Amendment 1.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

Incorporate section M in its entirety to allow for further undestanding of the evaluation factors. The closing date for the solicitation remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Sep-2012

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 HE1260-12-R-0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Aug-2012

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

05-Sep-2012

CODE

DODEA-PACIFIC - PROCUREMENT DIVISION

MR. EDDIE TAVARES

UNIT 35007

APO AP 96376-5007

HE1260 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HE1260-12-R-0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been added by full text:

EVALUATION

1. FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD*

An award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to represent the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factor is more important than Past Performance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price (FAR 15.101-1). To receive consideration for award, an offeror must obtain a rating no lower than of “Acceptable” for Technical. Since the trade-off process will be used, the lowest price offered will not necessarily represent the best value to the Government.

*Further, award will be based on an all or none approach; i.e., the offerors shall be required to propose on both locations (Camp Humphreys, and Area I/Camp Casey), to be considered for award.*

The overall evaluation criteria for this solicitation and their relative importance in reaching an award decision are as follows:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

All Sub-factors listed below are of equal importance to each other. The elements within all sub-factors serve only to further describe the sub-factors and are not ranked in any particular order of importance.

1. Sub-factor one (1) – Technical Capabilities: Offerors shall be evaluated on their understanding of the magnitude and complexity as it applies to the requirement.

Offerors shall be evaluated on their response to each of the following elements:

a. Element – Narrative approach: Offerors shall be evaluated on the completeness of their concept and approach to address how the work will be performed in order to meet all requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW). The narrative must tell the story of who, what, where and how the work will be performed. It should describe processes, resources, manpower, schedules that are proposed to ensure that all requirements in the SOW are properly performed to the standards required by the Government with the goal of maximum reliability and functionality of services. Include any proposed innovative features that may add value for the Government.

b. Element – Quality Control Plan (QCP): Offerors shall be evaluated on how well their Quality Control Plan demonstrates an effective bus services transportation system to maintain the level of performance required by the SOW. The QCP should clearly demonstrate how the offeror will maintain the quality of services and recognize and correct problems before they become systemic. A reiteration of the solicitation requirements is not acceptable. The QCP shall discuss the Offeror’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the contract requirements and its methods of documenting and enforcing quality control procedures.

2. Sub-factor two (2) - Prior Experience: The Offeror shall present evidence of having previously performed similar services to those outlined in the SOW, and the ability to operate in the areas of performance under the SOW:

a. Element – Experience with similar requirements: The Offeror shall be evaluated based on the evidence provided that denotes their experience in comparable transportation support operations described with the RFP.

b. Element – Experience with foreign labor laws applicable to the areas of performance under the SOW: The Offeror shall be evaluated based on the evidence provided that denotes their understanding of foreign labor laws. It shall be the offeror’s sole responsibility to abide by all required labor laws within the areas of operation under the requirement. Abiding by such laws shall be transparent to the Government and shall not affect performance under the requirement.

The following technical/risk factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Past performance analysis provides insight into an offeror’s probability of successfully completing the requirements based on the offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts. Therefore, the Offeror’s expected performance will be rated in terms of performance risk.

A performance risk rating will be assigned dependent upon the Government’s assessment of the level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in offeror’s past performance shall also be considered.

b. Past Performance will be evaluated in terms of current and past contract performance, to determine the degree to which an Offeror satisfactorily performed services and satisfied its customers. Past Performance Questionnaires, shall be received by the Government directly from the offeror or offerors’ clients prior to the closing of the RFP.

The information presented in the Offeror’s questionnaires, together with information from other sources available to the Government, e.g.: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be the basis of evaluation for this factor. The Government may also use any and all available sources that allow for an accurate assessment of an offeror’s past performance record.

c. In the event that an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a neutral risk rating will be assessed. In this event the offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

d. 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.

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

f. The following definitions below will be used in evaluating the level of risk associated with the

Offeror’s ability to satisfactorily perform the required services based on the past and current performance records. The lower the risk the greater the chance that the contractor will perform the services in a satisfactory manner:

(Factor 2)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

g. In addition the Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as shown below:.

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 (Neutral) 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.

FACTOR 3 –PRICE

1. Element – All CLINS and SubCLINS must be completely and reasonably priced in accordance with the RFP. Price Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and price reasonableness.

a. Each Price Proposal will be evaluated by performing a Price analysis, which is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.

b. The Government may utilize the proposal analysis techniques and procedures as defined in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable pricing. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

Options: During price evaluations the Government will add 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).

2. EVALUATION PROCESS

a. Award without discussions:

Upon conclusion of the evaluation of all accepted proposals the Government may decide to make an award without discussions. At that point the evaluation process would come to an end and the Government shall notify the awardee and the subsequent unsuccessful offerors.

b. Award with discussions:

Upon conclusion of the evaluation of all accepted proposals the Government may establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. At this point offerors in the competitive range will be notified of their inclusion and of the opening of the discussion period. At the same time, those not in the competitive range shall be notified of their exclusion.

If an offerors proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered.

At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Government is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for FPR’s shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

Offers are to be aware that the competitive range can be limited for purposes of efficiency. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.

2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)).

(End of Summary of Changes)