04.04.11 - Amendment 0003 HTC711-11-R-W001.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

See summary of changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Apr-2011

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 HTC711-11-R-W001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Mar-2011

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

04-Apr-2011

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC711-11-R-W001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

A. CHANGES TO THE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

The Performance Work Statement(PWS) is changed and re-dated to 4 April 2011. The changes in the PWS are marked by red text. Additionally, the following addresses the specific changes to the PWS:

1) In response to Q.2. in Questions & Answers response #5 posted on 30 March 2011, PWS paragraph 3.1.1 is revised to include the following information:

“The contractor should expect the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (FF&V) to arrive in grade US #1 condition or better1. If upon inspection the contractor identifies product less than this standard, they shall notify the applicable agency (DeCA or DLA) COR. The COR will inspect the product and document its condition.

The COR will make the determination as to whether or not the product is acceptable for shipment.”

2) In response to Q.4. in Questions & Answers response #5 posted on 30 March 2011, PWS paragraph 3.2.1 is revised to include the following information:

“For Korea shipments, the contractor will be provided with a Government Bill of Lading.”

3) In response to Q.5. in Questions & Answers response #5 posted on 30 March 2011, PWS paragraph 3.4.3 is revised FROM:

“Korea: Produce shipments transported to Korea will be inspected for pests jointly by the US Army Veterinary service and the Korea Agriculture service. The inspection will take place at U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan. Produce arriving into Korea cannot clear customs until inspected by the joint inspection at Yongsan. Produce must be transported to Yongsan for inspection prior to delivery. Produce found with pests must be either fumigated or disposed of.”

TO:

“Korea: After shipments clear host nation customs, the shipments shall be transported to US Army Garrison Yongsan to undergo the joint plant quarantine inspection. The plant quarantine inspection is conducted to identify any pests within the shipment. The contractor should allow 24 hours for the inspection process, but it is typically finished within 3 to 4 hours. Produce found with pests must be either fumigated or disposed of.”

4) The paragraph reference for Performance Objective #1 in the Service Delivery Summary is revised to add PWS paragraph 3.5.1 as a reference.

B. CHANGES TO THE ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

The following change has been made to the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1:

Revise Section 2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph (e) PART III – Technical Proposal, subparagraph (2) Subfactor 2: Technical Plan for Emergency, Short-Notice Requirements, FROM:

“For this technical subfactor consider the following scenario:

Scenario ~ Mass shipment of approximately 300,000 lbs containing frozen, chilled, and dry product needs to be delivered to Guam.”

TO:

“For this technical subfactor the offeror should address the following scenario provided. The offeror should also address their capability in providing emergency, short-notice shipments to other Pacific locations as may be required by the Performance Work Statement.

Scenario ~ Mass shipment of approximately 300,000 lbs containing frozen, chilled, and dry product needs to be delivered to Guam.”

C. CHANGES TO THE ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

The Adjectival/Color rating definition for the “Excellent/Blue” rating for subactor 1, Cold-Chain Supply Solution Plan is changed. The last sentence of the definition is changed, removing the word “significant” prior to the word “strength.”

The rating definition is changed FROM:

Excellent Blue Proposal exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one significant strength and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

TO:

Excellent Blue Proposal exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one strength and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

D. REVISED EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DATE

Attachment 1 Attachment 1, Price Schedule 11-MAR-2011 Attachment 2 Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (Rev 02) 04-APR-2011 Attachment 3 Attachment 3, WD 05-0149, Rev 17 17-SEP-2010 Attachment 4 Attachment 4, WD 05-2059, Rev 11 16-JUL-2010 Attachment 5 Attachment 5, WD 10-0038, Rev 2 15-JUN-2010 Attachment 6 Attachment 6, Past Performance Questionnaire 11-MAR-2011

The following is the full text of 52.212-1 Addendum and 52.212-2 Addendum inclusive of the changes described above:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

1. ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(JUN 2008)

Paragraph (b) entitled “Submission of Offers” is supplemented with paragraph 2, “Proposal Preparation Instructions”, below.

Paragraph (c) entitled “Period for acceptance of offers” is tailored to read: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

Paragraph (e) entitled “Multiple Offers” is tailored to read: “The government will not consider multiple offers presenting alternate terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.”

Paragraph (g) entitled “Contract award (not applicable to Invitation for Bids).” is tailored to read: “The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest;

accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.”

Paragraph (h) entitled, “Multiple awards” is tailored to read: “The Government intends to award one Indefinite- Delivery, Requirements contract as a result of this solicitation. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer.”

USTRANSCOM/TCAQ Points of Contact:

a. The USTRANSCOM Contracting Office is the point of contact for this acquisition.

b. Address any questions or concerns to either of the individuals identified below.

c. Formal communications, such as requests for clarification, questions, and/or written information concerning this solicitation should be submitted in writing (email is the preferred method).

The points of contact for this acquisition are:

USTRANSCOM/TCAQ-C

ATTN: Jacquelyn Stepka or Jason Logsdon 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 Or Tele-fax number (618)220-7909 Or E-Mail jacquelyn.stepka@ustranscom.mil or jason.logsdon@ustranscom.mil

d. Written questions will be answered in writing and provided to all offerors via FedBizOpps. Solicitation changes will be made via amendment. However, due to the time required to research a question and provide an answer, questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to the due date of offers specified in this solicitation may not be answered.

e. Formal communications should be submitted in the following format:

Reference: Section ___, Page_____, Paragraph____ Question:______________________________________ mailto:andrew.glose@ustranscom.mil� mailto:gregory.hunt@ustranscom.mil�

2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(a) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. When submitting a proposal, offerors must understand it is their responsibility to ensure they meet all requirements of the Request For Proposal (RFP), not just those stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

The offeror’s proposal shall conform to the following conditions:

(1) To be eligible to receive a contract award and subsequent orders pursuant to this solicitation, offerors are required to be a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carrier and maintain their CRAF status for the duration of the contract.

(2) The proposal due date is 18 Apr 2011. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid for 180 calendar days as specified in FAR 52.212-1, Addendum, section 1, paragraph (c) cited above.

(3) Proposals shall be submitted on plain white paper, 8 ½ x11 paper, Double-sided, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

(4) By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation.

(b) SUBMISSION OF OFFERS. Proposals shall consist of one three-ring binder with five sections, Part I -

Business Proposal; Part II - Past Performance Information; Part III - Technical Approach; Part IV – Small Business Subcontracting Effort; and Part V- Price Proposal. Include the numbers of copies and format as specified below. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Word files with the exception of the price section which shall be submitted in MS Excel. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items (JAN 1999), as included in this RFP.

Offerors are required to submit original copies of each proposal part along with one (1) CD-ROM disk containing the electronic versions of the contents for each part.

(c) PART I – Business Proposal

(1) Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete the Standard Form (SF) 1449, blocks 12, 17a and

30a, b, and c. Block 17a should contain the CAGE code. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept, and acknowledgement by the offeror that they accede to the contract terms and conditions and PWS technical requirements.

(2) Block 17b. Check this block if your remittance address is different, identify the remittance address in your proposal, and ensure this address is in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database.

(3) Acknowledgement of Solicitation Amendments (if any): Return one signed copy of each amendment.

(4) For the Prime and any principal subcontractors provide the Company/Division Address, Identifying

Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division’s street address; CAGE code; DUNS code; and size of business (large or small).

(5) Letter signed by a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) representative identifying individuals who are authorized to negotiate and sign documents on the behalf of the CRAF carrier.

(6) Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA). The ORCA can be found at http://orca.bpn.gov or submit written representations and certifications IAW FAR 52.212-3 (Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (JAN 2011).

(7) Statement acknowledging the requirement to maintain CRAF status for the duration of the contract.

(d) PART II – Past Performance Information

(1) Offerors shall describe recent and relevant past performance for international cold-chain logistics and transportation service for corporate contracts and/or Government contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity. Offerors shall clearly identify teaming partners/major subcontractors and submit recent and relevant past performance information on those teaming partners/major subcontractors who will perform a significant portion of the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit a summary page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor or teaming partner.

(2) The offeror is allowed to submit a total of four contract references for which the offeror (prime) or the proposed principal subcontractor (e.g., freight forwarder) has performed cold-chain logistics functions and transportation service similar in size, scope, and complexity described in this solicitation. The offeror shall provide the Company or Agency name, Point of Contact (POC), Phone Number, and Email for each reference listed. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government may contact those agencies and individuals to verify information and/or obtain additional information. The offeror shall complete all applicable information fields in section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire.

(3) Subcontractor consent (if applicable). Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. With your proposal response, provide a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

(4) Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the offeror’s past performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government reserves the right to use information submitted by the offeror and other sources, such as other Government offices, and commercial sources to assess performance. The offeror shall send out the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3) to each offeror’s references identified. The responsibility to send out the Past Performance Questionnaires rest solely with the offeror; whereas, it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Past Performance Questionnaires. Once the questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. The Past Performance Questionnaires shall be sent directly back to the Government. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account the past performance information regarding key subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(e) PART III – Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal shall be specific and complete. Responses will be evaluated against the Technical Capability subfactors defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items (JAN 1999), included in this RFP. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology used for accomplishing or satisfying these subfactors.

(1) Subfactor 1: Technical Plan for Cold-Chain Supply Solution. For this subfactor, offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements.

FORMAT: Not to exceed 10 double-sided pages, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

Offeror shall describe their technical approach for meeting the full range of contract requirements.

http://orca.bpn.gov/�

A. Offeror shall provide detailed plan on how cold-chain supply chain will be maintained during receiving and over-packing B. Offeror shall describe how shipments will be packaged and/or prepared for transit. What packing materials/methods will be used? According to this packing methodology, how long is shipment expected to maintain temperature integrity before requiring additional cold-chain maintenance procedures (i.e. – repacking, re-icing, etc.)? Offeror should highlight if this methodology has been used previously and with what degree of success.

C. Offeror shall identify their overall understanding and methodology for providing end-to-end cold-chain logistics. How is cold-chain maintained during delays? During customs clearance procedures? How is cold-chain maintained after arrival to host nation and before delivery to end customer?

D. Offeror shall explain their experience with customs processing procedures for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (FF&V), and other perishables, in Guam, Japan, and South Korea. Offeror should highlight any unique procedures that they have established which provide a benefit to the Government.

E. Offeror shall detail what quality control methods are used to ensure on-time performance and cold-chain integrity.

F. Offeror shall identify and address any risks that are considered to have the potential for disruption of service, poor performance, or increased cost. Offeror shall identify risk mitigating strategies to eliminate or reduce the risks.

G. Offeror shall identify if their proposed process as described is used to provide service to previous or current customers or if the proposed process is new or unique.

(2) Subfactor 2: Technical Plan for Emergency, Short-Notice Requirements. For this subfactor, offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements.

FORMAT: Not to exceed 10 double-sided pages, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

Some requirements under this contract shall require short-notice service of large volume shipments.

These requirements cannot be anticipated with any certainty. The Government will strive to provide as much advance notice as possible, but the nature of military operations and real world contingencies does not always allow ample notification. For this technical subfactor the offeror should address the following scenario provided. The offeror should also address their capability in providing emergency, short-notice shipments to other Pacific locations as may be required by the Performance Work Statement.

Scenario ~ Mass shipment of approximately 300,000 lbs containing frozen, chilled, and dry product needs to be delivered to Guam.

A. Offeror shall provide sound plan detailing how emergency shipment will be accomplished and given priority so that shipment arrives within the required timeframe as stated in the PWS while also maintaining service for regularly scheduled shipments.

B. Offeror shall demonstrate that they have adequate resources, personnel, and subcontractor agreements to consistently provide service for short-notice emergency shipments.

(3) Proposals that merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government’s specifications/Performance

Work Statement, or use such phrases as “will comply” or “standard techniques will be employed” will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further.

(4) By signing the SF Form 1449, the offeror concedes their proposal meets all technical requirements stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(5) The technical proposal will be incorporated by reference into the subject contract.

(f) PART IV – Small Business Subcontracting Effort

(1) Large business offerors shall submit their Subcontracting Plan for Small Business concerns as required by FAR 52.219-9, incorporated by reference in FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (OCT 2010) (DEVIATION).

A Subcontracting Plan is required as part of initial proposal submission from all offerors other than small business concerns. In accordance with FAR 19.219-9(g), submission of a commercial plan is the preferred type of subcontracting plan for contractors furnishing commercial items. The Government will review each plan to assure consistency with the FAR 52.219-9, FAR Part 19, and the supplements thereto. Large business offerors shall identify the business size classification of principal subcontractors providing meaningful portion of service. The offeror shall identify an estimated percentage of work that will be attributable to each principal subcontractor and in general the work that they will be performing.

(2) Small business offerors shall provide documentation verifying their business size classification. The small business offeror shall identify an estimated percentage of work that will be attributable to each principal subcontractor and in general the work that the offeror and its subcontractors will be performing.

(g) PART V – Pricing Proposal

(1) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the MS Excel price schedule (Attachment 1) for each

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Offerors’ unit rates shall be proposed on a per pound basis rounded to the nearest hundredth decimal position (e.g, $2.50). To be considered for award, offerors must provide unit rates for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) with an estimated quantity.

Option periods will not be priced as they will be determined annually based on the Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause.

(2) Unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition, either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or has made an unrealistic proposal.

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

a. The Government intends to award a single Requirements contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(2A) SUBFACTOR 1 – COLD CHAIN LOGISTICS PLAN

(2B) SUBFACTOR 2 – EMERGENCY, SHORT-NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

(3) SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING EFFORT

(4) COST/PRICE

Past Performance and Technical are approximately equal in importance, and when combined, are significantly more important than the Small Business Subcontracting Effort. All non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost (Price). Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and which provides the best value to the government; price and other factors considered. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

b. Options: The Government will not evaluate option year pricing at the time of award.

c. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

d. This acquisition will be a competitive best value source selection based on the subjective judgement of the Government. The Government intends to award a single Indefinite-Delivery, Requirements contract to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror that gives USTRANSCOM the greatest confidence that it will meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed overall cost/price since the Government is more interested in obtaining superior performance than lowest price. However, the Government will not pay a price premium that it considers to be disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority. Therefore, the Government will award a contract to the offeror considered to be the best value offeror, all factors considered given their relative order of importance specified below. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and availability of funds. To arrive at a source selection decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the evaluation factors described below.

e. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE. Using past performance questionnaires submitted by the offeror’s Points of Contact (POCs) and other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources, the Government will perform a confidence assessment on each offeror. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past Performance questionnaires will be evaluated on the basis of recency and relevancy. The Government will first evaluate the recency (within the last 3 years from the date of solicitation issuance) and then the relevancy as follows:

(1) The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained.

The following ratings will be used in evaluating the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. The Government may deem past performance performed by the offeror and principal subcontractor together more relevant. The relevancy of each contract reference will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the offeror:

(i) Highly Relevant (HR) – Past performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities in the performance areas identified in the solicitation.

(ii) Relevant (R) – Past performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities in the performance areas identified in the solicitation.

(iii) Somewhat Relevant (SR) – Past performance efforts involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities in the performance areas identified in the solicitation.

(iv) Not Relevant (NR) – Past performance efforts did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities in the performance areas identified in the solicitation.

(2) Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror and principal subcontractor’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contracts and support agreements. One of the following confidence assessment ratings will be assigned to each offeror:

(a) High Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Significant Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(c) Satisfactory Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(d) Little Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

(e) Neutral/Unknown Confidence - No performance record is identifiable.

(3) Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors (e.g., Freight Forwarders, Agents) that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement will be rated the same (equally as important) as the past performance information for the principal offeror (CRAF carrier). Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive an Unknown Confidence meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most recent and most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

(4) In addition to the past performance questionnaires returned by the offeror’s references, past performance information may be obtained through the (1) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS),

(2) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or (3) other sources known to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to review contracts, considered representative of past and ongoing relevant performance, other than those suggested by the offeror.

(5) Where the relevant present and past performance record indicated performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, not just planned or promised action. If the offeror clearly demonstrated management actions employed in overcoming problems and effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher. All offerors shall be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse present and past performance information obtained by the evaluation team for which the offeror did not previously have an opportunity to address.

f. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine how well an offeror’s proposal meets the minimum performance requirements identified in the solicitation. The adjectival/color code and risk rating will be assigned to subfactor 1. An Acceptable/Unacceptable rating shall be assigned to subfactor 2. Proposals receiving an Unacceptable rating for subfactor 2 will be deemed unacceptable and not considered for award. The overall Technical rating for this factor shall be the same adjectival/color code and risk rating as assigned to subfactor 1 given that subfactor 2 is assigned an Acceptable rating.

(1) Subfactor 1 – Cold-Chain Supply Solution Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical plan to ensure the offeror’s plan details a realistic approach to implementing a cold-chain supply solution that includes all processes between and including receipt and packaging of Government perishables to final delivery to end customers. The offeror’s plan will be rated in accordance with the measure of merit and color code/adjectival ratings shown below and assigned a color/adjectival rating and proposal risk assessment along with any identified strengths and weaknesses.

(a) Measure of Merit. The measure of merit for this factor is met when the offeror meets the government’s minimum standard. This is achieved when the offeror submits a sound plan for accomplishing the requirements identified in the PWS, paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

ADJECTIVAL COLOR DEFINITION

Outstanding Purple Proposal appreciably exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way significantly beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths that, when considered together, provide a significant benefit to the Government, and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Excellent Blue Proposal exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one strength and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Acceptable Green Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements and may exceed some, without any associated benefit to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal may include weaknesses, but no significant weaknesses.

Marginal Yellow Proposal does not clearly meet the Government’s minimum requirements.

The proposal includes apparent deficiencies, indicating that the offeror may not be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. A proposal with a Marginal rating is not awardable.

Unacceptable Red Proposal fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements and includes deficiencies, indicating that the offeror will not be able to successfully perform the required contract, or the proposal includes significant weaknesses indicating that the offeror will most likely not be able to successfully perform the required contract. A proposal with an Unacceptable rating is not awardable.

(b) Proposal risk includes an assessment of the risks associated with a contractor’s proposed approach for accomplishing the requirements, weaknesses in the proposed approach, and weaknesses in the proposal itself. Proposal risk is assessed against the Technical Proposal and will be assigned on of the following ratings below:

Low – Offeror’s proposed approach has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate - Offeror’s proposed approach can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High - Offeror’s proposed approach is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable - The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses in the offeror’s proposed approach that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased costs or severely degraded performance.

(2) Subfactor 2 – Emergency Shipment, Short-Notice Requirements Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical plan to ensure the offeror’s plan details a realistic approach to providing high priority, short-notice shipments. The offeror’s plan will be rated in accordance with the measure of merit and Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings shown below.

(a) Measure of Merit: The measure of merit for this factor is met when the offeror meets the government’s minimum standard. This is achieved when the offeror submits a sound plan for accomplishing the requirements identified in the PWS, Para 2.4 and 3.3.6.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements.

g. FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING EFFORT. Offers are anticipated from both Large and Small business offerors. Large and Small business offerors are subject to different standards for this factor.

Therefore, two mutually exclusive color/adjectival ratings, one standard for large businesses and one standard for a small businesses, are included for this subfactor. The rating scale below qualifies the definition for each color/adjectival rating based on the offeror’s business size. The Government will evaluate “meaningful portion of service” on a subjective basis. Small dollar value, but very critical pieces of the overall effort may be considered “meaningful.” Larger dollar values accomplished by small businesses may also be considered “meaningful.” The Government will evaluate each offer on its own merit to determine whether small businesses will be performing a meaningful portion of the effort, based on dollars, criticality, or other factors. Color/adjectival ratings will be used for rating this factor. Each offeror’s proposal will be given a color/adjectival rating using the measures of merit shown below. The color/adjectival rating depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the measures of merit and solicitation requirements.

ADJECTIVAL COLOR DEFINITION

Excellent Blue LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror submitted an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and FAR Part 19. Further, the offeror demonstrated a subcontracting arrangement with a small business to provide a meaningful portion of service for this requirement.

OR,

SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS: Certified small business offeror demonstrates that either they will provide a meaningful portion of service for this requirement with personnel and/or resources of their concern or demonstrated subcontracting arrangement(s) with another small business to perform a meaningful portion of service.

Acceptable Green LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror demonstrated an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 and FAR Part 19.

OR,

SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror maintains current small business certification.

Marginal Yellow LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror’s small business subcontracting plan may contain some weaknesses that may be corrected.

OR,

SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror’s small business certification is not current or contains some weaknesses that may be corrected.

Unacceptable Red LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror failed to provide an acceptable small business subcontracting plan and weaknesses cannot be corrected.

OR,

SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS: Offeror is not certified as a small business and must adhere to the requirements for a large business for this factor.

(1) This factor will be evaluated by an assessment of the likelihood that sufficient small businesses will be given the opportunity to perform under this contract.

(2) Measures of merit for this factor are met when the offeror:

(a) Large Business Offerors: Demonstrates an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-9 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(OCT 2010).

(b) Large Business Offerors: Demonstrates a subcontracting arrangement with a small business to provide a meaningful portion of service for the requirement.

(c) Small Business Offerors: The offeror maintains a current and correct small business certification.

(d) Small Business Offerors: The small business certified firm demonstrates that they will provide a meaningful portion of service for this requirement or demonstrated subcontracting arrangement(s) with another small business to perform a meaningful portion of service.

h. FACTOR 4 – PRICE.

(1) The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable and the offeror has a clear understanding of the work. This determination may be accomplished by one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(2) The total evaluated price to be used for evaluation and trade-off purposes will be the summation of the extended prices for all priced, base year CLINs.

(3) Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

i. If the Small Business Subcontracting factor or any technical capability subfactor are determined Unacceptable, the entire proposal is Unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is Unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

(End of Provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)