Amendment_0003__AV_Media_Production_M00264-17-R-0017.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 amendment is as follow s:

1) 52.212-2-ADDENDUM EVALUATION/Q&A FOR SITE VISIT never changed, therefore, an admistrative error of the contract w riting system inadvertenly appeared to delete under Amendment 0002.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Sep-2017

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 M00264-17-R-0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Apr-2017

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

11-Sep-2017

CODE

MCINCR - RCO

2010 HENDERSON RD

HUGHES, JOY

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:

M00264-17-R-0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

52.212-2-ADDENDUM EVALUATION

Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212-2 Addendum – Evaluation – Commercial Items

1 General:

1.1 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate Proposal:

Factor 1 Technical Capability;

Factor 2 Performance Execution and Management;

Factor 3 Past Performance; and Factor 4 Price

1.2 In determining the best value, Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management, are equal in importance to each other and each are significantly more important that Factor 3 – Past Performance. All non-price factors are individually, and when combined are significantly, more important than Factor 4 – Price.

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

The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

1.4 The Government intends to evaluate Proposals and award a Contract without discussions with Offeror’s. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

2 Volume I – Technical

2.1 Factor 1. Technical Capability.

2.1.1 The Proposal will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described the PWS and how well the proposal articulates the Offeror’s capability to perform all of the tasks outlined in the PWS so as to provide continuous quality support.

The Proposal evaluation will consider the Offeror’s capacity to support the identified mission areas and understanding of the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, and approach to ensuring quality performance and use of staff resources to meet objectives identified in the PWS to execute the intended strategy.

2.2 Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

2.2.1 The Proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed performance execution and management approach demonstrates an understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the desired outcomes set forth in the PWS and are consistent with the technical approach.

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

2.3.1 The Government will assign Factor 1 and Factor 2 an adjectival rating from the Table1 below that best describes their consensus evaluation of the factor being evaluated, and will identify each Proposal ’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

2.3.2 Strength is defined as an aspect of the Proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance of capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during Contract performance.

2.3.3 Weakness is defined as a flaw in the Proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

2.3.4 Deficiency is a material failure of a Proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance to an unacceptable.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

2.3.5 A Proposal that receives a final “Unacceptable” rating from the TEP for Factors 1 or 2 will result in the entire Proposal being determined to be “Unacceptable”. The Proposal may not be considered for award.

3. Volume II – Past Performance

3.1 Factor 3. Past Performance.

3.1.1. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer, , documents the reason it is not an appropriate evaluation factor in accordance with FA R 1 5.304(c)(3)(iii). The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. In accordance with FAR l 5.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. With appropriate parameters to assess past performance recency, descriptions and ratings of" acceptable"or "unacceptable" provided in Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method. may be used if past performance is not a discriminating factor in the source selection.

Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror's history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see paragraph 3.1.3.3). A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

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; and

• Past performance information may 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Performance Confidence Assessment. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination with the past performance evaluation, the Government shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table

3. For those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the past performance evaluation team may use, as a minimum, "Satisfactory," "Limited,''No," and "Neutral" confidence ratings.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of"neutral."

Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may recommend and the Government may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

Table 3.Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on. The offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4 Volume III – Business Volume

4.1 Factor 4 – Price

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s Proposed prices, but this factor will not be given an adjectival rating. Proposal will be evaluated on completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. Evaluation of the Proposal 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 Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) along with any other relevant price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b).

4.2 Reasonableness

4.2.1 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 a Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

4.3 Completeness and Accuracy

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 computations; and

2) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly

5. Notification of Award

A written notice of award or acceptance of a Proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the Proposal, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal specified expiration time, the Government may accept the proposal, whether or not there are exchanges after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Summary of Changes)