HTC711-15-R-R0003-0007 _Amendment_7_to_DFTS.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 this modif ication is to incorporate time-definite service level terms and conditions and make minor administrative revisions and corrections. See the Summary of Changes for a complete list of revisions.

POC for this action is Dave Hoag at david.m.hoag.civ@mail.mil or 618-220-7082.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-May-2015

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 HTC711-15-R-R003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Mar-2015

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, 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 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

21-May-2015

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:

HTC711-15-R-R003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the following revisions:

• FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items Factor 5 – Price to incorporate Time-Definite Service Level requirements.

• TRANSFARS 5552.216-9006 revised to incorporate Time-Definite Service Level requirements and revised IN language

• Attachment 1 - PWS to incorporate Time-Definite Service Level requirements, require the Contractor traffic management system to support multiple types and pieces of equipment to be submitted on one EDI 219

Shipment Request, require the Contractor to upload a proof of delivery document in Syncada, and requires

Contractor to validate pickup date/time annotated on 219 with pick up location to ensure availability of vendor shipments.

• PWS Appendix B, Accessorial Definitions to incorporate the accessorial code of 615 for the TWCF Recovery

Rate and to revise 520 Overdimensional Time-Definite Service Level Freight.

• PWS Appendix B, Accessorial Rate Table to incorporate Time-Definite Service accessorials.

• PWS Appendix C, Exception Codes to revise the Overweight/Overdimensional Exception Code for Time-

Definite Service Level shipments

• PWS Appendix O, Glossary has been revised to incorporate a definition for “Time-Definite Service Level

• PWS Appendix L, IT System Baseline has been revised to remove pre-alert sequences.

• Attachment 2 – DFTS Pricing Schedules and Instructions and 2B – DFTS Pricing Sheet – TL, TDef, Sched to incorporate Time-Definite Service Level requirements. 2A – DFTS Pricing Sheet – LTL has been revised to correct Washington, D.C. lanes without origins.

• Added Attachment 12 – Instructions for Obtaining IHS Index Values

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement

Attachment 2 – Rate Table and Instructions

Attachment 3 – DD254 (Contract Security Classification Specification)

Attachment 4 – Award Term Plan

Attachment 5 – RFP Offeror Information Sheet

Attachment 6 – RFP Compliance Checklist

Attachment 7 – Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 8 – Financial Information Questionnaire

Attachment 9 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Template)

Attachment 10 – Wage Determination

Attachment 11 – Corporate Experience Table

Attachment 12 – Instructions for Obtaining IHS Index Values

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

52.212-2 is replaced in its entirety.

(a) The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. 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. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Expanded tradeoff procedures will be utilized in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and DoD Source

Selection Procedures. To receive award, the offeror must (1) be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR

Part 9, (2) conform to all required terms and conditions, and (3) represent a best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. 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.

(1) Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the following criteria:

a. Corporate Experience

b. Business Proposal

i. Proposal Compliance

ii. Small Business Proposal

c. Technical Capability (From Most Important to Least Important)

i. Information Technology/Management

ii. Implementation

iii. Carrier Management

iv. Operational Support

d. Past Performance

e. Price

(2) Relative order of importance: Corporate Experience and Business Proposal subfactors are rated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Technical Capability is more important than Past Performance. All rated evaluation factors (Technical Capability and Past Performance), when combined, are approximately equal to price.

Price is evaluated but is not rated.

(b) The above factors shall be evaluated in the following manner:

(1) Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. Corporate experience shall be evaluated first. This factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Only those proposals determined to have Acceptable corporate experience shall be considered for award. The Government will not award to an Offeror that has an Unacceptable rating for this factor. If Corporate Experience is determined Unacceptable, the evaluation of the proposal will cease and no other factors or subfactors will be evaluated. Offerors will be notified promptly if their proposal is determined unacceptable.

General Compliance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Corporate experience clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Corporate experience does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(A) In order to be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal shall reflect at least 12 months of corporate experience per referenced contract or effort within the past three (3) years. The offeror’s completed RFP

Attachment 11 shall delineate applicable corporate experience. Overall, the offeror demonstrates corporate experience in all task areas identified in RFP Attachment 11; however, each reference is not required to have experience in all areas. Further, the offorer’s corporate experience relates to the tasks below in scope, magnitude, and complexity. The Offeror provided a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts and/or efforts to the tasks listed below.

1.3.2.1 Task Area 2, Subtask 1 – Carrier Management (Prime Offeror Experience Only).

Corporate experience should include all facets of carrier management, from carrier selection through final payment. Experience must include management of carriers to ensure nationwide coverage of services.

Corporate experience for carrier management must support pickup and delivery of at least 20,000 freight shipments per month over 12 consecutive months across the aggregate of all contracts/efforts included in

RFP Attachment 11. Corporate experience for carrier management shall only be considered for the prime offeror, no substitution of subcontractor experience shall be considered.

1.3.6 Task Area 6 – Operational Support (Prime Offeror Experience Only). Corporate experience must include nationwide operational support of all facets of operational support identified in

PWS Task Area 6. Corporate experience for operational support must support at least 20,000 shipment requests per month for pickup and delivery of freight over 12 consecutive months across the aggregate of all contracts/efforts included in RFP Attachment 11. Corporate experience for operational support shall only be considered for the prime offeror, no substitution of subcontractor experience shall be considered.

1.3.7.5 Task Area 7, Subtask 5 – Interfaces and Data Exchanges with Government Systems

(Prime Offeror or Principal Subcontractor Experience). Corporate experience must include systems interfaces and data exchanges of multiple unique customers supported nationwide. Corporate experience must reflect installing, operating, and maintaining a system that supports at least 20,000 freight shipments per month over 12 consecutive months across the aggregate of all contracts/efforts included in RFP

Attachment 11. Offerors may submit experience with commercial systems and principal subcontractor experience for consideration.

(2) Factor 2 - Business Proposal. The Business Proposal will contain two subfactors, Proposal

Compliance and Small Business Proposal, and be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be rated Acceptable for the Business Proposal factor, both subfactors must have Acceptable ratings. The Government will not award to an Offeror that has an Unacceptable rating for this factor.

General Compliance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(i) Subfactor 1 - Proposal Compliance. In order to be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal shall conform to all requirements of the solicitation, including but not limited to the Proposal Preparation

Instructions under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and the Proposal Compliance Checklist (Attachment 6). The checklist is not all-inclusive and is a tool for offerors to assist in proposal development.

(ii) Subfactor 2 - Small Business Proposal. Each offeror’s Small Business (SB) Proposal will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable in order to be considered for award:

A. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applies to Large Businesses Only). To be rated acceptable, the offeror’s proposed SB Subcontracting Plan must meet all of the requirements in FAR 19.704 and provide sufficient detail to demonstrate how the offeror intends to meet the proposed contract SB subcontracting goals in PWS paragraph 1.3.2.1.3. The information contained in the proposed SB Subcontracting Plan must appear to be realistic based on the types of services to be subcontracted. Prior achievement of small business subcontracting goals or other sources available to the Government may be considered to determine if proposed goals are realistic.

B. Small Business Utilization Plan. (Applies to Small Businesses Only). To be rated acceptable, the offeror’s proposed SB Utilization Plan shall:

1. Describe the extent of participation of SB concerns under this contract and provide a detailed description of the services to be performed by each Small Business Concern subcategory proposed. The extent of participation and detailed description appears to be realistic based on the services to be performed under the contract and the offeror’s approach to subcontracting.

2. Provide goals, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract dollars and percentages of total domestic subcontracting values for each category of SB category concern included in paragraph B. 1. above. The goals appear to be realistic based on the services to be performed under the contract and the offeror’s approach to subcontracting.

(3) Factor 3 - Technical Capability. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. Offerors will be given a technical rating for each of the

Technical Capability subfactors. The Technical Capability subfactors are listed in descending order from Most

Important to Least Important. The Government will not award to an Offeror that has a Red rating for any of the subfactors of this factor. Following assignment of the Technical Rating, a risk rating will be assigned for each of the

Technical Capability subfactors. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical Capability ratings are described as:

Technical Ratings

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Strength is defined as 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.

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as 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. See FAR 15.001.

Technical Risk Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

(i) Subfactor 1 - Information Technology/Management

A. Technical Approach. The Offeror’s technical approach includes a description of the

Offeror’s Enterprise/System Architecture and addresses the following areas in detail:

Technical support

Technologies employed

Hardware

System partitioning

Database technologies

Communications network infrastructure

It is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of Enterprise/System Architecture design and implementation as required by Task 7 and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

B. Information Technology - Interface/Data Exchanges (Task Area 7, Subtask 5). The

Offeror’s technical approach includes an IDD describing the EDI transactions for DSS and GFM. It describes how the Offeror will meet the Data Interchange requirements of the PWS and includes an accurate depiction of the formatting, sending and receiving of the necessary data exchanges. The technical approach also addresses the following areas in detail:

Identification of technical challenges and issues surrounding interfacing with the

Global Exchange (GEX), US Bank Syncada, and Integrated Data Environment

(IDE) Global Transportation Network (GTN) and Convergence (IGC).

Formatting, generating and transmitting invoices (EDI ANSI X12 858)

Receiving and processing transportation requests (EDI ANSI X12 219A)

Formatting, generating and receiving functional acknowledgements (EDI ANSI

X12 997)

Formatting, generating and transmitting logistics service responses (EDI ANSI

X12 220A)

Formatting, generating and transmitting transportation shipment status messages

(EDI ANSI X12 214)

The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of Interface/Data exchanges and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

C. Transportation Management System (Task Area 7, Subtask 1). The Offeror’s technical approach addresses web technology in detail to include:

Secure access

Ease of use

Simple and complex query capabilities

Data manipulation and output capabilities

Management and performance reporting

Customer feedback reporting

Track and trace shipments (Intransit Visibility)

Claims management and reporting

The Technical Approach also includes a functional/operational design diagram of the TMS capabilities, which includes screen-shots/mock-ups for two simple and two complex queries. The functional/operational design diagram and screen-shots/mock-ups accurately reflect the system requirements in Task Area 7, Subtask 1. The

Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of the Transportation

Management System requirements and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the

PWS.

D. System Availability, Performance and Scalability (Task Area 7, Subtask 3). The

Offeror’s technical approach addresses how they will meet required system performance, availability and surge requirements and addresses associated technical challenges and issues. It describes adequate system failover and disaster recovery capabilities to mitigate system degradations. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of the system availability, performance and Scalability tasks and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

E. Cybersecurity Standards (Task Area 7, Subtask 6). The Offeror’s Cyber Security Plan describes how the development environment will safeguard DoD information from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Offeror’s plan clearly describes which approach was selected: Option 1 (Hosted in a DOD environment) or Option 2 (Hosted in a commercial environment). If Option 1, the Offeror submitted a report that adequately addresses all of the security controls described in DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Unclassified

Controlled Technical Information and is in accordance with the template provided in PWS Appendix M. The

Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of cybersecurity standards and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

F. Data Storage and Disposition (Task Area 7, Subtask 7). The Offeror’s technical approach addresses how on-line storage and access to all data will be provided. It also identifies the format and media to be utilized for the annual data transfers and final disposition of contract data. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of data storage and disposition tasks and should

G. Staffing. The offeror’s staffing approach for accomplishing the information technology/management requirements of the PWS includes adequate positions and numbers of employees for each position to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. It also includes a brief position description for each position identified. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the Information

Technology/Management requirements and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the

PWS.

(ii) Subfactor 2 - Implementation.

A. Implementation Schedule. The Offeror’s implementation schedule identifies a proposed timeline for implementing each location identified in the Shipping Site Implementation List, PWS

Appendix J. It clearly provides the order in which sites will be implemented, with all sites to be implemented (fully operational, to include establishment of successful information systems connections to the required system) no later than 28 February 2017. It includes a detailed chronological sequence of events, beginning with contract award that must be accomplished prior to successful assumption of responsibility by the contractor at each location. The

Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the implementation schedule requirements

B. Implementation Approach. The Offeror’s approach to implementing services/operations is detailed and should result in minimal disruption to existing operations at each location. It includes detailed information regarding the following:

Establishment of successful information systems connections

Training of Government personnel in the use of the offeror’s Traffic Management

System, including track and trace process, report generation, etc. during implementation and throughout the contract period of performance.

Equipment availability, to include specialized equipment and equipment pools

Carrier familiarization with each shipping site’s unique requirements o Installation and vendor site access, dock processes and locations, equipment pool management and utilization, operation hours to include non-standard operational requirements (weekend/holidays), appointment process, etc.

The offerors approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the implementation requirements and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

C. Joint Test Plan. The Offeror’s joint test plan to fully implement and operationally test/validate IT interoperability and integration includes a description of the Offeror’s operational testing procedures and approaches to successfully accomplish system deployment and establishment of new system interfaces. The

Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the joint test plan requirements and should

D. Staffing. The offeror’s staffing approach for accomplishing the implementation requirements of the PWS includes adequate positions and numbers of employees for each position to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. It also includes a brief position description for each position identified. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the implementation requirements and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

(iii) Subfactor 3 - Carrier Management.

A. Carrier Management Approach. The Offeror’s approach to carrier management should ensure availability of the required resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. It includes detailed information regarding the following:

An adequate carrier selection process, to include both internal and subcontracted carriers (if applicable), for normal day-to-day operating conditions, surge and peak seasonal periods. It also addresses:

o how small businesses are considered in carrier selection to meet utilization goals, o how driver qualifications/credentialing are considered to ensure driver can gain installation access and is authorized to move the materiel under his/her control, o how assigned carrier knows which load is assigned to the carrier (including adequate actions to remedy situations in which the carrier picks up the incorrect load (pre-loaded and live-loaded)), and o how an assigned carrier will understand their responsibility regarding

Appointments at pickup/destination locations

Loss/damage identification and notification process (e.g. astray freight)

Accident notification/reporting and safeguarding of government freight in the event accident occurs

Adequate carrier performance management, to include corrective actions to be taken for carrier performance issues and safety issues.

The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the carrier management requirements

B. Staffing. The offeror’s staffing approach for accomplishing the carrier management requirements of the PWS includes adequate positions and numbers of employees for each position to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. It also includes a brief position description for each position identified. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the carrier management requirements and should

(iv) Subfactor 4 – Operational Support.

A. Operational Support. The Offeror’s approach to operational support includes detailed information regarding the following:

Quality Control. The Offeror described the inspection system that will be utilized to ensure the services provided meet the requirements of the PWS on both an enterprise-wide basis as well as on a site-specific basis. The quality control measures are detailed and include specific processes and procedures that ensure the services provided meet all requirements of the PWS. The quality control measures:

o Address efforts that will be used to mitigate loss/damage shipments o Address how the claims process employed will ensure timely closure of claims o Address efforts to ensure low volume/low frequency sites meet or exceed performance requirements of the PWS o Address the frequency of inspection actions o Include a description of the types and timeliness of corrective actions that will be taken when services are not meeting the requirements of the PWS

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Offeror submitted a QASP for government personnel use to assess contractor performance. The QASP is detailed and includes specific processes and procedures the Government will take to ensure the services provided meet all requirements of the PWS. The QASP reflects that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for ensuring performance meets the terms of the contract. The QASP:

o Addresses how the QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards.

o Identifies what is going to be inspected, the inspection process, and who will do the inspecting.

o Ensures early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the operational support requirements

B. Staffing. The offeror’s staffing approach for accomplishing the operational support requirements of the PWS includes adequate positions and numbers of employees for each position to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. It also includes a brief position description for each position identified. The Offeror’s approach is logical, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the management of operations requirements and should result in successful accomplishment of all tasks described in the PWS.

(4) Factor 4 - Past Performance. The government past performance evaluation team shall evaluate each offeror’s performance information using questionnaires and performance information independently obtained from government or commercial sources.

(i) The evaluation team will determine the recency and the relevancy of each past performance effort being evaluated. To be considered a recent effort, the effort must be currently on-going, or have been completed within 3 years of proposal submission. The following definitions will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort:

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.

(ii) After the government performance evaluation team has determined the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort being evaluated, one of the following overall Past Performance Confidence

Assessment ratings will be assigned to each offeror:

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

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.

(iii) Offerors with no recent/relevant performance record shall receive the rating “Unknown

Confidence” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

(iv) Offerors may be asked to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

(v) In evaluating past performance, the Government will give greater consideration to past performance efforts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

(vi) Past performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

(5) Factor 5 - Price. Price will be considered in determining the best value offeror. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness; however, price will not be rated. The Offeror’s proposed pricing will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine prices fair and reasonable. Proposed pricing will also be evaluated to determine that all prices are complete (all price fields in the

Rate Table have been entered and/or extended as required). In addition, a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by totaling the extended prices for all proposed pricing of CLIN X001 (Transportation) in the Rate Tables

(Attachments 2A and 2B). The rate tables will automatically estimate prices for the second annual period of the base year as well as for the option years and award terms based on the offeror’s proposed decrement to the current forecasted IHS Global Insight Indices (GII) for the projected time periods. The TEP reflects the proposed transportation costs of CLIN X001 for all anticipated performance periods and based on projected annual escalations in accordance with the included TRANSFAR clause 5552.216-9006, Economic Price Adjustment for Scheduled

Services – Multimodal. In the price schedules, offerors may propose a unique (reduced) escalation schedule as a percentage of the GII escalations. The price schedules allow offerors to propose a percentage of the GII escalation for each annual period and each category (trucking, time-definite service level) that will be applied to the TEP calculation and applied to actual adjustments made during contract execution. The offeror’s proposed percentage multiplied by the projected GII escalation rate becomes the effective escalation rate for the respective period.The effective escalations applied to the proposed pricing are only used to develop each offeror’s TEP. During contract execution, the actual Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) applied will be reflective of the most current GII data at the time of the adjustment in accordance with the EPA clause and according to the contractor’s proposal. The TEP does not include the Not-To-Exceed costs for CLIN X002, Customs Brokerage. The TEP does not include the offeror’s proposed pricing for CLINs 0003, Site Implementation and CLIN 0004, Systems Implementation. Both CLIN 0003 and 0004 will be evaluated to determine prices are fair and reasonable; however, they will not be included in the

TEP. The TEP will be considered in making the contract award decision.

(i) In order to protect the contractor and Government against significant market fluctuations, the

Government will utilize the IHS GII Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting in accordance with 5552.216-

9006, Economic Price Adjustment for Scheduled Services – Multimodal, to adjust transportation and accessorial prices for each option period. The index categories used to adjust transportation pricing of ground trucking requirements will be for North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 484122 – General Freight

Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload since no GII data is available for NAICS 488510 – Freight

Transportation Arrangement. The index categories used to adjust transportation pricing of time-definite service level requirements will be for NAICS 448111, Scheduled Air Freight. Since the contractor will be afforded a weekly Fuel Rate Adjustment (FRA) for trucking transportation, the GII index for 484122 is exclusive of fuel costs.

The Fuel Rate Adjusment for surface transportation will be based on a fuel cost baseline of $2.50 per gallon and surcharges will be applied according to PWS Appendix Q, TR-12 Fuel Related Rate Adjustment Policy, Annex A.

The GII index for 448111 will include fuel costs since no other recurring adjustment for fuel is made as done with trucking transportation. See RFP Attachment 2, for more information regarding the process of applying the estimated GII increases to the proposed rates in the out-years.

(ii) If the Government extends the contract pursuant to FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, such extension will be at the rates in effect under the contract when the option is exercised. For the Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) calculation, pricing for a 6-month extension of services period will be based on the prices of the final

Award Term. See RFP Attachment 2, Rate Table, as to how the Government will calculate the 6 month prices for inclusion in the TEP.

(c) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(d) 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.

(End of provision)

5552.216-9006 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR SCHEDULED SERVICES – MULTIMODAL

(JUL 2013)

1. In order to protect the contractor and government against significant market fluctuations, the unit prices shall be adjusted for each annual period. All adjustments, except for one adjustment during the base period, shall be executed concurrent with the execution of each Option Year or Award Term period. The base period adjustment shall be executed following the first twelve months of performance and shall be effective for the final twelve months of performance of the base period. Allowable adjustments will be made upward or downward if the adjustment varies by 1%.

2. The adjustment shall be applied based on indices described in the following paragraph, as well as the contractor’s proposal as awarded identifying the respective Adjustment Factor for each period. The contractual Adjustment Factors will be multiplied by the Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) determined by the indices to establish the effective adjustment. At contract award, the following table indicating the

Adjustment Factors for each period and each type of service will be populated according to the contractor’s awarded proposal. The Adjustment Factor shall be between 0% and 100%. For example, if stated as “100%” then the unit price adjustment may be applied based on the EPA according to the index.

If stated as a percentage below 100%, e.g. 90%, then for that period, the unit price adjustment may be applied up to 90% of the EPA according to the index. The Adjustment Factor is not applied when the calculated EPA according to the index results in a downward adjustment.

ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

PERIOD

NAICS 484122 –

LTL Line Items

NAICS 484122 –

TL/Scheduled Line Items

NAICS 448111 – Time Def

Transportation Line Items Base Year, Months 13-24 First Option Year Second Option Year Third Option Year Award Term 1 Award Term 2

3. The adjustment shall be applied to all less than truck load unit rates and minimum charges, to all full truckload unit rates and minimum charges, to the scheduled shipment unit rates, to the time-definite service level (TDef) transportation unit rates, and to accessorials.

(a) For all unit rates and minimum charges with the exception of time-definite service level (TDef) unit rates and minimum charges, the adjustment shall be based on a derived, composite index based on input cost and demand indices from the IHS Global Insight Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting for the

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 484122, General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload. The derived, composite index to be applied to the trucking unit rates and minimum charges is based on the Input Cost Index (exclusive of fuel) and the Demand Index for NAICS 484122. The Input Cost Index (exclusive of fuel) is weighted 69% while the Demand

Index is weighted 31%. The resultant composite index will be used for adjustments as it is representative of production costs, exclusive of fuel costs, as well as market activity. The following table is an example of how the composite index is calculated using the IHS input cost index (exclusive of fuel) and the demand index for NAICS 484122. (The following is an example and is not based on true values).

Period

Input Cost Index

(excl Fuel)

Demand

Index Calculation

Composite

Index

2014 Q1 1.03727 1.03317 1.03727*(.69) + 1.03317*(.31) 1.03600

2014 Q2 1.04930 0.99014 1.04930*(.69) + 0.99014*(.31) 1.03096

2014 Q3 1.06077 0.89987 1.06077*(.69) + 0.89987*(.31) 1.01089

2014 Q4 1.06398 0.81116 1.06398*(.69) + 0.81116*(.31) 0.98561

2015 Q1 1.06639 0.73171 1.06639*(.69) + 0.73171*(.31) 0.96264

2015 Q2 1.06754 0.71073 1.06754*(.69) + 0.71073*(.31) 0.95693

(b) For the time-definite service level transportation unit rates, the adjustment shall be based on the price index (inclusive of fuel costs) from the IHS Global Insight Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting for the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 448111, Scheduled Freight Air

Transportation. The IHS price index for NAICS 448111 is a function of both production costs and market activity.

4. In the event publication of any of the above indices is discontinued, the parties shall agree upon an appropriate substitute index.

(a) Index figures subsequently revised by IHS (e.g., amending formerly released indices by removing or replacing components within the index, describing revisions by footnote or appendix, significantly altering the method of calculating the index, or any other method) shall not warrant a retroactive price adjustment under the terms and conditions of this contract.

(b) Price adjustments shall be executed via a contract modification.

(c) Any price adjustments under this EPA clause shall be rounded to two decimal positions (e.g. $1.50).

(d) The formulas for determining the adjusted unit prices for the Option Year and Award Term is

[Eq 1] [( IN+1 / IN ) – 1] x AFN = Effective Unit Price Adjustment

[Eq 2] PN x (1 + Effective Unit Price Adjustment) = Adjusted Unit Price

Where:

PN = The current effective prices listed in the Schedule, where the subscript “N” represents the current contract performance period.

IN = Index for the current contract period: For the first economic price adjustment from the first annual base year period to the second annual base year period, this index will represent the 4-quarter average of the actual/historical index values for the first annual base year period. For each successive adjustment, the index value used for variable IN+1 in the previous year’s adjustment will become the value used for IN for the current year’s adjustment.

IN+1 = Index for the adjustment period: 4-quarter average of the index for the future contract period

AFN = The Adjustment Factor according to the table in paragraph 2.

(e) To determine the NAICS 484122 input cost index, exclusive of fuel costs, the index data will be obtained from IHS with the input cost breakdown. The share of the fuel cost element will be zeroed out and the new input cost index will be calculated by the IHS DataInsight-Web tool.

5. The index for NAICS 484122, General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload, will be determined exclusive of changes in fuel costs because surface transportation requirements are permitted a

Fuel Surcharge Rate in accordance with PWS appendix B. More information regarding the Fuel Surcharge

Rate, including the effective adjustment table for this requirement, can be found at:

http://www.sddc.army.mil/GCD/default.aspx and the TR-12 Fuel Related Rate Adjustment Policy at:

http://www.sddc.army.mil/GCD/Fuel%20Surcharge/TR-12%20FRA%20Policy%20(2).docx. For this contract, the Fuel Surcharge Rate will be applied based on the adjustment table listed in Annex A of the TR-

12 Fuel Related Rate Adjustment Policy.

EXAMPLE:

BASE YEAR (1 Jul 2014 – 30 Jun 15) TO 1ST OPTION YEAR (1 Jul 15 – 30 Jun 16)

Example PN= $5.00, where subscript “N” = FY14 AF15 = 100% or 1.00

Example I14 = Avg from Q3 2014 through Q2 2015 (1.209718+1.211258+1.215064+1.219659)/4 = 1.213925

Example I15 = Avg from Q3 2015 through Q2 2016 (1.225605+1.233057+1.239073+1.245795)/4 = 1.235883

Example Adjustment:

[Eq 1]: [(1.235883/1.213925) – 1] x 1.00= 0.01809

[Eq 2]: P15 = $5.00 x (1 + 0.01809) = $5.09

1ST OPTION YEAR (1 Jul 15 – 30 Jun 16) TO 2ND OPTION YEAR (1 Jul 16 – 30 Jun 17)

Example PN = $5.09, where subscript “N” = FY15

AF16 = 90% or 0.90

Example I15 = Avg from Q3 2015 through Q2 2016 (1.225605+1.233057+1.239073+1.245795)/4 = 1.235883*

*NOTE: Since IHS develops a forecast for the index, it is likely that the actual/historical index values will not be the same as the previously forecasted index values.

Example I16 = Avg from Q3 2016 through Q2 2017 (1.251979+1.258781+1.265087+1.272448)/4 = 1.262074

Example Adjustment:

[Eq 1]: [(1.262074/1.235883) – 1] x 0.90 = 0.01907

[Eq 2]: P16 = $5.09 x (1 + 0.01907) = $5.19

6. In addition, carriers may waive an EPA increase that results in higher prices or any part thereof for the entire contract or identified CLIN(s). The adjustment percentage shall apply to all pricing within the identified

CLIN(s). Secondly, if the carrier elects to do so, they can offer the Government an additional downward price adjustment, effective at the time of the option exercise, in lieu of an increased EPA option year adjustment. A carrier may not waive a downward EPA adjustment.

7. All EPA adjustment calculations will be based on the current year’s prices in the Schedule and the index calculations described above. A carrier shall not recoup previously waived EPA increases.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes) http://www.sddc.army.mil/GCD/default.aspx http://www.sddc.army.mil/GCD/Fuel%20Surcharge/TR-12%20FRA%20Policy%20(2).docx http://www.sddc.army.mil/GCD/Fuel%20Surcharge/TR-12%20FRA%20Policy%20(2).docx