TIRWR10R00013-A0001 1 .rtf

OMB Control No. 1505-0081

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) See Block 16C

D-0-D9-26-DE-L13 000

6. ISSUED BY

CODE

IRS0093C

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (DY)

I.R.S., PROCUREMENT OS:A:P:B:W

1301 CLAY STREET SUITE 810S

OAKLAND , CA 94612-5272

LOPER, ASHLEY S 510-637-2126

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code)

Vendor ID: 00055905

TO ALL OFFERORS

TO ALL OFFERORS

TO ALL OFFERORS, WV 99999

(x)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

TIRWR-10-R-00013

x

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08/25/2010

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE

FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers 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 DATA 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 data 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.

(x) 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.)

Amendment No. 0001 of Solicitation No. TIRWR-10-R-00013 is issued to amend the solicitation as follows:

To revise the Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume I: Technical Proposal, as follows:

FROM:

(CONTINUED)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

15C. DATE SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _____________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

TIRWR-10-R-00013 AMEND# 0001

SF30 Comments(Block 14) Continuation Sheet

Volume I: Technical Proposal:

The Technical Proposal shall contain the offeror’s Staffing Plan, Corporate Experience, and Past Performance information. Offerors shall submit an original and three (3) copies of their technical proposal. There is no page limit for this volume.

Prospective offerors are asked to submit only material and/or information directly pertinent to the requirements of this RFP. Extraneous narratives, elaborate brochures, uninformative “PR” material, and the like, should not be submitted.

NOTE: We are requesting that Offerors provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to their references, and that those references submit the Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the IRS.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with its past and present clients to ensure Past Perfromance Questionnaires are completed and submitted by the solicitation closing date. Any past performance information, including Past Performance Questionnaires received after the solicitation closing date will be considered “late”. Offerors may follow-up with the Contract Specialist to verify receipt of completed questionnaires.

TO:

Volume I: Technical Proposal:

The Technical Proposal shall contain the offeror’s Staffing Plan, Corporate Experience, and Past Performance information. Offerors shall submit an original and three (3) copies of their technical proposal. There is no page limit for this volume.

Prospective offerors are asked to submit only material and/or information directly pertinent to the requirements of this RFP. Extraneous narratives, elaborate brochures, uninformative “PR” material, and the like, should not be submitted.

Staffing Plan The Offeror shall submit a Staffing Plan identifying proposed positions to be filled and describing in detail how proposed plan will assure accomplishment of the work requirements of the performance work statement. At the Government’s discretion, this plan may be incorporated into the resultant contract.

Corporate Experience Using the Corporate Experience Summary Sheet provided with this solicitation, the offeror shall provide information on a minimum of three and a maximum of five relevant contracts of a similar size and complexity, active within the last five (5) years, which demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. Corporate Experience given may come from current contracts, provided the offeror has been performing this contract for a minimum of 6 months.

Corporate Experience provided shall reflect the experience of the offeror, not the corporate experience of proposed subcontractors.

Past Performance

Offerors shall submit past performance information for a minimum of three and a maximum of five contracts which are considered relevant and which demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. Past performance information shall be submitted directly by references on the Past Performance Questionnaires provided with the solicitation.

Past performance submitted shall address the past performance of the offeror, not the past performance of proposed subcontractors.

NOTE: We are requesting that offerors provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to their references, and that those references submit the Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the IRS. It is the offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with its past and present clients to ensure Past Performance Questionnaires are completed and submitted by the solicitation closing date. Any past performance information, including Past Performance Questionnaires received after the solicitation closing date will be considered “late”. Offerors may follow-up with the Contract Specialist to verify receipt of completed questionnaires.

NOTE: The sample Past Performance Release Letter is provided to assist offerors in the submittal of their past performance information; offerors are not required to send it to references.

2) To revise the descriptions of Items A. Staffing Plan, B. Corporate Experience, and C. Past Performance under FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999), as follows:

FROM:

A. Staffing Plan. The Offeror shall submit a Staffing Plan identifying proposed positions to be filled and describing in detail how proposed plan will assure accomplishment of the work requirements of the performance work statement. The Government will evaluate this plan to ensure sufficient experienced, licensed, trained and otherwise qualified personnel will be used to perform services required by the resultant contract. At the Government’s discretion, this plan may be incorporated into the resultant contract.

The Staffing Plan shall include:

(1) Each category of personnel, including subcontractor personnel and/or partners, who will be assigned to perform contract tasks.

(2) The approximate number of personnel by category, including those to be provided by any subcontractor firms, who will be available to perform work on the contract.

(3) Certification and licenses, years of experience related to performing the requirements of the solicitation, and education, training and certification that shall be required for each category of personnel.

(4) Clear identification of functional duties/responsibilities of all personnel proposed.

(5) Resumes for specific personnel are not required as part of the staffing plan except for key personnel. Key personnel are considered to be the Project Manager, CMMS Administrator, and any on-site supervisory personnel identified in the Staffing Plan.

(6) Number of personnel per shift, start and stop time of each shift, and provide an example of one complete 30 day shift rotation/schedule.

The staffing plan will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Staffing Plan demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

GOOD - Staffing Plan demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

SATISFACTORY – Staffing Plan demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

MARGINAL – Staffing Plan demonstrates shallow understanding of requirement and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The proposal has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

UNSATISFACTORY – Staffing Plan fails to meet performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. Numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

B. Corporate Experience - The Government will evaluate the offerors corporate experience to determine if it has performed work relevant to and of a similar size and complexity as those services outlined in the performance work statement. “Similar size and complexity” means: similar in dollar amount, number of years in business and number of offeror employees working on the contract.

Offerors shall provide information on relevant contracts of a similar size and complexity, active within the last five (5) years, which demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. Corporate Experience listed may come from current contracts, provided the offeror has been performing this contract for a minimum of 6 months.

Corporate experience will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Corporate Experience demonstrates extensive experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

GOOD - Corporate Experience demonstrates considerable experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

SATISFACTORY – Corporate Experience demonstrates an acceptable level of experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

MARGINAL – Corporate Experience demonstrates a limited amount of experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. The proposal has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

UNSATISFACTORY – Corporate Experience demonstrates no experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

C. Past Performance This factor will be evaluated using offeror’s past performance in providing services similar to those required in this solicitation.

Standard: The IRS will review Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by past performance references and may conduct checks on the contracts provided as references of capabilities and past performance of the Offeror. Evaluation of past performance will be based on customer satisfaction with the technical success of the project and the quality of the project management. The elements that will be considered are as follows:

Quality of Services: conforming to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship.

Cost Control: the contractor’s adherence to budget estimates on a firm-fixed price contract.

Timeliness: the contractor’s adherence to schedules including the administrative aspects of performance.

Business Relations: the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and the contractor’s overall businesslike concern for the customer.

Offerors shall submit past performance information for at least three contracts, which are considered relevant (for similar services to those described in the PWS) and which demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort.

Information shall be submitted directly by references on the Past Performance Questionnaires provided with the solicitation.

Interviews may be conducted with references provided with client account information under the Corporate Experience Factor above to verify the quality of the offeror's performance. The IRS may also contact an offeror’s former customers and business associates, Federal, State and Local Government agencies, electronic databases, and other sources of information. The Government may obtain previous clients’ opinions concerning services provided by the Offeror as they relate to (1) the performance elements listed above; (2) effective employee management, honesty, and cooperative behavior; (3) whether they would use the Offeror’s services again; and (4), any substantial past performance problems that would present an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offeror(s) “past performance” will be assigned an adjectival rating as listed below:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which exceeded all stated requirements (i.e., performance met and significantly exceeded all contract requirements to the company’s benefit); presents no foreseeable or identifiable risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses).

GOOD – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which met all stated requirements and exceeded some stated requirements (i.e., performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the company’s benefit); presents very little risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses), except those that are minor and easily correctible.

SATISFACTORY – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which met all stated requirements (i.e., performance met all contract requirements and exceeded none); presents little risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses), except those that are minor and easily correctible.

MARGINAL – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which failed to meet some stated requirements (i.e., performance did not meet all contractual requirements. There were significant problems during contract performance, although the contractor’s corrective actions were typically effective); Presents moderate risk of failure or significant problems during contract performance; and contains some significant deficiencies and weaknesses that appear to be correctable through exchanges and or discussions.

UNSATISFACTORY - Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which failed to meet all stated requirements (i.e., performance did not meet all contractual requirements. There were serious problems during contract performance for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective); presents an almost certain risk of failure or significant problems during contract performance; and contains significant deficiencies and weaknesses which do not appear to be correctible through exchanges and or discussions.

*NEUTRAL - No relevant past performance information is available for evaluation. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.*

* In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), offeror(s) lacking relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror(s) may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. This rating will only be used for offerors with no previous relevant past performance.

The following defines strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies:

Strength is any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation factor, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

TO:

A. Staffing Plan. Evaluation of the Staffing Plan will be based upon the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the level of effort required to perform the requirements of the PWS and the qualifications of the personnel proposed. The Government will evaluate this plan to ensure sufficient experienced, licensed, trained and otherwise qualified personnel will be used to perform services required by the resultant contract. At the Government’s discretion, this plan may be incorporated into the resultant contract.

The Staffing Plan shall include:

(1) Each category of personnel, including subcontractor personnel and/or partners, who will be assigned to perform contract tasks.

(2) The approximate number of personnel by category, including those to be provided by any subcontractor firms, who will be available to perform work on the contract.

(3) Certification and licenses, years of experience related to performing the requirements of the solicitation, and education, training and certification that shall be required for each category of personnel.

(4) Clear identification of functional duties/responsibilities of all personnel proposed.

(5) Resumes for specific personnel are not required as part of the staffing plan except for key personnel. Key personnel are considered to be the Project Manager, CMMS Administrator, and any on-site supervisory personnel identified in the Staffing Plan.

(6) Number of personnel per shift, start and stop time of each shift, and provide an example of one complete 30 day shift rotation/schedule.

The staffing plan will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Staffing Plan demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

GOOD - Staffing Plan demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

SATISFACTORY – Staffing Plan demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

MARGINAL – Staffing Plan demonstrates shallow understanding of requirement and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The proposal has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

UNSATISFACTORY – Staffing Plan fails to meet performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. Numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

B. Corporate Experience - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s corporate experience to determine if it has performed work relevant to and of a similar size and complexity as those services outlined in the performance work statement. “Similar size and complexity” includes but is not limited to: similar in dollar amount, number of years in business, number of offeror and employees working on the contract. The Government will assess each offeror’s probability of successful contract performance based upon the offeror’s experience providing facilities operations and maintenance services that are relevant to the effort described in the PWS.

No more than five contracts will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government under the Corporate Experience factor. Should the oferror provide information for more than five contracts, the Government will choose which five to review and evaluate and will not consider the remaining submittals. The Government may consider the submittal of fewer than three contracts to be a weakness.

Offeror’s corporate experience will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Corporate Experience demonstrates extensive experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

GOOD - Corporate Experience demonstrates considerable experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

SATISFACTORY – Corporate Experience demonstrates an acceptable level of experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

MARGINAL – Corporate Experience demonstrates a limited amount of experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. The proposal has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

UNSATISFACTORY – Corporate Experience demonstrates no experience performing relevant work of similar size and complexity, as defined above. Numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

C. Past Performance The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance based on customer satisfaction with the technical success of the project and the quality of the project management. The elements that will be considered are as follows:

Quality of Services: conforming to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship.

Cost Control: the contractor’s adherence to budget estimates on a firm-fixed price contract.

Timeliness: the contractor’s adherence to schedules including the administrative aspects of performance.

Business Relations: the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and the contractor’s overall businesslike concern for the customer.

The IRS will review Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by past performance references and may conduct checks on the contracts provided as references of past performance of the offeror. Interviews may be conducted with references provided with client account information under the Corporate Experience Factor above to verify the quality of the offeror's performance. The IRS may also contact an offeror’s former customers and business associates, Federal, State and Local Government agencies, electronic databases, and other sources of information. The Government may obtain previous clients’ opinions concerning services provided by the Offeror as they relate to (1) the performance elements listed above; (2) effective employee management, honesty, and cooperative behavior; (3) whether they would use the Offeror’s services again; and (4), any substantial past performance problems that would present an unacceptable risk to the Government.

No more than five past performance references will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government under the Past Performance factor. Should the offeror provide information for more than five past performance references, the Government will choose which five to review and evaluate and will not consider the remaining submittals. The Government may consider the submittal of fewer than three past performance references under this factor to be a weakness.

Offeror(s) “past performance” will be assigned an adjectival rating as listed below:

SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL SCORING

OUTSTANDING – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which exceeded all stated requirements (i.e., performance met and significantly exceeded all contract requirements to the company’s benefit); presents no foreseeable or identifiable risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses).

GOOD – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which met all stated requirements and exceeded some stated requirements (i.e., performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the company’s benefit); presents very little risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses), except those that are minor and easily correctible.

SATISFACTORY – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which met all stated requirements (i.e., performance met all contract requirements and exceeded none); presents little risk of failure or problems during contract performance; and contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses (or excesses), except those that are minor and easily correctible.

MARGINAL – Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which failed to meet some stated requirements (i.e., performance did not meet all contractual requirements. There were significant problems during contract performance, although the contractor’s corrective actions were typically effective); Presents moderate risk of failure or significant problems during contract performance; and contains some significant deficiencies and weaknesses that appear to be correctable through exchanges and or discussions.

UNSATISFACTORY - Past performance demonstrates that the offeror provided service which failed to meet all stated requirements (i.e., performance did not meet all contractual requirements. There were serious problems during contract performance for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective); presents an almost certain risk of failure or significant problems during contract performance; and contains significant deficiencies and weaknesses which do not appear to be correctible through exchanges and or discussions.

*NEUTRAL - No relevant past performance information is available for evaluation. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.*

* In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), offeror(s) lacking relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror(s) may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. This rating will only be used for offerors with no previous relevant past performance.

The following defines strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies:

Strength is any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation factor, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

3) To add the Corporate Experience Summary Sheet to the solicitation package.

There are no other changes to the solicitation at this time.