Amendment 0003.pdf

W50S8E20R0002

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

A. This amendment is issued to provide answ ers to Request for Information 26-31, update the CLIN extended description to include all 3 positions. Adjusted CLINS listed in Section M pragraph 4.

B. All FAR provisions and clauses remain unchanged and in full force.

C. As in all of the amendments this amendment must be acknow ledged, see Block 11 above.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jul-2020

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 W50S8E20R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Jun-2020

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

01-Jul-2020

CODE

USPFO NY 106 MISSION SUPPORT CONTRACTING

FRANCIS S GABRESKI ARPT BLDG 250

WESTHAMPTON BEACH NY 11978-1201

W50S8E 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 26-31

The following have been added by full text:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 26-31

Q26. Will the Government allow one of the HP providers to be the database manager or is the Government expecting the database manager to be a separate individual who will be onsite?

A26. The government will allow one of the HPO providers to be the database manager.

Q27. Is the Government able to share what current stationary therapy equipment as well as fitness equipment that is available for use?

A27. All stationary and fitness equipment will be purchased by the government.

Q28. At what medical facility will they be privileged through?

A28. The 106th RQW will assist with obtaining privileges.

Q29. PWS Section 1.4.1 Operating Hours: To allow Offeror to make reasonable estimate of adequate weekend coverage to support the UTA and TDY, please provide additional weekend coverage hours estimate expected from the Contractor personnel.

A29. There are 24 UA days in a calendar year which are usually the first weekend of each month, totaling a maximum 576 potential hours for all three contractors. The day after the 11 UTA weekends is a non-working day therefore 264 hours are not required, 312 hours potential additional hours.

Q30. Page 22 of Amendment 1 states that the TEP consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed FFP CLIN prices, but references CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, CLIN 2001, CLIN 2002, CLIN2003, CLIN 3001, CLIN 3002, CLIN 3003, CLIN 4001, CLIN 4002 and CLIN 4003. As you can see, this skips over CLINS 1001, 1002 and 1003.

As this is only a base plus 3 options, the TEP SHOULD be CLINS 0001,1001,2001 and 3001. Can you please confirm this?

A30. Updated section M in amendment 3.

Q31. Midway through number 4 on page 22 of amendment 1, it references Utilization of 52.217-8 Option to Extend and references the total price for the purpose of evaluation will include base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option and ½ of the 4th option. Based on the schedule provided and notated above, this should only be a base plus 3 options NOT 4. Can we get this clarified as well?

A31. Updated section M in amendment 3.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS,

EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, ANDOTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH

SERVICES LISTEDBELOW:TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS

SYSTEM(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON ASINDICATED IN THE

PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLEDHUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

SERVICES DATED 15 NOVEMBER 2019 AND REVISED 10 JUNE 2020- SEE ATTACHMENT

A.PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 21 SEP 20 – 20 SEP 21.WAGE DETERMINATION NO. : 2015-4157

REV. 11 DATED: 04/20/2020SHALL APPLY.

To:

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS,

EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, ANDOTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH

SERVICES LISTEDBELOW:TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS

SYSTEM(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST/INJURY MANAGER, ATHLETIC TRAINER, AND STRENGTH

AND CONDITIONING SPECIALIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON ASINDICATED IN THE

PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLEDHUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

SERVICES DATED 15 NOVEMBER 2019 AND REVISED 10 JUNE 2020- SEE ATTACHMENT

A.PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 21 SEP 20 – 20 SEP 21.WAGE DETERMINATION NO. : 2015-4157

REV. 11 DATED: 04/20/2020SHALL APPLY.

The following have been modified:

SECTION M PROPOSAL INFORMATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Cost/Price, and Past Performance. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is significantly more important than Present/ Past Performance and when combined however, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than the Price Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors).

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA. All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

2. The proposals will be evaluated under the three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Proposal(Most important) Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: Recruiting, Retention, and Continuity of Services Subfactor 2 - Offeror Integration: Integrated and Holistic Approach to HPO Services.

Subfactor 3 - Approach for Designing HPO Program: Quality Control and Contract Administration.

Subfactor 4 - Offeror Proficiency: Proficiency and Knowledge

Factor 2: Price (Somewhat important) Factor 3: Past Performance (Least important)

Subfactor 1: Contract Descriptions.

Subfactor 2: Performance.

Subfactor 3: Subcontracts.

Subfactor 4: New Corporate Entities.

Subfactor 5: Past Performance Questionnaire.

Subfactor 6: Submissions.

Subfactor 7: Small Business Participation Past Performance.

Relative Importance of Factors. Technical proposal is significantly more important than Price. The Price Factor is more important than the past performance. The Past Performance and Technical/Management Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

(a) Factor 1 – Technical/Management Factor. The Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror'sproposal.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: Recruiting, Retention, and Continuity of Services: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management approach for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall management approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. Describe your management approach, recruiting, and manning chart to support the requirements defined in PWS paragraph

5.0 Describe your ability to provide personnel with the experience required to meet the qualifications identified in PWS paragraph 1.8. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Recruitment- Ability to provide personnel with experience required to meet qualifications identified in PWS

Manning chart- Capability in describing the ability to provide and manage experienced personnel to meet the qualifications identified in PWS

Subfactor 2 - Offeror Integration: Integrated and Holistic Approach to HPO Services.: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s integration of the HPO Program.

Describe your management approach, personnel required, and system design to integrate strength and conditioning, physical therapy/injury management and orthopedic manual physical therapy into a holistic HPO program providing the services identified in PWS paragraph 5.0. Identify how your approach, personnel, and design will accomplish the objectives identified in PWS paragraph 1.8. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

Integration- Integrate strength and conditioning, physical therapy/injury management, orthopedic manual physical therapy, and operational psychology into a holistic HPO program providing the services identified in PWS

Integrate how your approach, personnel, and design will accomplish the objectives identified in the PWS

Subfactor 3 - Approach for Designing HPO Program: Quality Control and Contract Administration.: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach for designing a HPO Program. Describe your approach for designing a HPO program which will meet the administrative and reporting requirements identified in PWS paragraph 5.0. Identify how your approach will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Designing a HPO Program which will meet the administrative, logistics, and reporting requirements identified in the PWS

Identify how your approach will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS

Subfactor 4 - Offeror Proficiency: Proficiency and Knowledge This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proficiency with and knowledge of the HPO Program.

Describe your proficiency with and knowledge of the specific services required in PWS. Identify how your proficiency and knowledge will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in PWS. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Describe proficiency with and knowledge of the specific services required in the PWS concerning the Physical Therapist/Injury Manager, Athletic Trainer, and Strength and ConditioningSpecialist.

Identify how your proficiency and knowledge will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS

Rating Scheme: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1. There is no separate rating assigned to the individual tabs and no order of importance is stipulated. Tabs are simply used for evaluation purposes to derive a Factor rating.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

(a) Factor 2 – Price. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated asfollows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L, Cost/Price instructions.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404- 1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed-price CLIN prices (CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, CLIN

1001, CLIN 1002, CLIN 1003, CLIN 2001, CLIN 2002, CLIN2003, CLIN 3001, CLIN

3002, CLIN 3003).

To evaluate the option to extend services (FAR 52.217-8) CLINs, one-half of the proposed cost for the last year of the performance period under CLIN 3001, CLIN 3002 and CLIN 3003 shall be added to the Total Evaluated Price.

The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

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).

Utilization of 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Circumstances may arise that require the Contracting Officer to utilize FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, upon the performance end date of Option Period 4, for no more than six (6) months.

Pricing for an additional six (6) months will be evaluated based off of pricing proposed for Option Period 4 by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

Definitions.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price

Volume instructions in the solicitation.”

Realism: In this regard, the Government is aware that an overly optimistic price proposal may lead to various negative impacts on both the agency and the contractor. Further, unrealistic price proposals may lead the Government to reasonably question the offeror understands of the requirement. An unrealistically low proposal increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Balance: Unbalanced pricing occurs when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more periods of performance is significantly different (much greater or much less). Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and may result in the payment of unreasonably high prices.

(b) Factor 3 - Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists.

Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

- Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

(1) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

(2) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(3) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size, and complexity.

- There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

- A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a “Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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 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.

(4) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed 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 Source Selection Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(5) Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition 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 facto 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)