22R2001_SOL_SF30_Amend2.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:

1. Attachments in Attachment List

2. Evaluation Factors: Factor 3: Price in 52.212-2.

3. Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 3.4.4

4. Add Attachment X11, Industry Day Pow erPoint Presentation

5. Add Attachment X12, Questions and Answ ers

6. Attachment X3, Vehicles

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Feb-2022

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 HE125422R2001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-2022

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 1 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

15-Feb-2022

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:

HE125422R2001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

Addendum to Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) is changed to read as follows:

Phase I Draft Submission of Offers.

The Government will use Attachment X9 “Proposal Checklist” to evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s proposal.

The Administrative Cover Letter, SF1449, any applicable SF30, and Volumes I, II, and IV will be evaluated in accordance with “Phase II Submission of Offers.” Volume III “Price” will be evaluated to in “Phase I Draft Submission of Offers” to demonstrate the contractor’s understanding of the submission process. Instead of providing final proposed pricing, the Offeror shall provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate using Attachment X5 “Price”. The ROM is not final pricing, it is a rough estimate of probable pricing based on the Phase I draft proposal. The ROM will not be used to evaluate the contractor in any way. Instead, the purpose of phase I draft proposal is to identify if there are any formula errors or missing in content. The pricing evaluation will occur in “Phase II Submission of Offerors”.

NOTE: A technical evaluation will not be completed at this time. This is only to complete an inventory of your proposal.

There will be no elimination of Offerors in Phase I. All Offerors will receive a copy of Attachment X9 “Proposal Checklist” for their own evaluated Phase I Draft Submission in order to address any deficiencies identified prior to moving to Phase II.

Phase II Submission of Offers.

Offerors shall submit a proposal for Landstuhl Daily Commute (DC) services. The Government will evaluate complete proposals and award a single contract to the Offeror proposing the best value offer to the Government.

This acquisition will be conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 15. The Government anticipates awarding one (1) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to all the requirements of the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government in accordance with the Tradeoff process outlined in FAR Subpart 15.101-1 and the three (3) Factors for award listed in this addendum. In addition, any potential awardee will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with requirements of FAR Part 9.

By submission of its proposal, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unacceptable for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale for the Government’s consideration.

To make the best value award decision, the Government will evaluate the following three (3) Factors and associated Subfactors for each proposal using the Tradeoff process defined in FAR 15.101-1;

1. Factor 1-Technical Capability Subfactor 1 – Student Transportation Services (STS)

Subfactor 1a. Daily Commute Proposed Route Schedules

Subfactor 1b. Personnel

Subfactor 1c. Vehicles

Subfactor 2 – Risk Assessment

2. Factor 2-Past Performance

3. Factor 3-Price

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Technical Capability (Factor 1) is of equal importance as Past Performance (Factor 2). Technical Capability (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2), when combined, are more important than Price (Factor 3). All Technical Capability (Factor 1) Subfactors are of equal importance. The compete evaluation criteria is outlined below:

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate Technical Capability (Factor 1) using the Technical Capability Subfactors which are all of equal importance.

The Government will evaluate the following Subfactors as follows:

Subfactor 1 – Student Transportation Services (STS)

Subfactor 1a. Daily Commute Proposed Route Schedules

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed route schedule as completed under Attachment X1 “Routes” to ensure it will meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 1).

To receive an acceptable rating, the Offeror’s proposed routes must (at a minimum) meet the following criteria:

Attachment X1 “Price” is complete;

Maps are provided for each proposed route (PWS paragraph 2.1.11.1.2);

All stops identified in Attachment X7 “Estimated Stops” are incorporated into the proposal (PWS paragraph 2.1.10);

Time to run the route from first stop to last stop is identified (PWS paragraph 2.1.10.1.1) (If the route exceeds one (1) hour, an explanation must be provided within the route sheet);

The timeliness of stops is identified (PWS paragraph 2.1.10.1.2);

Pass the security screening of the route (PWS paragraph 2.1.10.1.3); and Identify the number of students on route.

Any area identified above that is not addressed will automatically be given a deficiency.

If a contractor has one or more deficiencies in their rating for their Phase II proposal, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range may be given the opportunity to address any deficiency, in accordance with FAR Part 15.

The Government will evaluate the ability of the Offeror to meet the aforementioned minimum requirements. The Routes must be clear, executable, meet the minimum requirements of the PWS, and pass the Government’s local security screening during time of evaluation. Evaluators will be using the proposed routes, maps, and other proposed information provided by the Offeror to determine if the proposal is executable based on current standards.

The Government will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for this subfactor.

NOTE: Proposed routes will be incorporated into the contract and will be used at time of award. Any updates to the proposed routes and/or bus stops shall be completed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.11 of the PWS.

Subfactor 1b. Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s completed Attachment X2 “Personnel” to ensure it will meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 1).

To receive an acceptable rating, the Offeror’s proposal must (at a minimum) meet the following criteria:

Attachment X2 “Personnel” is complete;

Propose any current qualified Drivers, Bus Monitors, and a Contract Mangers that are planned for use on this contract on Personnel List tab in Attachment X2, and to complete the proposed routes for Daily Commute (PWS paragraph 3.4);

Propose a Personnel Action Plan for Prime and each Subcontractor under Attachment X2 “Estimated Stops” that fully addresses any potential issues with obtaining personnel;

The Personnel Action Plan must answer how the Offeror will:

o Obtain enough qualified Drivers, Bus Monitors, and a Contract Manger to complete the proposed routes.

o Retain enough qualified Drivers, Bus Monitors, and a Contract Manger to complete the proposed routes.

NOTE: Under the Personnel Action Plan each section shall use up to, but not exceed, 500 words to address the points listed above. If a section exceeds 500 words, the government evaluator will only evaluate the first 500 words.

Any area identified above that is not addressed will automatically be given a deficiency.

If a contractor has one or more deficiencies in their rating, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range may be given the opportunity to address any deficiency.

The Government will determine:

1. If the following minimum criteria were met for all proposed personnel:

Drivers Minimum age requirement (as per Host Nation requirement) Speaks, reads, and writes in Host Nation language Appropriate Driver’s License Class

Bus Monitors Minimum age requirement (PWS 3.4) Speaks, reads, and writes in the English language

Contract Manager Speaks, reads, and writes in both Host Nation and English language

2. The additional credentials listed below may be considered strengths by the Government.

If Drivers Speak or Write in English If Bus Monitors Speak or Write in German Required training is completed per PWS Holds Installation Access from previous contracts Background check complete

NOTE: An Offeror will not be negatively rated for not having the additional credentials listed above.

3. The technical evaluator will assess if the total number of technically acceptable personnel listed on Attachment X2 “Personnel” plus the total number of personnel proposed on the Action Plan are sufficient to cover the daily commute routes proposed by the Offeror.

NOTE: If the total number of technically acceptable personnel proposed plus the total number of proposed personnel from the Action Plan do not equate with the appropriate number of personnel necessary to complete the Offeror’s proposed daily commute routes and additional Curricular/Co-Curricular routes, the contractor will be given a deficiency.

If a contractor has one or more deficiencies in their rating, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range

Subfactor 1c. Vehicles

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Vehicle List as completed under Attachment X3 “Vehicles” to ensure it will best meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 1).

To receive an acceptable rating, the Offeror’s proposal must (at a minimum) meet the following criteria:

Attachment X3 “Vehicles” is complete;

Vehicles are technically acceptable to complete the proposed routes for Daily Commute in

Attachment X3 “Vehicles” (PWS paragraph 3.3);

Vehicle Action Plan under Attachment X3 “Vehicles” that fully addresses any potential issues with obtaining vehicles;

The Vehicle Action Plan must include:

How the Offeror will obtain enough technically acceptable vehicles;

How the Offeror will retain enough technically acceptable vehicles and;

Vehicle’s mandatory specifications are listed in Attachment X3 “Vehicles”.

Vehicle Specification Form is complete.

The Vehicle Specification Form must answer the list below for each specification listed by the

Offeror in Attachment X8.

o Name of product;

o Description;

o When will it be used and;

o Will the Government have Access to it?

NOTE: Under the Vehicle Action Plan each section shall use up to, but not exceed, 500 words to address the points listed above. If a section exceeds 500 words, the government evaluator will only evaluate the first 500 words.

In Attachment X3 “Vehicles” a cell with an asterisk (*) identifies specifications that are a current minimum requirement(s) of the PWS. Blank cells are not required to be completed unless the Offeror wishes to include any of the additional specifications. The Government will evaluate any offeror identified additional specifications to determine if the offeror’s proposal adds any additional value to the requirements of the PWS.

NOTE: Any specifications proposed that are not within the original requirements of the PWS but are considered an additional value by the Government will be added to the PWS prior to award.

Any area identified above that is not addressed will automatically be given a deficiency.

If a contractor has one or more deficiencies in their rating, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range

Subfactor 2 - Risk Assessment

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Risk Action Plan as completed under Attachment X4 “Risk” to ensure the Offeror’s ability to best meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 1).

To receive an acceptable rating, the Offeror’s proposal must (at a minimum) meet the following criteria:

Complete Attachment X4 “Risk” which identifies each potential problem below:

o Driver Shortage o Back up Vehicles o Fuel Costs o Labor Union Demands o Unforeseen Pandemic Restrictions

Each Risk Action Plan must include:

o The potential problem;

o The impact of the problem;

o Action Plan to address the problem;

o A timeline for execution of the Action Plan;

o Any risks associated with the offerors proposed Action Plan.

NOTE: Under the Action Plans each section shall use up to, but not exceed, 500 words to address the points listed above. If a section exceeds 500 words, the government evaluator will only evaluate the first 500 words.

Any area identified above that is not addressed will automatically be given a deficiency.

If a contractor has one or more deficiencies in their rating, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range

The Technical Capability Factor and all Subfactors will be rated in accordance with the following Adjective Rating Method:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Adjectival 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 un-awardable.

A rating of “Unacceptable” or “Marginal” for any Subfactor will result in the proposal being deemed Technically Unacceptable and not being eligible for contract award.

Factor 2: Past Performance. In assessing the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, evaluation of past performance will result in Past Performance Recency, Relevancy, and Overall Ratings as follows:

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent according to the following:

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Recent The effort must be ongoing or must have been completed within the last three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

Not Recent The effort has been completed for more than three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s assessment of relevancy. To be relevant, the Offeror must demonstrate that their performance involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevancy will be rated in accordance with the following Rating method:

Past Performance Relevancy

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 similar work of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Overall Rating. The past performance evaluation is a comparative assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The Government will review the information collected, to include, but not limited to the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3, to determine the quality of the Offeror’s overall record of recent and relevant past performance. Past Performance Confidence assessment will be based on the following Rating method:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

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.

Neutral 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

In addition to past performance information submitted by the Offeror and Questionnaires completed for the Offeror, past performance information may be obtained from CPARS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the government.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those individual contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. The Government also reserves the right to give greater consideration to an individual Offeror’s past performance information rather than the combined past performance information of an Offeror and its associates using teaming arrangements.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a past performance rating cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor.

However, the Government reserve the right to make a determination that a “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

If the Government chooses to conduct negotiations, Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information not previously addressed. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information which supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

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

Factor 3: Price. This factor will not be assigned a rating. However, the Offeror’s proposal, using Attachment X5, will be evaluated for Price Reasonableness to determine if prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with the techniques and procedures stated in FAR Subpart15.404-1.

Colleen.Pritchard Highlight

In addition, the Government reserves the right to conduct a Price Realism analysis to determine whether a low-price was offered due to a lack of technical understanding, or to assess the inherent risk of the Offeror’s low-priced proposal. If the Price Realism analysis reveals that the low-priced offer was caused by a lack of technical understanding or the inherent risk of the low-priced offer is deemed too great, a proposal can be rejected.

(b) Addendum to Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) is changed to read as follows

Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base period. The Offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods. 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).

To account for the option period(s) possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum six months) Option to Extend Services, the Government has provided a table within Attachment X5, labeled “FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.”

The Offeror shall provide a Unit Price for each CLIN Description. If the Government has to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8, then the Government will use the rate given for the last year performance was completed.

(End of FAR 52.212-2 Addendum)

(End of Summary of Changes)

Colleen.Pritchard Highlight