HE1254-17-R-0008_Amendment_0004.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 update the "Fail" definition for Criteria 2 in the ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2. The change is highlighted.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-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-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Apr-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 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

10-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-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

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 one or more Requirements contracts on a best value basis 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 for the course being proposed using the same evaluation criteria applied to offers proposed on an “all or none” basis. It is again stipulated that in the event separate awards are made, any resultant contract will encompass all DoDEA locations.

C. The Government will apply a hybrid, tiered best value approach, first applying the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable process to evaluate a technical capability “technology” 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 four criteria:

Technology Requirements, Menu/School of Offerings, Accreditation, and Universal Design Principles. Proposals that fail any of these factors will be removed from further consideration for award.

Criteria 1—Technology Requirements, per SOW 4.0

Pass: The Offeror’s technology components meet the Technical Requirements criteria listed in the statement of work, including the ability to host courses or for courses to be hosted on DoDEA’s virtual learning environment (VLE).

Fail: The Offeror’s technology components do not meet DoDEA’s technology requirements.

Criteria 2—Menu/Schedule of Offerings

Pass: The Offeror provides online course offerings that have rolling start and end dates as shown below:

Categories Course Availability School Year Aug 1-June 30*

Summer School Jun 1- Aug 31*

* DoDEA school start and end dates vary by location.

Dates are approximate and will vary slightly from year to year.

Fail: The Offeror does not provide an array of comprehensive online course offerings that have rolling start and end dates as shown below above.

Criteria 3—Accreditation

Pass: The Offeror self-certifies it is accredited by a nationally recognized high school accreditation organization such as AdvancED, North Central Association, Middle States Association, Southern Association, Western Association, Northwest Association, or New England Association.

Fail: The Offeror does not self-certify it is accredited by a nationally recognized high school accreditation organization.

Criteria 4—Universal Design Principles

Pass: The Offeror self-certifies that its courses meet universal design principles as specified by Section 508

(www.Section508.gov) and the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) guidelines (www.w3.org) to ensure access for all students. All software—stand-alone, network or web-based—must be Section 508 compliant.

Fail: The Offeror does not self-certify that its courses meet universal design principles as specified above.

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 & Sub-factors) 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 CAPABILITY

This factor is the most important non-price related factor. The Government will use a combined technical/risk rating scale to evaluate offeror’s proposed online courses and related services for an understanding of and adherence to the Specifications and Statement of Work (SOW).

Ratings for Factor 1: Technical Capability

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: Overall 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 for each course. 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, but price will not be assigned a rating:

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.

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.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)