so, what technical platform, preferences or restrictions would govern which CMS the contractor could propose?

Answer: No

8. Question A: What is DoDEA’s expectations for the content of the CD-Rom? Is the CD-Rom to be a static, electronic version (a replication) of the printed guide; a replication of the Web site; and/or be a reflection of the guide and Web site in some new way?

Answer A: We would like for the CD-Rom to be a reflection of the guide.

Question B: Furthermore, is there a desire to include on the CD-Rom an interactive media piece using Flash?

Answer B: No

9. Question: Is the CD-Rom to be included as part of the book, such as in a combined package? Or is the CD-Rom to be a stand alone piece?

Answer: The CD-Rom is a stand alone component.

10. Question: Does the DoDEA envision any video elements in the CD-Rom or Web site? If so, would the DoDEA provide raw or edited video?

Answer: No

11. Question: Regarding the printing and shipping, is the cost of these expenses to be included in the price proposed by the contractor for the work, or will the DoDEA pay these costs directly and separately from the amount of the awarded contract price?

Answer: Price proposals shall reflect per unit pricing by CLIN which includes printing and shipping.

12. Question: Will the required face-to-face meetings take place in the Arlington, Virginia office or the Metter, Georgia office?

Answer: At DoDEA Headquarters in Arlington, VA.

13. Question: Can DoDEA provide any guidance as to its projected and expected cost for this work?

Answer: No, each offeror is requried to independently assess and determine the price of each CLIN proposed.

14. Question A: Given changing prices in the economy for paper and gas that factor into printing and shipping costs, as well as other changes that may impact the costs of production, is the contractor expected to propose the costs for printing and shipping provided in the option years, which are five years away from the date of the proposal submission?

Answer A: Yes, Question B: In its response, can the contractor provide an estimate of printing and shipping costs that are subject to confirmation closer to the date of production?

Answer B: No

15. Question: On page 26 of the RFP, under “I. Proposal Preparation, C. Completed Certifications and Representations”, DFARS Clause 252.212-7000 is referenced; however, this clause is not included in the RFP. Is this the correct clause that contractors should certify or was another clause intended, which is already included in the RFP?

Answer: Offerors are required to submit certifications in accordance with FAR Clause 52.212-3.

(End of Summary of Changes)