Amendment_3.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

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to vendor questions, to clarify the NAICS code (FAR Provision 52.204-8), and to incorporate FAR clause 52.219-14. As a result of a vendor question, new CLIN 0003 has been added to the Base Period, and Solicitation Section M, Factor 4: Price, has been updated (changes highlighted in yellow ). All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Feb-2013

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 HQ0034-13-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jan-2013

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

11-Feb-2013

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

2521 SOUTH CLARK ST

ARLINGTON VA 22202-3909

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ0034-13-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

VENDOR Q&A

AMENDMENT 3

Vendor Questions and Answers

Q1: Work encompasses the maintenance of the lift net servers and workstations in the pentagon. How many workstations are present? (Performance Work Statement 3.1)

A1: Two (2) workstations are present.

Q2: The performance work statement (PWS) requires installation of new interfaces, operations and maintenance of lift-net vertical and horizontal transportation management system (hardware and software). However, there is no specific CLIN for this PWS requirement. Please clarify which CLIN is to be used to price this effort. (PWS 3.2)

A2: CLIN 0003, Lift-Net System Installation, has been added to the Base Period. This CLIN shall be used for the installation of the new interfaces; operation and maintenance shall be priced under the Monthly Preventive Maintenance CLINs for each year.

Q3: Please clarify if the work in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 3.3.1-4 should be part of 3.2 or does the RFP require the installation of fiber and electrical receptacles to all elevators/escalators under this contract.

(PWS 3.3.1-4)

A3: You are correct. This requirement should be part of 3.2 as far as the initial install. However, once the installation is complete, the contractor will be responsible to maintain them.

Q4: How old are the existing lift net system and servers/workstations? (PWS 3.5)

A4: Installation was completed in 2012.

Q5: What type of coverage is expected during special functions? (I.e. Mechanic and Helper?) Will the work be performed during standard hours? If so, are additional resources needed to cover the event beyond normal maintenance crews? (PWS 3.9)

A5: As stated on the PWS “Approximately 12 events occur per year for no more than 12 hours duration for each event”. Some of these events, such as the Integrated Support Test (ITS), are performed twice a year during weekends.

Q6: What is the current procedure for securing the escalators? How does the contractor secure the escalators to ensure they remain off through the weekend? Key deactivation or through the installation of a mechanical lock?

(PWS 3.11.2)

A6: Key activation.

Q7: Does the facility currently have a computerized tool utilized to perform the required testing or does the contractor utilize a tachometer to measure the speed? (PWS 3.11.4)

A7: The contractor is expected to provide its own tools, testing equipment, etc. as outlined in Paragraph 3.4 of the

PWS.

Q8: Please provide a list of inventoried parts currently on site. This would include any critical parts necessary to ensure unimpeded use of the vertical transportation system. (PWS 4.1.1-2)

A8: The government does not keep parts.

Q9: Who is responsible for inspecting the repairs and monthly PM work? (Government or Third Party) If third party, what are their qualifications? Who is responsible for the cost involved? (PWS 4.4.1)

A10: Please read “4. Preventive Maintenance (PM) Program” in its entirety for answers. The contractor will do the quality control (QC) and the Government will be responsible for the quality assurance (QA).

Q10: Request the most current copy of the Pentagon Reservation Spill Prevention and Response plan. (PWS 7)

A10: A copy shall be provided after contract award.

Q11: These sections reference paragraph 10.5. We were unable to locate paragraph 10.5 and assumed it means 9.5.

Can you please clarify? (PWS 9.3-4)

A11: Your assumption is correct.

Q12: All major repairs can be completed during non-duty hours. Does this mean all repairs need to be completed during non-duty hours? If no, are there any units that require repairs to be completed during non-duty hours? How many? (PWS 13.2)

A12: Refer to 17.3 for definitions. Major repairs can be completed during standard hours after 5 PM. However, with prior Contracting Officer Representative’s (COR’s) advanced coordination, the Contractor may complete major repairs during non-standard hours. The requirement applies to ALL the equipment under contract.

Q13: The performance based matrix references repair times for standard operating hours Emergency (1 hour) and Urgent Service (2 hours) calls differ from sections 9.3-5 which indicate a 24 hours. Please clarify. (21)

A13: There are no discrepancies between the performance matrix and 9.3 - 9.5 at all. The only reference to “24 hours” is for “Routine Service Calls” that shall be complete within 24 hours of the call, unless they become “Major Repairs” due to the magnitude of the work required.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0003 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0003 1 Job Lift-Net System Installation

FFP

The contractor shall provide all labor, materials and equipment to perform the Lift- Net system installation for elevators and escalators not yet connected to the Lift- Net network in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0003:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

Destination Government Destination Government

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item has been added to CLIN 0003:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

POP 01-MAY-2013 TO

30-APR-2014

N/A WHS/FSD/OPS/FFD/PENTAGON BLDG

MNT OFFICE

ANTONIO SANTIAGO

PENTAGON BUILDING MANAGEMENT

OFFICE

ROOM 2E1040 PENTAGON BUILDING

WASHINGTON DC 20301-1155

703-693-8084 FOB: Destination

HQ0015

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting NOV 2011

The following have been modified:

52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MAY 2012)

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 238290.

(2) The small business size standard is $14,000,000.00.

(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

(b)(1) If the clause at 52.204-99(dev) System for Award Management Registration (SAM), dated August 2012, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (d) of this provision applies.

(2) If the clause at 52.204-99 (dev) is not included in this solicitation, and the offeror is currently registered in SAM, and has completed the ORCA electronically, the offeror may choose to use paragraph (d) of this provision instead of completing the corresponding individual representations and certifications in the solicitation. The offeror shall indicate which option applies by checking one of the following boxes:

(x) Paragraph (d) applies.

( ) Paragraph (d) does not apply and the offeror has completed the individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.

(c)(1) The following representations or certifications in ORCA are applicable to this solicitation as indicated:

(i) 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination. This provision applies to solicitations when a firm-fixed-price contract or fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment is contemplated, unless--

(A) The acquisition is to be made under the simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13;

(B) The solicitation is a request for technical proposals under two-step sealed bidding procedures; or

(C) The solicitation is for utility services for which rates are set by law or regulation.

(ii) 52.203-11, Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions. This provision applies to solicitations expected to exceed $150,000.

(iii) 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification. This provision applies to solicitations that do not include the clause at 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration.

(iv) 52.204-5, Women-Owned Business (Other Than Small Business).This provision applies to solicitations that--

(A) Are not set aside for small business concerns;

(B) Exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; and

(C) Are for contracts that will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(v) 52.209-2, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations--Representation. This provision applies to solicitations using funds appropriated in fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2012.

(vi) 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters. This provision applies to solicitations where the contract value is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(vii) 52.223-5, Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information (May 2011) (E.O. 13423) (Applies to services performed on Federal facilities).

(viii) 52.215-6, Place of Performance. This provision applies to solicitations unless the place of performance is specified by the Government.

(ix) 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations (Basic & Alternate I). This provision applies to solicitations when the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(A) The basic provision applies when the solicitations are issued by other than DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.

(B) The provision with its Alternate I applies to solicitations issued by DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard.

(x) 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids. This provision applies to solicitations when contracting by sealed bidding and the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(xi) 52.222-22, Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports. This provision applies to solicitations that include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.

(xii) 52.222-25, Affirmative Action Compliance. This provision applies to solicitations, other than those for construction, when the solicitation includes the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.

(xiii) 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements. This provision applies to solicitations when it is anticipated the contract award will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and the contract is not for acquisition of commercial items.

(xiv) 52.223-1, Biobased Product Certification. This provision applies to solicitations that require the delivery or specify the use of USDA-designated items; or include the clause at 52.223-2, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts.

(xv) 52.223-4, Recovered Material Certification. This provision applies to solicitations that are for, or specify the use of, EPA-designated items.

(xvi) 52.225-2, Buy American Act Certificate. This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225- 1.

(xvii) 52.225-4, Buy American Act--Free Trade Agreements--Israeli Trade Act Certificate. (Basic, Alternates I, II, and III.) This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225-3.

(A) If the acquisition value is less than $25,000, the basic provision applies.

(B) If the acquisition value is $25,000 or more but is less than $50,000, the provision with its Alternate I applies.

(C) If the acquisition value is $50,000 or more but is less than $77,494, the provision with its Alternate II applies.

(D) If the acquisition value is $77,494 or more but is less than $100,000, the provision with its Alternate III applies.

(xviii) 52.225-6, Trade Agreements Certificate. This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225-5.

(xix) 52.225-20, Prohibition on Conducting Restricted Business Operations in Sudan--Certification. This provision applies to all solicitations.

(xx) 52.225-25, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Engaging in Sanctioned Activities Relating to Iran-- Representation and Certification. This provision applies to all solicitations.

(xxi) 52.226-2, Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution Representation. This provision applies to--

(A) Solicitations for research, studies, supplies, or services of the type normally acquired from higher educational institutions; and

(B) For DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard acquisitions, solicitations that contain the clause at 52.219-23, Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns.

(2) The following certifications are applicable as indicated by the Contracting Officer:

(Contracting Officer check as appropriate.)

(i) 52.219-22, Small Disadvantaged Business Status.

(A) Basic.

(B) Alternate I.

(ii) 52.222-18, Certification Regarding Knowledge of Child Labor for Listed End Products.

(iii) 52.222-48, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment Certification.

(iv) 52.222-52, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Certain Services–Certification.

(v) 52.223-9, with its Alternate I, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA–Designated Products (Alternate I only).

(vi) 52.227-6, Royalty Information.

(A) Basic.

(B) Alternate I.

(vii) 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

(d) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website accessed through https://www.acquisition.gov.

After reviewing the ORCA database information, the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph (c) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified below [offeror to insert changes, identifying change by clause number, title, date]. These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

FAR Clause Title Date Change

Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted on ORCA.

(End of provision)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M: Evaluation Factors

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best overall value to the Government when all non-price and price-related evaluation factors are considered. In selecting the best overall offer for award, the Government will consider the quality offered, which includes all non-price factors, based on the relative importance of the evaluation factors as stated in this solicitation. The relative quality of offers will be based upon the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of this solicitation and the risk of non-performance, defective performance or late performance under the resulting contract. The Government may award on the basis of a proposal with superior ratings even though it may result in a higher price to the Government. Price may become more important in the evaluation and award as the ratings under the non-price factors become more equal.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The offer must be practical in both technical approach and total price. Offers that are impractical in terms of technical approach or extremely low in price will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements and may not be considered for award. The ability of the offeror to perform all aspects of the anticipated contract from inception to completion will be considered as part of the overall evaluation.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f), Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2004), the Government may evaluate offers and award contract(s) without discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

To arrive at the best value decision, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) will evaluate the technical factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the submitted proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors established within the solicitation.

Award selection will be made in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 (c) and section M of the RFP.

In selecting the best overall offer, the following factors will be considered: Key Personnel (Pass/Fail), (1) management, (2) technical, (3) past performance, and (4) price to the Government. A “fail” under any key personnel position or an “unacceptable” under any factor or subfactor shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. Price will not be a numerically weighted factor in the evaluation of proposals and the importance of price does not bear a linear relationship to the importance of the technical proposal and past performance. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will depend upon the differences in evaluated technical quality and in past performance among offerors and, as stated above, will increase as the differences in technical, management and past performance decrease. The following evaluation factors will be used for this source selection:

Key Personnel: The Government will evaluate Section M: Key Personnel of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

Key Personnel: This factor will consider the relevant experience and ability of each key personnel member. Prospective offerors are required to provide resumes of personnel that meet or exceed the following certifications and work experience:

Project Manager Alternate Project Manager Project Manager and an Alternate Project Manager who will be responsible for the performance of the work shall have current elevators technician certifications issued by the state of Virginia and no less than five (5) years of certifiable experience in the management and supervision of the work under this contract or of similar nature. The appointed individuals shall have full authority to act on behalf of the Contractor on all contract matters relating to the daily operation of this contract and shall be designated in writing to the

CO.

Factor 1: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate Management Plan of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

Sub factor A –Organizational Structure

This management subfactor will consider the relevant experience and ability of the current management structure and organization and changes to the organization along with the operations for managing performance of the contract. Evaluation will consider the ability of the offeror to establish organizational controls and procedures to ensure a safe and hazard free work environment. Evaluation of this subfactor will also include an evaluation of major subcontractors’ management structure and their relevant experience, which is defined as work experience similar to the scope of this requirement and ability to perform the requirements of the proposed contract as well as the plan for obtaining and retaining key staff. Management commitment and proposed interaction with the COR should be defined in detail in this section.

Sub factor B – Quality Control Plan The offeror shall submit a quality control plan. This subfactor will consider the proposed quality control plan that will be used in the performance of this contract and how well the offeror demonstrates that it will meet the requirements of the PWS. Consideration shall be given to whether the offeror has achieved certification or whether it is pursuing certification to an internationally accepted and certified quality system and when certification to that system is anticipated.

Sub factor C – Ability of Organization to Respond to Problems Organizational structure’s ability to respond to rapidly emerging problems to include how the organization will evaluate problems and coordinate implementation of risk mitigation strategies to maintain performance, quality, and schedule.

Factor 1: Management Rating Scheme

The Technical Evaluation Panel will assign a single rating that most accurately describes the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 1 using the adjectival scheme below:

Rating Description Color

Outstanding (O) 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.

Blue

Good (G)

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.

Purple

Acceptable (A) 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.

Green

Marginal (M) 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.

Yellow

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.1.2.2. Methodology

Red

Factor 2: Technical

Sub factor A – Adequacy, Feasibility and Technical Merit The Government will evaluate Adequacy, Feasibility and Technical Merit of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

This technical evaluation subfactor will consider the adequacy, feasibility and technical merit of the Contractor’s method and approach for delivering preventive maintenance services to elevators, escalators and wheelchair lifts on the Pentagon Reservation and other NCR locations including the Contractor’s understanding of, and approach to, meeting overall requirements as described in the PWS.

Sub factor B – Proposed Methodology This technical evaluation subfactor will consider the offeror’s proposed methodology for meeting the performance requirements including the offeror’s and identified team member’s capabilities and skills.

Evaluation of this subfactor will also consider the offerors methodology for addressing the specific needs of the Pentagon and other DoD NCR facilities that are covered under this contract. Methodology includes the Offeror’s approach to conducting preventive maintenance services.

Subfactor C- Technical Experience and Capability This technical subfactor will consider the offeror’s and team member’s depth of experience and qualifications in delivering “industry standard/state-of-the-art” preventive maintenance services similar in scope and type as those specified. The Offeror must clearly demonstrate an understanding of IICRC and other standards that would be considered fundamental to the services requested. The availability of a local relationships to provide the enhanced services required to augment the contractor’s staff is considered an important factor in determining capability due to the potential need for additional staff under this contract.

Factor 2: Technical Rating Scheme:

The Technical Evaluation Panel will assign a single rating that most accurately describes the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 2 using the adjectival scheme below:

Rating Description Color

Outstanding (O) 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.

Blue

Good (G)

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.

Purple

Acceptable (A) 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.

Green

Marginal (M) 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.

Yellow

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Red

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its previous/or current, relevant** projects by using a combination of the following methods:

Relevance Schemes: The Past Performance Evaluation Panel will assign a relevance rating based on the offeror’s past performance information.

RELEVANCE RATING: The Government will evaluate the relevance of the offeror’s past performance prior to assessing the offeror’s confidence rating. This rating is a measure of how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Each project referenced in will be assigned one of the following ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its previous/or current, relevant** projects by using one or a combination of the following methods:

- Awardee search in FAPIIS and SAM- In accordance with Subpart 9.104-6 and FAR 9.405(d)(4)

- Contacting references as provided in Section M: Past Performance

- Provide references from 3-5 from similar experiences in the same capacity

- Review of information available from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor

Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Architect/Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and other commercial sources

- The Contracting Officer’s knowledge of the offeror’s past performance

- Interviews with other Government or commercial personnel contacts not provided by the offeror

** Relevant Project is defined as:

- A contract for elevator/escalator/wheel chair lift maintenance services;

- The minimum contract value is at least $300,000.00;

- The offeror must be the prime contractor;

- If the referenced contract has expired, the end date of the contract performance must have occurred within the last 60 months from the date of the proposal submission deadline;

- If the referenced contract is an active contract at the time of proposal submission, the start date of the contract performance must have occurred no less than 60 months from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated as part of the Government’s overall evaluation of best value.

At a minimum, this evaluation will take into account past performance information submitted as a part of each offeror’s proposal including information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The offeror’s performance as a prime contractor will be considered more relevant and be weighted more heavily in the overall past performance evaluation. For those offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating.

Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies.

Using the method as described in this section, the Government will assign a rating that indicates its degree of relevance in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the proposed contract requirements based on its performance on similar contracts in the past

Confidence Scheme: The Past Performance Evaluation Panel will assign a confidence rating based on the offeror’s past performance information.

CONFIDENCE RATING: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how confident the Government is based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence (SC) 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 (SAT) 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 (LC) 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 (NC) 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.

Using the method as described in this section, the Government will assign a rating that indicates its level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the proposed contract requirements based on its performance on similar contracts in the past.

Factor 4: Price

Price analysis will be performed for sections A, B, and C below to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness may be based on one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1 including, without limitation, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and/or comparison to other offers. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For evaluation purposes, the total price to be evaluated will be the total price for preventative maintenance (Part A below), the total price for Lift-Net system installation (Part B below), and the sample tasks 1 and 2 (Part C below).

The offeror’s proposed approach must be consistent with the price proposal. As part of the price evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing including unbalancing in the Schedule of Prices. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

For the purposes of price evaluation, the phrase "all option periods" in this section is inclusive of a potential six month extension of services under FAR clause 52.217-8. Option Period IV pricing will be utilized for the evaluation of the six month extension. However, in the event that the Government wishes to invoke FAR clause 52.217-8, during any year of the resultant contract, the rates that will be used for the extension are the rates applicable to that current year and the extension shall not exceed six months in total length.

A. Price Analysis for Monthly Preventive Maintenance for Elevators, Escalators and Wheel Chair Lifts

The Offeror’s Price shall be analyzed by the offeror providing a monthly rate for all PM Services, to include minor repairs (at or below $2,000.00), for the base year and all option periods.

B. Price Analysis for Lift-Net System Installation

The Offeror’s Price shall be analyzed by the offeror providing a single price for the installation of Lift-Net to the remaining 29 elevators and escalators, for the base period.

C. Price Analysis for Major Repair (repairs at or above $2,000.01) Task Orders using RS Means©:

Price, in terms of Major Repair Task Orders will be the offeror’s coefficients. These coefficients establish competitive cost adjustments, or multipliers, to the R.S. Means pricing structure or non-prepriced items for various projects to be anticipated under this contract.

Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal for scheduled restoration services. For the purpose of performing price analysis, two sample prices for the base period and each option year as referenced in Attachment JB-1 will be calculated using the offeror’s proposed coefficients as applied to the sample tasks 1 and 2 below. The evaluated price will be the total price for sample tasks 1 and 2 for the base and option periods.

Sample Task Price #1: RS Means: The first evaluated price will be the calculated price based on the offeror’s coefficients for a project consisting of R.S. Mean items that total $190,000 and non-prepriced items that total $10,000. This project is a major repair project that will be performed during standard hours that does not have special security requirements. Calculation will be performed by applying the offeror’s coefficients for the base period and all option periods. The evaluated price will be the sum of prices from the base period and all option periods.

Sample Task Price #2: RS Means: The second evaluated price will be the calculated price based on the offeror’s coefficients for a project consisting of R.S. Mean items that total $190,000 and non-prepriced items that total $10,000. This project is a major repair project that will be performed during non-standard hours that have special security requirements. Calculation will be performed by applying the offeror’s coefficients for the base period and all option periods. The evaluated price will be the sum of prices from the base period and all option periods.

Factor 4 Price Rating Scheme

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Price will be evaluated on basis of the total evaluated prices for:

1. Monthly PM, to include all minor repairs at or below $2,000.00 (Part A above);

2. Lift-Net system installation (Part B above); and

3. The two (2) R.S. Means Sample major repair projects at or above $2,000.01.

(Part C above).

The total price evaluated will be the yearly price of the monthly PM, the Lift-Net system installation, and the two R.S. Means major repair projects combined for the base and all option years.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS

Within Factor 1, sub factors A, B, C are of equal importance.

Within Factor 2, sub factors A, B, C are of equal importance.

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Factors 1 and 2 combined are more important than Factor 3. Factor 4 is less important than Factor 3.

When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

(End of Summary of Changes)