M0068125R000300002 Amendment to ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2.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 to do the follow ing:

See amendment continuation page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Nov-2024

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 M0068125R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Nov-2024

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

21-Nov-2024

CODE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING OFFICE-MCIWEST

BLDG 22180 REGIONAL CONTRACTS

CAMP PENDLETON CA 92055-5027

M00681 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M0068125R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 00001

The purpose of this amendment is to do the following:

Delete ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 in its entirety and replace with updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 as reflected below.

Evaluation Factors for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. This is a simplified acquisition in which the competing proposals will be evaluated using the factors identified in FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services and this Addendum, in accordance with FAR 13.5 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS). Award will be made utilizing the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process. Proposals will be arranged in order of price from lowest to highest. The lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability and acceptable past performance. If the lowest price proposal is determined technically acceptable and the offeror demonstrates a history of acceptable performance, evaluations will conclude and proceed to award. If the lowest price proposal is determined not technically acceptable or the offeror has an unacceptable history of performance, the second lowest proposal will be sent for technical and offeror performance history evaluation. This process will continue until a proposal is determined to be both technically acceptable and the offeror demonstrates an acceptable performance record. An unacceptable rating on any technical element or a negative performance record will result in the proposal being deemed unawardable.

B. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.

Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

C. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

D. Evaluation Criteria

1) Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Capability Factor 3: Past Performance

2) Factor 1 – Price. In order to be considered for an award, the price must be determined to be fair and reasonable, and balanced (or if unbalanced pricing exists that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to the government) using one or more techniques set forth in FAR 13.106-3(a).

Options.

In accordance with the provision at FAR 52.217-5, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, including the option under FAR 52.217-8, to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise options. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Offerors are advised that the Option to Extend Services Clause at 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and will be included in the awarded contract. When proposing prices for base and option years, Offerors should consider that the Government may choose to exercise the option to extend services at the end of any period of performance (base or option periods), utilizing the rates in effect during the period of performance in which the option is exercised. The Government assumes that any price proposed for base and option periods reflects the possibility that a period of performance may be extended. For evaluation purposes, the Government will take the total price for the last option period, divide it by two, and add it to the total contract price.

3) Factor 2 - Technical Capability. The Offeror shall submit a detailed narrative of how the contractor will accomplish the deliverables as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

a) Technical Approach:

1. The offeror shall provide a narrative demonstrating ability to perform the PWS.

2. Provide evidence that the offeror owns or can acquire and provide the equipment listed in the PWS, section 4.6 to include specification sheets of each proposed equipment.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has demonstrated a technical approach to meet all PWS requirements; technical approach receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor did not demonstrate a technical approach to meet one or more of the PWS requirements; technical approach receives an unacceptable rating.

b) Accident Prevention Plan - Plan to mitigate employee accidents while working on a DoD installation and PWS Section 8, paragraph 8.8.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted an Accident Prevention Plan identifying measures to mitigate employee accidents; accident prevention plan receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor did not submit an Accident Prevention Plan that identifies measures to mitigate employee accidents; accident prevention plan receives an unacceptable rating.

c) Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024 under

General Conditions Section, paragraph 1.7.3.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted a Mission- Essential Contractor Service Plan in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024; mission-essential contractor services plan receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted a Mission-contractor services plan receives an unacceptable rating.

4) Factor 3 - Past Performance. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment of the offeror’s record of past and current performance, to include information within the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), as well as that of its proposed subcontractors and team member as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation. The past performance evaluation will consider the Past Performance Worksheet submitted by offerors, Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by Offeror references, their own experience with offerors, and information from third-party references of recent (within the past three (3) years) and relevant (providing the same or similar services identified in the PWS) record of performance in supplying services that meet the solicitation’s requirements. Offerors are advised that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources.

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis in accordance with the below table.

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “unknown” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Evaluation Factors for Award

II. Basis for Contract Award

A. This is a simplified acquisition in which the competing proposals will be evaluated using the factors identified in FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services and this Addendum, in accordance with FAR 13.5 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS). Award will be made utilizing the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process. Proposals will be arranged in order of price from lowest to highest. The lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the lowest price proposal is determined technically acceptable, evaluations will conclude and proceed to award. If the lowest price proposal is determined not technically acceptable, the second lowest proposal will be sent for technical evaluation. This process will continue until a proposal is determined technically acceptable. An unacceptable rating on any technical element will result in the proposal being deemed unawardable. Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly less important than price.

B. Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

C. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

D. Evaluation Criteria

5) Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Capability Factor 3: Past Performance

6) Factor 1 – Price. In order to be considered for an award, the price must be determined to be fair and reasonable, and balanced (or if unbalanced pricing exists that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to the government) using one or more techniques set forth in FAR 13.106-3(a).

Options.

In accordance with the provision at FAR 52.217-5, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, including the option under FAR 52.217-8, to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise options. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Offerors are advised that the Option to Extend Services Clause at 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and will be included in the awarded contract. When proposing prices for base and option years, Offerors should consider that the Government may choose to exercise the option to extend services at the end of any period of performance (base or option periods), utilizing the rates in effect during the period of performance in which the option is exercised. The Government assumes that any price proposed for base and option periods reflects the possibility that a period of performance may be extended. For evaluation purposes, the Government will take the total price for the last option period, divide it by two, and add it to the total contract price.

7) Factor 2 - Technical Capability. The Offeror shall submit a detailed narrative of how the contractor will accomplish the deliverables as outlined in the Performance

Work Statement (PWS).

d) Technical Approach:

1. The offeror shall provide a narrative demonstrating ability to perform the PWS.

2. Provide evidence that the offeror owns or can acquire and provide the equipment listed in the PWS, section 4.6 to include specification sheets of each proposed equipment.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has demonstrated a technical approach to meet all PWS requirements; technical approach receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor did not demonstrate a technical approach to meet one or more of the PWS requirements; technical approach receives an unacceptable rating.

e) Accident Prevention Plan - Plan to mitigate employee accidents while working on a DoD installation and PWS Section 8, paragraph 8.8.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted an Accident Prevention Plan identifying measures to mitigate employee accidents; accident prevention plan receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor did not submit an Accident Prevention Plan that identifies measures to mitigate employee accidents; accident prevention plan receives an unacceptable rating.

f) Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024 under

General Conditions Section, paragraph 1.7.3.

Acceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted a Mission-contractor services plan receives an acceptable rating.

Unacceptable Based on the proposal, the Government has determined the contractor has submitted a Mission-contractor services plan receives an unacceptable rating.

8) Factor 3 - Past Performance. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government will consider the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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.

Evaluation Process. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

These aspects will be evaluated as follows:

a) Recency. First, the Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine recency. Recency is expressed as a time during which the past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

b) Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to the required effort. Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the Request for Proposals (RFP) with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine scope and magnitude relative to this requirement.

• Scope: For this requirement, relevant past performance in terms of scope are past (or ongoing) efforts that involve Heavy Equipment Leasing.

The following rating scale shall be used for past performance relevance.

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.

c) Quality. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Only recent past performance deemed Somewhat Relevant or better will be evaluated in this third step. The Government will review this past performance information (to include CPARS and/or questionnaires) and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment. The Government’s performance confidence assessment will consider the Past Performance Worksheet submitted by Offerors, Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by Offeror references, their own experience with offerors, and information from third-party references. If a Offeror already has had an evaluation completed within the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) for a past performance effort listed in the Past Performance Worksheet, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) does not need to be submitted. If a PPQ is received and there is an existing CPARS record for the same effort, the CPAR record will take precedence.

Note: An offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such Offerors will receive a neutral rating of Neutral Confidence.

Ratings. After the Government reviews the past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment, offerors will be assigned one of the following confidence ratings:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(End of Summary of Changes)