A23 - HQ0034-21-R-0337 - Amendment Two - Released.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as p rovid ed herein, all terms and cond itions o f th e document referenced in Item 9A o r 10 A, as hereto fore chang ed , remains un ch an ged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND T IT LE OF SIGNER (T ype or print )

30-105-04EXCEP TION T O SF 30

AP PROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) P rescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error and correct "regency" to "recency" in Section M. A ll other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jan-2021

16B. UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Cont ract ing Officer)(Signat ure of person a ut horized t o sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., St reet , County, Sta te and Zip Code) X HQ003421R0037

X 9B. DATED (SEE IT EM 11)

13-Jan-2021

10B. DATED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS IT EM ONLY AP PLIES TO AMENDMENT S OF SOLICITAT IONS

X Th e ab ove n umbered solicitation is amend ed as set forth in Item 1 4. Th e hou r and date sp ecified for receipt o f Offer is extend ed , X is not extended.

Offer mu st ackn owled ge receipt of this amen dment p rior to the h our an d d ate specified in the solicitation or as amen ded b y o ne of the following method s:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15 , and returnin g 1 co pies of the amen dment; (b ) By ackn owled ging receipt of this amen dment o n each copy of the o ffer sub mitted ;

o r (c) By separate letter o r teleg ram wh ich includ es a reference to th e so licitation and amend men t nu mbers. 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 virtu e of this amen dment y ou desire to change an offer already su bmitted, su ch change may be made by teleg ram or letter, p rovid ed each telegram o r letter mak es reference to th e so licitation and this amen dment, an d is receiv ed prio r to the op en ing hou r and date sp ecified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND AP PROP RIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM AP PLIES ONLY T O MODIFICATIONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED P URSUANT T O: (Spec ify aut horit y) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CO NTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office , appropria tion dat e, et c.) SET FORT H IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUT HORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SU PP LEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUT HORITY OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modificat ion and aut horit y)

E. IMP ORTANT: Contrac tor is not, is required t o sign this document and re turn copies to t he issuing office.

14. DESCRIP TION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organize d by UCF sec tion headings, inc luding solic ita tion/contrac t subject mat t er whe re feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If app licable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Jan-2021

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORAT E

4800 M ARK CENTER DRIVE, SUIT E 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-0002

HQ0034 7 . ADMINISTERED BY (If o ther than item 6)

4 . REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003421R0037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and issue a contract and the Program Management Task Order based on the proposal submitted. The Offeror’s proposal should contain the best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. The Government intends to award without discussions, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions including negotiations and, if necessary, ongoing discussions.

The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept an offer other than the lowest cost proposal; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the FAR Part 15 competitive procedures using a best value trade-off evaluation.

The Government intends to award an IDIQ a hybrid FFP and cost-based Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and a firm-fixed price Program Managemetn Task Order (with cost-based CLINs for Travel and Secure Facility Rental) from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforming to this solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered.

In order to receive consideration for award a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1, 2 and 3. The Government reserves the right to evalute offerors in any order it chooses, such that (for example) a vendor could receive an unacceptable rating on Factor 3 – Personnel, be deemed ineligible for award, and would not be evaluated on any of the other factors.

M.2. Factor Order of Importance Factor 1 (Secure Facility Plan with Security Clearance Certification) Factor 2 (Technical Approach/Staffing Plan) Factor 3 (Key Personnel) Factor 4 (Past Performance) Factor 5 (Price/Cost)

Factors 1, 2 and 3 are equally important. Individually Factors 1, 2 and 3 are more important than Factor 4.

Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 combined are significantly more important than Factor 5 (Price/Cost).

M.3. Criteria

M.3.1. Factor 1 – Secure Facility Plan with Security Clearance Certification The evaluation will be based on the degree to which the plan and facility support meet or exceed the requirements specified in Attachment 3 – JASON Facility Requirements. The Government will consider the extent to which a vendor’s proposed JASON Facility will create a productive and secure work environment. The Government strongly prefers, but does not require, that there be a food establishment within no more than five miles that can accommodate unscheduled working hours of the JASON members. The Secure Facility Plan must also demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the security requirements stated in the draft DD254 – Contract Security Classification Specification. The evaluation will rate the Facility Security Clearance Certification on an adjectival rating, as described in Table M1 below. If an offeror does not meet these requirements, it will be rated as UNACCEPTABLE and the proposal will be eliminated from further competition. A MARGINAL rating will also eliminate the offeror from competition.

M.3.2. Factor 2 – Technical Approach / Staffing Plan for the contract The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the RFP as demonstrated by their proposed technical approach. The Government will assess how the offeror addresses Section 2.1 (JASON Management Support), Section 2.2 (JASON Logistic/Administrative Support), and Section 2.3 (JASON Security Support).

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s risk assessment. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment, the implementation risks, and its proposed mitigation strategies.

The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s staffing plan to determine how the proposed labor mix assigned fulfills the terms of the PWS.

M.3.3 Factor 3 – Key Personnel

Key Personnel Resume: The Government will evaluate the proposed program manager resume and rate his or her ability to fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

Overall Evaluation

The Government will assign one rating each for Factor 1: Secure Facility Plan; Factor 2: Technical Approach / Staffing Plan and Factor 3 Key Personnel based on the rating scale detailed below. In order to receive consideration for award a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved for all three Factors 1, 2 and 3.

Table M1 – Evaluation Factors for Factors 1, 2, and 3.

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

See Section M.5 for definitions.

M.3.4. Factor 4 – Past Performance The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror has performed on contracts that have been determined to be both recent and relevant to the PWS. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance:

Step 1 – Recency. The first step is to evaluate the recency of each of the Offeror’s past performance projects.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Performance of each reference must be completed within the previous three (3) years of the proposal due date to be considered recent. Projects which are not recent will not be further considered and will not be factored into the Offeror’s overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Step 2 – Relevance. The second step is to determine how relevant each of the Offeror’s past projects are to the solicited work. Each project will be assigned a relevancy rating from the below table. Projects which are rated “Not Relevant” will not be further considered and will not be factored into the Offeror’s overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Step 3 - Quality of Products or Services. The third step of the past performance evaluation is to establish the quality of the Offeror’s performance on each past performance project. The government may determine quality of performance through a variety of methods to include reviewing PPQs, contacting customers, reviewing databases such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or reviewing other sources of information. The Government’s evaluation documentation will discuss the Offeror’s quality of performance on each of the projects, however it will not assign a quality of performance rating for each individual past project.

Step 4 – After assessing the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance of the Offeror’s individual past projects, the Government will assign one overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the Offeror (see table below). This rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance across the reviewed past projects.

In the case of a Offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may be evaluated neither favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In such case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and is assigned an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of "Neutral."

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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 RATINGS

Adjectival 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.

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.

See Section M.5 for definitions.

M.3.5. Factor 5 – Cost A cost analysis per FAR 15.404-1(c)(1) will be required to review the individual cost elements of the Offeror’s proposal for the JASON Facility Rental Fee.

The Government may use one or all of the following analysis techniques listed under FAR 15.404-1 to evaluate whether the price and costs of the proposal are fair and reasonable. The cost analysis will be performed on the Offeror’s total proposal including all options. For the JASON Facility Rental Fee, for each option year, for evaluation purposes only, the Government will escalate the JASON Facility Rental Fee by 2% each year. For evaluation purposes only, the total cost is the sum of the total cost submitted for (a) the base period, (b) all option periods, and (c) the six-month extension authorized by FAR 52.217-8. To determine the FAR 52.217-8 extension, divide the final option by two (2). Evaluation of option will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

The Government reserves the right to include the use of information from sources such as, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) in order to complete a cost analysis.

The basis of award will be a total evaluated cost of the base period and four one year option periods for the contract, which includes the 6 month option under FAR 52.217-8, and the Task Order for Program Management.

M.4. Financial Capability Determination (Responsibility)

Financial capability will be evaluated to the extent that Offerors must have sufficient financial resources that demonstrate an acceptable financial capability to perform the contract. The results of this evaluation impact the Contracting Officer’s contractor responsibility determination. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance and for the purpose of performing a responsibility determination from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government such as but not limited to the System for Award Management, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) via the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other Government systems and Dun and Bradstreet.

M.5. Definitions

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Past Performance: Relates to how well an Offeror has performed; e.g., the quality of work accomplished, schedule compliance, cost control, and customer satisfaction.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performant examples and the source solicitation requirement; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Offeror: Except where the context in which the term is used clearly indicates otherwise, “Offeror” refers to the contractor submitting the proposal, and to joint venture members, teaming/partnering entities, and major subcontractors (defined as subcontractors performing 10% or more of the work).

Project: A project may be a stand-alone contract or an individual task order under an IDIQ contract.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)