HQ00349R007300002.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 Amendment 0002 is to update Section M-4(b) all other terms and conditions remains the same

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jul-2019

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 HQ003419R0073

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Jul-2019

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

26-Jul-2019

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-0002

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003419R0073

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Criteria:

Authority: This solicitation is entered into under the authority of 10 USC 2304 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.1 Acquisition of Commercial Items – General and FAR Part 15—Contracting by Negotiation.

M-1 Basis for Award: The Government will make a single award IDIQ type contract resulting from this solicitation, to the responsible 8(a) firm whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best overall value to the Government when all non-price and price-related evaluation factors are considered. 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. The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals or to make an award to other than the lowest priced proposal. The Government also reserves the right to award a contract based upon initial proposals.

Pursuant to FAR 52.212-1(g), Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (JUL 2016), the Government may evaluate offers and award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determined it will be to the Government’s best interest.

M-2 Pass/Fail Requirements: To be eligible for contract award, 8(a) Offerors must PASS the Facility Clearance and the Key Personnel requirements:

(1) Facility Clearance Requirement: The Offerors must possesses, on the proposal due date, a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level or above. There will be no exceptions or extensions to this requirement. All companies aligning as a Joint Venture (JV) candidate must have an active secret clearance individually by proposal due date. This security clearance is a PASS/FAIL requirement to be verified by the Government no later than proposal due date.

Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate will NOT sponsor potential Offerors for the facility clearance requirement. Any Offeror who cannot be verified as having an active/current DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance, at the SECRET level, at proposal due date, shall be deemed ineligible for award and their proposal will not be further considered by the Government.

(2) Key Personnel Requirement: The Offerors’ proposal shall:

a. Submit a completed attachment J-L1 Key Personnel Qualification Sheet as outlined in PWS section 1.6.11.

b. Provide a signed Letter of Commitment, if not currently on staff as of the proposal due date.

c. Copy of degree or program manager certificate, secret clearance, driver’s license. There is no page limit on, Letters of Commitment, and copies of Certificates/Licenses.

d. Proof of pending re-certification training on expired licensure/certifications.

Any proposed Key Personnel who does not meet the minimum qualifications, at proposal due date, shall be deemed ineligible for award and their proposal will not be further considered by the Government. Any missing submission will result in no award.

M-3 Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors: Factor I (Past Performance) is significantly more importance than Factor II (Price).

To be eligible for contract award, Offerors must certify, that, on the proposal due date, they possess a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level or above and Pass the Key Personnel requirements.

If the offeror passes the Facility Clearance and Key Personnel Requirements, the offeror will then be evaluated under Factor I (Past Performance). If an Offeror receives a “No Confidence” rating in under Factor I (Past Performance), the Offeror shall be ineligible for award and shall not be further evaluated. If an Offeror receives a rating greater than “Limited Confidence”, the Offeror will be evaluated under Factor II (Price).

M-4 Evaluation Factors: Award selection will be made in accordance with FAR 15.101. In selecting the best overall offer, the following factors will be considered: (I) Past Performance and (II) price. A “No Confidence” rating under the past performance factor shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. At its discretion, the Government may elect to cease evaluating a proposal after a single “No Confidence” rating under Factor I (Past Performance).

Factor I Past Performance:

(a) Past performance will be evaluated as detailed below in section (b) through section (f).

(b) To be determined recent the projects referenced by the contractor must have been completed within six (6) years from the date of solicitation issuance or currently ongoing and have completed at least six (6) months of performance by solicitation issuance. If currently ongoing, the extent of actual performance will be considered in determining the project’s relevance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Offeror's relevant past performance will be evaluated to assess the extent of its ability to successfully manage an IDIQ Logistics Support Services of similar size and scope as detailed in the PWS and demonstrate a record of concurrently executing multiple Task Orders (quality of product or service, accuracy and completeness, timeliness of delivery/work, business relations, customer satisfaction, key personnel and staffing, including subcontractors/partners).

The Government may utilize some or all of the following sources of past performance information for evaluation.

• Past Performance Questionnaire submitted by contractor’s client for the referenced project(s)

• Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Other sources or databases available to the Government such as interviews with program managers, contracting officer, and commercial available websites

(c) The Offeror shall complete Attachment J-L2 Client Authorization Letter and the top portion of page 1, Attachment J-L4 past performance questionnaire (PPQ) sheet, and send it to each of the reference(s) for the contracts identified on Attachment J-L3 past performance data (PPD) sheet. As stated in Attachment J-L4 PPQ, the reference(s) will complete this form and return it directly to the Offeror. The PPD and PPQ sheets must be included in the proposal submission. Missing submission of these sheets, shall result in the government’s determination that the offeror is ineligible for award and their proposal will not be further evaluated by the Government.

(d) The Offeror shall submit with its proposal completed Attachment J-L4 PPQ sheet, a minimum of (4) total projects for the prime and one (1) for each primary (1st tier) subcontractor. The minimum of four (4) total projects for the prime contractor and one (1) each for each primary (1st tier) subcontractor can be for Government or commercial contracts for services directly related or similar to the services required in section 5 of the PWS. To be considered, the referenced project must, at a minimum, involve logistics support related services, similar complexity to the solicited work; and total contract value over $14 million for any federal or private projects. Past performance by subcontractors predecessor companies or key personnel will be considered for the offeror’s four total projects or each primary subcontractor project if recent and relevant provided the offeror describes how the subcontractor, predecessor company or key personnel significantly contributed to the referenced project and the subcontractor or key personnel will significantly contribute to the solicited work. A sufficient nexus between a predecessor company’s management and the Offeror must also be established for a project performed by a predecessor company to be considered. It is in the discretion of the government to contact references provided.

The Offeror shall address in Attachment J-L3 PPD Sheet the following:

• The nature of the effort

• The tasks performed as they relate to Performance Work Statement

• Schedule/Timeliness

• The extent of involvement (as a prime versus a subcontractor, predecessor company or key personnel)

• The period of performance

• Point of contact, phone and email address for each contact listed

(e) Contractors with a “No Confidence” past performance rating may be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies. Failure of a contractor to disclose a relevant Government contract with poor past performance may affect the contractor's past performance rating.

(f) The Government may consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies or subcontractor companies if the predecessor’s performance is relevant to the Contractor’s performance under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to determine the prime Contractor’s past performance as more significant than other partnerships.

Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past performance information about the Offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more significant and given more weight in the past performance evaluation than that of a subcontractor, predecessor company or key personnel.

There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance relevancy to the solicited work. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s past performance that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is their performance confidence rating; how well the contractor performed on the recent/relevant contracts. The PPQs will be considered in the overall quality assessment for each referenced recent/relevant project. Other sources of information as outlined above may also be considered in the quality assessment. The combination of relevancy and quality of performance will be used to determine the overall performance confidence rating for the Offeror.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating:

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessments Evaluation Ratings:

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offerors 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 requirement 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.

Offers that receive a ‘No Confidence’ past performance rating shall be deemed ineligible for award.

In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

Factor II Price:

The evaluated price includes all CLINs and option CLINs for the base year and all options. The price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness using the techniques in FAR 15.404- 1. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price. The six (6) month extension will be evaluated during contract negotiations. In submitting the pricing information, the offeror shall provide the following information:

• Reasonableness: The offeror shall provide a firm fixed price. In support of its prices, the offeror shall provide a spreadsheet identifying the total labor hours, and labor categories. The pricing volume shall be submitted as a separate document. In addition, the pricing volume must differentiate between prime, subcontractor, and teaming partner labor. Fair and reasonable pricing will be evaluated in accordance with the price evaluation techniques in FAR 15.404-1. If a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined from price analysis, the Government will request cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

• Extension of Services: For purposes of evaluating overall pricing and the potential use of FAR 52.217-8, continuity of services, the offeror’s total proposed price for one (1) twelve (12) months base plus four (4) twelve (12) months option years and a six (6) months extension will include a period of performance not to exceed 66-Month period. The total proposed price for the base and option years plus the price for the continuity of services will, for evaluation purposes, be considered the offeror’s total proposed price.

• Unbalanced Pricing: The offeror’s total price and each sub-CLIN and each option CLIN may be evaluated for Unbalanced Pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). A proposed may be rejected and the offeror deemed ineligible for award (or the risks due to unbalanced pricing considered in the offeror’s evaluation) if the Government determines that the risks posed by unbalanced pricing are unacceptable.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)