HE1254-17-R-0005_Amendment_0003.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 the follow ing:

1. Reopen the solicitation for one w eek. The new deadline to submit all materials is May 25, 2017 at 10:00AM ET.

2. Update the language in ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION, PART I for Criteria 2. Teacher print materials are no longer required.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-May-2017

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 HE1254-17-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Mar-2017

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 X 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

18-May-2017

CODE

DOD EDUCATION ACTIVITY

ATTN: PROCUREMENT DIVISION

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE

SUITE 05F09-02

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-1400

HE1254 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HE1254-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Apr-2017 10:00 AM to 25-May-2017 10:00 AM.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

Offerors who have already submitted a proposal in response to this solicitation do not have to resubmit their proposal however, these offerors are required to acknowledge this amendment by completing blocks 15a-c of the SF50 and submitting via email to Andrew.Christen@hq.dodea.edu and robin.castoldi@eu.dodea.edu before the new submission deadline.

The following have been modified:

SECTION 4B

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

I. BASIS FOR AWARD

A. The Government intends to award a single Requirements contract on an “all or none” best value basis to the responsive, responsible offeror, based upon application of the evaluation criteria listed herein. The Government may, at its discretion, make separate awards for the various courses within the solicitation; any such award must be deemed to be in the Government’s best interest. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 2.101, “Best value” is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

B. Proposals submitted for individual courses will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation criteria applied to offers proposed on an “all or none” basis. In the event separate that awards are made, any resultant contract for the category of course awarded will encompass all DoDEA locations.

C. In accordance with FAR 15.101, the Government will apply a hybrid, tiered best value approach, first applying the

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable process to evaluate the criteria as detailed in section II below, and then a tradeoff evaluation as described in section III below. The Government may determine the best value offer to be other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

II. EVALUATION CRITERIA – PART I

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.

Proposals will be evaluated using a hybrid, tiered evaluation approach.

First, the Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability on a pass/fail basis for two criteria: Criteria 1:

Copyright and Criteria 2: Comprehensive Music Curriculum Resources. Proposals that fail this evaluation will be removed from further consideration for award.

Criteria 1—Copyright: Offerors shall propose their most recently copyrighted curriculum resources, and the copyright date must be no earlier than 2014. The copyright requirement applies only to student and teacher materials (e.g., the student textbook, teacher’s editions, etc.). The copyright requirement does not apply to items included as part of the Contractor’s collection (that is, articles, assessments, pictures, problems included in a textbook or supplemental to the teacher or student text) but that were created by others prior to 2014. Offerors must agree that materials shall be available throughout the duration of the contract, and that their copyright dates shall remain current.

Criteria 2—Comprehensive Music Curriculum Resources: Offeror’s curriculum resources include student print materials and student and teacher digital materials.

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA – PART II

Next, the Government will evaluate proposals deemed technically acceptable for Part 1 following a Best Value Tradeoff approach. The evaluation criteria (Factors & Subfactors) and applicable rating standards and definitions for this acquisition are provided below: Technical Capability (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2). All non-price/-cost factors, when combined, are more important than Price (Factor 3). The Government reserves the right to eliminate from further consideration for award proposals rated lower than acceptable for technical capability.

A. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

This factor is the most important non-price related factor and is comprised of the two (2) subfactors listed below, which are of equal importance. The Government will use a combined technical/risk rating scale to evaluate offerors’ proposed curriculum materials and proposal for an understanding of and adherence to the Statement of Work to include, but not be limited to:

1. Subfactor 1: Curriculum Materials—The Offeror’s proposal and proposed curriculum resources for each course meet or exceed the requirements specified in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the following:

a. Chorus— per SOW section 3.1.

b. Guitar— per SOW section SOW 3.2.

c. Piano— per SOW section SOW 3.3.

d. String Ensemble— per SOW section SOW 3.4.

e. Music Appreciation— per SOW section SOW 3.5.

f. Performance Assessments— per SOW section SOW 3.6.

2. Subfactor 2: Professional Learning—The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal and web-based information to determine if the professional learning component provides an overview of the print and digital materials and meets DoDEA’s technical requirements described in SOW 3.7.

Ratings for Factor 1: Technical

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

B. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor is less important than the Technical Capability factor. The evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment of the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to successfully meet contract requirements, based on a demonstrated and relevant record of performance.

The following resources will be used for both relevancy and performance confidence assessment in determining how the offeror performed in current/past contracts:

1. Current and past contract performance, under contracts of a similar size, scope, and complexity, identified by the offeror in its proposal (Attachment 2);

2. Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires (Attachment 3) received; and

3. DoDEA may also use information obtained independently through a variety of public or private sources, e.g.:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

Ratings for Factor 2: Past Performance

1. Relevancy: The Government will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and experience within the last three years in providing similar work as anticipated under this solicitation. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation. Relevancy will be rated in accordance with the following Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

2. Performance Confidence: In conducting a performance and experience confidence assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings, the higher the offeror’s confidence assessment the greater chance that the offeror will perform the services in a satisfactory manner.

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.

3. The Government may reject a proposal if it is found that the offeror misrepresented or withheld any information that might have a negative impact on its past performance record.

4. Offerors will be informed and have the opportunity to address any adverse past performance information that they have not been able to previously address.

5. Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance will be rated “neutral” for the performance evaluation.

C. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

1. Price proposals will be evaluated by combining all CLIN items for the total award value over the entire potential contract period. In the event a mathematical error is discovered for any CLIN, the “Unit Price” provided shall govern in reaching the total extended amount. The following factors will be used to evaluate price:

a. Completeness: The price proposal will be evaluated on the completeness of the Pricing Schedule. There should be a complete and accurate reflection, within the price proposal, of all aspects of the technical proposal.

b. Balanced Pricing: Proposed prices will also be evaluated for balanced pricing, which will include a review to ensure that the price of one or more line items is not significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price for one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Note: The Government will not evaluate shipping prices prior to award. Instead a proxy shipping price will be applied to all offerors for the purpose of overall evaluated price. Actual shipping costs shall be separately negotiated as a firm fixed price CLIN under individual delivery orders (DO's). Prior to DO issuance the Government will request a shipping quote from the vendor and will use discretionary techniques detailed in the FAR to conduct a price analysis in order to determine price reasonableness. This analysis may include reviewing established catalog or current market prices for similar shipping services to determine that the price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the same or similar services, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from adequate price competition.

2. 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).

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

I. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Governments intent to award without discussions. Offerors are strongly advised to submit their most competitive offer at time of proposal submissions. In the event that an award(s) can be made without discussions the Government will request that the successful Offeror(s) submit sufficient evidence of responsibility for the Contracting Officer to make an affirmative determination of responsibility pursuant to the requirements of FAR 9.104-1.

A. Although the intent is to make award without discussions, the contracting officer (CO) reserves the right to enter into discussions if doing so is in the best interest of the Government. Should discussions occur, a competitive range will be established and discussions held at a time and place designated by the CO. If award is made without discussions, a competitive range will not be established.

B. Offerors are advised that the CO may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, and therefore may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. Proposals receiving an “Unacceptable” rating will not be included in the competitive range.

C. If the CO decides an offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from further consideration for award and the offeror promptly notified in writing. If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal will be accepted.

D. Once discussions have been concluded, each offeror (included in discussions) will be given an opportunity to submit a written Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a submission date established by the CO. FPR’s will be evaluated applying the same criteria used to evaluate initial proposal submissions.

E. After announcement of the competitive range and upon completion of discussions in accordance with FAR

Subpart15.3, a request for FPR’s will be issued to all offerors still within the competitive range. If, after discussions have begun, an offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated offerors being considered for award, that offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a FPR.

F. After Discussions the Government may request that the successful Offeror(s) submit sufficient evidence of responsibility for the CO to make an affirmative determination of responsibility pursuant to the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. This may include financial documentation, subcontractor agreements, etc.

Accordingly, Offerors should seriously address each element of responsibility.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)