Amendment_0001.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

This amendment is issued to modify Section M, add tw o clauses and answ er four pre-proposal inquiries.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jan-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 N33191-14-R-1009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jan-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

21-Jan-2014

CODE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA SOUTHWEST ASIA

PSC 817 BOX 51

FPO AE 09622-0051

N33191 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N33191-14-R-1009

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Changes to Section M:

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, Basis for Award, Number 4 shall be changed to read, “Factors 1, 2, and 3 are approximately equal in importance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.”

On Page 31 of 33, Number 2, Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors, shall be changed to read, “Factors 1, 2, and 3 are approximately equal in importance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to

Price.”

Answers to Pre-Proposal Inquiries:

1. The PPQ and Contract Data Sheet refer to contracts and not single Task Orders/Delivery Orders (TO/DO). It is correct to assume that we can submit PPQs relative to Contracts (for example Multimedia or Material Waste) referring to multiple TO/DO or are we limited to a single, specific TO/DO within a contract? Please clarify.

A “contract” can be a single task order, or an entire base contract with multiple task order issued under it. The requirement is for each “contract” to be similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award - (3) Factor 3 Key Personnel/Project Management: In item (i) Solicitation

Submittal Requirements it is indicated that the resumes have to be submitted for the proposed Program Manager for the contract and proposed Senior Environmental Professional (i.e. Senior Engineer/Senior Scientist). Please clarify how many other Environmental Professionals resumes can be presented with the proposal.

The requirement is to submit resumes for the proposed Program Manager and the Proposed Senior Environmental

Professional. Only two resumes are to be submitted, one for each person.

3. Under item 5254 - Factor 2 - Past Performance, please clarify whether it is possible to submit additional information about our past performance such as maps showing project/offices locations, accomplishments in delivering the projects, etc., in addition to the customer-filled out PPQs and awards, customer letters or e-mails of appreciation, etc

Submissions not stated in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 2 – Past Performance will not be evaluated.

4. Does the Government expects the award selection process to include an interview/presentation by shortlisted firms?

No.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

52.217-7 Option For Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item MAR 1989

The following have been modified:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors

(except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4. Factors 1, 2, and 3 are approximately equal in importance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The non-price rating reflects the degree to which the evaluated proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each non-price proposal and to assign a rating for each non-price factor other than past performance. Use upper case letter ratings for major non-price factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Non-Price/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

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.

Good (G)

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.

Acceptable (A)

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 no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M)

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.

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

a. Strength: 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.

b. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Deficiency: 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of the following technical factors and price.

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Key Personnel

Note: The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

2. Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors

Factors 1, 2, and 3 are approximately equal in importance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The applicable evaluation factors and submission requirements are identified as follows:

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1 - Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall submit a minimum of one (1) and maximum of three (3) contracts completed by the offeror that were completed or substantially completed (80% by the date of issuance of this RFP) within the past five (5) years, that are similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation and was/were performed within the European Union.

Each contract submitted on Attachment B shall include the contract number, project description, an explanation of similarity to the current project, the dollar value, the year the work was completed, and a client point of contact.

Indicate if the contract was performed under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Limit to three (3) pages.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Evaluation will be based on the extent of the Offeror’s relevant experience relating to the assessment of environmental regulations.

Note 1: Offerors may receive a higher rating for this factor where the Offeror demonstrates that a submitted contract was performed within the European Union AND within Africa, AND/OR within Southwest Asia.

Note 2: Offerors may receive a higher rating for this factor where the Offeror demonstrates experience in managing multiple Task Orders under Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts.

Note 3: If the Offeror is a joint venture, contracts must be submitted for all joint venture partners. Failure to submit contracts for all joint venture partners may result in a lower rating.

(2) Factor 2 - Past Performance:

The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor (Factor 1 - Corporate Experience). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Include with your proposal submission a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Sheet which contains the point of contact information for each client questionnaire. Also include any performance recognition documents received within the last (5 years) such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members

(partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included below as

Attachment A.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, performance recognition documents, and information obtained for any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds.

(3) Factor 3 – Key Personnel/Project Management:

Offerors shall submit a resume for each of the following: Offeror’s proposed Program Manager, and proposed

Senior Environmental Professional (ie. Senior Engineer/Senior Scientist).

Each resume shall include the individual’s name, title, and education. Each resume shall list at least 5 years of related experience, an explanation of how their experience relates to the assessment of environmental regulations within the European Union. Indicate on which contracts, if any, the individual worked on that was submitted for

Factor 1-Corporate Experience. Limit to 1 page per resume.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Evaluation will be based on the offeror’s ability to provide quality personnel to perform the required work. Evaluation will be based on the proposed individual’s level of education; level of experience; number of years of relevant experience; and the extent to how well their experience relates to the assessment of environmental regulations.

Note 1: Offerors may receive a higher rating for this factor where the Offeror demonstrates that submitted experience was performed within the European Union AND within Africa, AND/OR within Southwest Asia.

Note 2: Proposals that demonstrate that one or more of the proposed key personnel worked together with the offeror on successful contracts already submitted under Factor 1-Corporate Experience, may be rated higher.

Price:

a. Offerors shall enter their proposed unit prices with total amounts in U.S Dollars for all Exhibit Line Item

Numbers (ELINS) including the Base Period and Option Periods 1, 2, 3, and 4. Pricing for each ELIN shall include all labor, materials, supervision, overhead and profit to perform the required work as outlined in the corresponding

Statement of Work.

b. The awardee’s proposed prices shall be incorporated into the contract award. Note: Exhibit Line Item

Numbers (ELINS) are provided as a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet for the offerors’ convenience. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure prices are entered correctly and that any calculation formulas used are correct. In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount, the unit price will be held to be the intended bid/offer and the total of the line item will be recomputed accordingly.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the total for the base period and all option periods. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR

52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate..

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(End of Summary of Changes)