M00264-15-R-1003_amend_01.pdf

M0026415SU00014

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 solicitation amendment is to revise evaluation Factor 3 - Past Performance to remove the quality assessment of past performance citations. Evaluation Factor 3 - Past Performance w ill only be evaluated on the basis of confidence of liklihood of successful performance of the current requirement based on performance under previous contracts and relevancy of cited previously performed contracts to the pending requirement. See the attached Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Dec-2014

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 M00264-15-R-1003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Dec-2014

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 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

23-Dec-2014

CODE

COMMANDING GENERAL - REG CON OFFICE NCR

2010 HENDERSON ROAD

DENNIE, MICHAEL

QUANTICO VA 22134

M00264 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M00264-15-R-1003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Enclosure 2 – Addendum to 52.212-2 -Evaluation - Commercial Items

1.0. Evaluation Factors:

1.1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed solicitation cannot be resolved to the Contracting Officer’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed solicitation. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and 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.

1.1.1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible

Offeror, whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the

Government, price/cost and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability, and Factor 2 - Performance Execution and Management, are equal in importance to each other and each is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Past

Performance. All non-price factors, individually and combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 - Price.

1.1.2. Offerors are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher evaluated priced Offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. Although Factor 4 – Price, is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

1.2. Factor 1. Technical Capability.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and they must clearly articulate their capability to perform all of the tasks outlined in the PWS so as to provide continuous quality support. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to identify performance objectives that can be accomplished by their technical approach, and describe the benefits and advantages of that approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to illustrate the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended strategy. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to support the identified mission areas, understanding the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of staff resources to meet the PWS objectives to execute the intended strategy.

1.3. Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to respond to the types of requirements described in the PWS and consistent with their technical approach. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehensive approach to: 1) managing orders or performance-based work requirements; 2) assurance of consistent quality of performance at the order level; 3) handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; and 4) ensuring complementary roles between the Contractor’s managers and Government staff. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and that is has management techniques, controls, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to measure and execute immediate action and remediation necessary to ensure the quality of contract deliverables and timeliness of service delivery. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s key personnel for relevant experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements who will be assigned to the contract.

Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSET will assign each factor an adjectival rating using the following adjectival rating scale:

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is not worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is “unawardable”.*** see note below

***A proposal that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for Factors 1 or 2 will result in the entire proposal being determined to be “unacceptable”. The proposal may not be considered to be in the competitive range.

2.0. Factor 3 – Past Performance

2.1. Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent, relevant and quality of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s past performance, focusing on the recent, relevant and quality performance in meeting the requirements.

2.3. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation which include Confidence of successful performance based on previously performed contracts of similar scope as this requirement and Relevancy of cited previously performed contracts to the currently pending requirement. In establishing what is relevant for the requirement, consideration may be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

2.4. Offerors must demonstrate sufficient, past performance information focusing on management and technical capabilities in the execution of the PWS. Discussion should illustrate past performance information of both technical and management tasks necessary to meet government requirements. Offerors must provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality of performing the same or similar services within the last five (5) years that include the following fields:

Customer;

Contract/Task Order Number;

Program Name;

Period of Performance;

Contract Type;

Total contract value;

Identification of any Key Staff involved who will be assigned to this contract;

Names/telephone numbers/e-mail for the PCO and COR/TOM.

2.5. An Offeror that has no record of past performance (e.g. new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. In addition, Offerors should provide the enclosed Past

Performance Questionnaire for the three (3) references. The references should email the form directly to the RCO-NCR at the address provided on the form on or before 20 January 2015. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to make sure the Past Performance Questionnaire is submitted and received by the requested date. In addition to the sources identified by the

Offeror, the Government may review DoD Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS) ratings. The Government may also contact previous customers, and review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including

Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases.

2.6. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials;

and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

2.7. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment that past performance of lesser relevance. The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the evaluation of Past Performance Relevancy:

Table 1- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Rating Definition

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 much of the 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.

2.8. Performance Confidence Assessment. The following adjectival rating/definitions shall be used for conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the below table:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

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.

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.

3.0. Factor 4 – Price

3.1. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposed prices, but this factor will not be given an adjectival rating. Proposals will be evaluated on completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness.

Evaluation of the proposed prices for the services will be based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and may also be based on a comparison to the

IGCE along with any other relevant price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b). All option period pricing to include the extension of services in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 will be considered in the evaluation.

3.1.1. Comparison of the proposed pricing is considered in the overall evaluation of “best value” to the Government based upon the anticipated level of competition. The Government may accept other than the lowest priced proposal if the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal is deemed to merit the higher price. The price of the base year and all option years will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (July 1990). Prospective

Offerors are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher evaluated Offeror is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government.

3.2. Reasonableness

3.2.1. Reasonableness. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions, general economic conditions, and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements.

Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including the following:

(a) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the

Offeror’s business or of the contract performance;

(b) Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc; and

(c) Any significant deviations from the Offeror’s

Established practices.

3.2.2. Completeness and Accuracy

(a) The Government will review the pricing tables for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the pricing tables. The

Offeror’s proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1) Checking arithmetic in all B-Table computations; and

2) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly

(b) 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. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(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.

4.0. Subcontracting Plan- (Reference Solicitation, addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph- 8.1.)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.7 and paragraph 8.1. contained in addendum to 52.212-1. The Subcontracting plan will be evaluated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

5.0. Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan- (Reference Solicitation, addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph 8.2.)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation

Plan(s) in accordance with paragraph 8.2. contained in addendum to 52.212-1. The OCI plan will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis

(End of Summary of Changes)