Amendment_W564KV-18-R-0003-0004.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 post the answ ers to questions from Amendment 3; update the Price Sheet; correct Section L, Instructions To Offerors and Section M, Basis for Aw ard; and remove red text from Amendment 3.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Mar-2018

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 W564KV-18-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jan-2018

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

13-Mar-2018

CODE

TCC-KAISERSLAUTERN

THEATER CONTRACTING CENTER

BLDG. 3233, KLEBER KASERNE

MANNHEIMER STR. 238

67657 KAISERSLAUTERN

GERMANY

W564KV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W564KV-18-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 4 ATTACHMENTS

List of Attachments for Amendment 4 Question Attachment Title Notes

N/A Amendment 4 Q&A 12 March 18 116 03-12-2018 Price Sheet - Contractor

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital copies, as set forth below. The solicitation shall provide the Government email addresses and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) volumes. The Volumes are I – Technical, II – Price Offer, III – Past Performance, and IV – Solicitation, Offer, and Award Documents (SF33), and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. With the exception of the internal hyperlinks created by the MS Word Table of Contents function, the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate electronic document. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

b. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

MAXIMUM

VOLUME TITLE PAGES

I Technical N/A II Price N/A III Past Performance N/A IV Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certification/Representations N/A

d. A representative of the firm authorized to commit the firm to contractual obligations must sign the offeror’s proposal.

e. All proposals, questions, and correspondence, SHALL BE submitted in the ENGLISH language.

Any supporting document (e.g., certificates) contained in the proposal which is not in English shall be accompanied with a corresponding English translation of the document. Offers submitted in a language other than English will not be evaluated.

f. All pricing shall be submitted in EUROS only. Offers submitted in a currency other than EUROS will not be evaluated.

g. The Government will evaluate the proposal using only the information provided with the proposal.

Failure of an offeror to submit information sufficient to evaluate the offer, or that does not follow the guidelines as stipulated herein, may be deemed ineligible for award.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

b. File Packaging. Proposals shall be submitted as electronic documents and shall be either Microsoft Office Suite or Portable Document Format (PDF) compatible. Microsoft Excel files submitted shall be unlocked, formula driven, and numbers shall not be hard coded, where applicable. Spreadsheets shall be in Microsoft Excel 2013 compatible format (.xlsx format).

Proposals shall include separate electronic files for each volume. All file names shall include the respective company name, document name, and volume number (using abbreviations as necessary). WINZIP (.zip) files cannot be accepted as they are routinely blocked by the domain firewall. Emails with a total attachment size of 10 Mb are also routinely blocked. Proposals that are sent in multiple e-mails shall be numbered to include the total sent, for example “2 of 6” as specified in paragraph 2.

c. Delivery of Proposals. Offerors shall submit its proposal via email to Mr. Richard Van De Linde, Contract Specialist, richard.vandelinde.civ@mail.mil, telephone +49-611-143-542-6828, and Ms.

Brigitte F. Bryant, Contracting Officer, brigitte.f.bryant.civ@mail.mil, telephone +49-611-143-542- 6909. The subject of the email shall be: “W564KV-18-R-0003 –USAG-S IMC Proposal, Email XX of XX.”

d. Questions Pertaining to the Solicitation. All questions shall be submitted via email to the

Contracting Officer AND the Contract Specialist, no later than 10 calendar days after issuance of the solicitation. Questions submitted after this date may not be addressed. The subject of the email shall be: “W564KV-18-R-0003 - USAG-S Questions.” Questions shall annotate a reference to the specific solicitation element to which they pertain. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all questions submitted by Offerors, but will consider them and incorporate changes into the RFP as deemed necessary. Government responses to questions will be incorporated via an amendment to the RFP for review by all Offerors; therefore, do not mark questions/comments with a restrictive legend and do not include proprietary information. It is the responsibility of the offeror to access FedBizOps (www.fbo.gov) to obtain amendments and the most current information regarding this solicitation. Offerors are deemed to have knowledge of all documents that are posted to FBO.

e. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the RFP number in the header and/or footer. Company identifying information shall be limited to the cover page of the submitted proposal of each section with the exception of the SF 33, or as otherwise requested. This includes technical submittals and schedules provided with the proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. With the exception of the internal hyperlinks created by the MS Word Table of Contents function, the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

1) VOLUME I – Technical. The Offeror shall include in this volume the offeror’s plans to implement the Performance Work Statement’s requirements. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

a) Section 1 – Subfactor 1. Management Plan. The Offeror shall provide a plan that describes its methodology/approach to fulfill each PWS area, with particular focus on how the Offeror will meet the key criteria listed in PWS paragraph 1.19, a through k.

b) Section 2 – Subfactor 2. Quality Control Plan. The Offeror shall provide a plan that describes its approaches and processes that will achieve the required performance thresholds as described in the PWS. The plan shall show the Offeror’s procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. Particular emphasis will be placed on the key criteria listed in PWS paragraph 1.6.1., items a. through m.

c) Section 3 – Subfactor 3. Phase-In / Phase-Out Plan. The Offeror shall provide a plan that describes the Offeror’s approach to fulfilling PWS paragraph 1.18., with particular emphasis on the following:

(Phase-In) Plan for recruiting both locally and nationally, training, qualifying, screening, and certifying employees to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, with complete and required background checks to begin assuming responsibility for contract functions by contract start date.

(Phase-Out) Plan transfer performance responsibility to the successor to ensure continuity of operations, to include employee notification/retention/clearing thru appropriate offices, turnover of work in progress, inventories and transfer of Government property, and CAC card/ID turn-in.

d) Section 4 – Subfactor 4. Experience. List of current and/or previous contracts / projects / subcontracts for the past 5 years that are similar in scope and complexity to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) requirements of the proposed contract. This list shall include:

i A description or title of each contract/project/subcontract;

ii The US Dollar or Euro value of each contract/project/subcontract listed;

iii The location of performance;

iv The customer or owner of contract/project/subcontract;

v Dates or Period of Performance of contract/project/subcontract;

vi Whether the offeror was the prime contractor or subcontractor on the contract/project.

If listing a subcontractor’s contract or project for evaluation, provide the name of the subcontractor along with (a) through (e) above for the subcontractor’s project or contract. A major subcontractor is defined as one who would be providing critical services or products or whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price. For the experience of major subcontractors to be evaluated, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal.

2) VOLUME II – Price. The offeror shall include in its Price Proposal the following submittal requirements:

a) Completed Section B of the SF 33. The Offeror shall provide unit price for each applicable CLIN that accurately supports the total amount/the extended max amount of the CLIN for evaluation. Offerors are reminded to include pricing for all resources necessary to accomplish work required by the PWS, to include fully-burdened rates and other direct costs (ODCs). The Offeror is not required to enter a price for the Material CLINs 0005 (Option CLINs 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005) and the Project Work Order CLINs 0006 (Option CLINs 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006). The Government will provide an Estimated Amount for CLINs 0006 (Option CLINs 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006) for price offer evaluation purposes. The Material CLINs 0005 (Option CLINs 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005) will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price.

b) For Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs (CLINs 7500, 7501, 7502, 7503, 7504, 7505, 7506), the offeror shall propose a price for each CLIN to cover all reporting costs. If the offeror proposes to provide this report at no additional cost to the Government, it shall indicate “Not Separately Priced”, “No Charge”, or “$0.00”, rather than not addressing the line item. If the line item is left blank, the offeror agrees that this report will be provided at no additional cost to the Government, $0.00 shall be used for evaluation purposes, and the contract CLINs will be identified as Not Separately Priced (NSP). Future requests for compensation will be denied.

c) Price Sheets: The unit rates and unit prices provided by the offeror for these price sheets will be established as fixed unit rates and fixed unit prices for the contract, should the offeror's proposal be accepted for contract award.

d) The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.

3) VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded within the last five (5) calendar years from the issuance date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 561210) required by the solicitation. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

a) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(1) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(2) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(3) Government’s technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(4) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(5) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(6) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(7) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(8) Awarded price/cost.

(9) Final or projected final price/cost.

(10) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(11) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

b) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this solicitation.

(1) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

c) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors

d) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

e) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract

Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office (no later than the proposal due date) to the Contracting Officer (brigitte.f.bryant.civ@mail.mil) and contract specialist (richard.vandelinde.civ@mail.mil). The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date.

The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

f) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement.

Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

4) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND

AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

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 (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The Technical factor is more important than the Price factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors) and Satisfactory Confidence achieved for the Past Performance Factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: All non-priced factors combined are more important than price.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors 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 subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Management Plan

b. Quality Control Plan

c. Phase-In / Phase-Out Plan

d. Experience

The Management Plan sub-factor is more important than the Experience sub-factor. The Experience sub-factor is more important than the Quality Control Plan sub-factor, which is more important than the Phase-In / Phase-Out Plan sub-factor.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a contract with FFP and CR CLINs. In determining the evaluated cost, the Government will evaluate offers for award by calculating a TEP for each offeror. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices, based on Attachment 2 - Price Sheet, for the phase-in period and all out years. Offerors will include pricing for all resources necessary to accomplish work required by the PWS, to include fully-burdened rates and other direct costs (ODCs). CLINs X005 will not be included in the TEP; CLINS X0006 will be evaluating using an estimated value of EURO 550,000 for X006AA and EURO 200,000.00 for X006AB to find an evaluation price. All unit prices and rates that comprise the TEP are contractually binding.

Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. An omitted price may result in proposal elimination. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the unit prices an/or option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

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

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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 solicitation.

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.

c. Flexibility. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the approach facilitates the implementation of cost effective, innovative, and simplified enhancements, and will satisfy unanticipated future changes to the requirements.

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

a. Subfactor 1: Management Plan Sub-factor. This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Management Plan methodology/approach to fulfill each PWS area for the basic contract period and all option years. The evaluation will focus on how the Offeror’s Management Plan approach and methodology addresses the key criteria listed in PWS paragraph 1.19, a through k.

b. Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan Sub-factor. This sub-factor evaluates how the Offeror’s Quality Control

Plan’s approaches and processes will achieve the required performance thresholds as described in the PWS.

The evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s sound approach and methodology to develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. Particular emphasis will be placed on the key criteria listed in PWS paragraph 1.6.1., items a. through m.

c. Subfactor 3: Phase-In/Phase-Out Sub-factor. This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposal for a sound and safe phase-in and phase-out approach. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s approach to fulfilling PWS paragraph 1.18., with particular emphasis on the following:

1) Sound approach for recruiting both locally and nationally, training, qualifying, screening, and certifying employees to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, with complete and required background checks to begin assuming responsibility for contract functions by contract start date.

2) Adequate schedule for Phase-In events, e.g., interviewing, hiring, human recourse actions, obtaining clearances, training, start work dates, etc., with particular focus on General Fund Business Enterprise System (GFEBS) training and access, as well as inventory management.

3) Sound approach to effect a smooth and orderly transfer of performance responsibility to the successor to ensure continuity of operations, to include employee notification/retention/clearing thru appropriate offices, turnover of work in progress, inventories and transfer of Government property, and CAC card/ID turn-in.

d. Subfactor 4: Experience. This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant experience performing the same or similar services in terms of scope, size and complexity in the past 3 years on a maximum of 5 contracts.

The number of contracts that indicate relevant experience beyond the past 3 years will not be considered.

For the Experience sub-factor, relevant scope means contracts performed for facility maintenance services.

Relevant size means contracts with an estimated annual value equal to or greater than $10 million. Relevant complexity means contracts for simultaneous work in multiple locations, performing multiple trades.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

3. Cost/Price Factor. The contract will be a contract with FFP and CR CLINs. In determining the evaluated cost, the Government will evaluate offers for award by calculating a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices, based on Attachment 2 - Price Exhibit, for the phase-in period and all out years. Offerors will include pricing for all resources necessary to accomplish work required by the PWS, to include fully-burdened rates and other direct costs (ODCs). All unit prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

An omitted price may result in proposal elimination. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

a. The price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submission for completeness and compliance with Section L. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2) Reasonableness: The offerors price proposal will be evaluated based on the results of a price analysis, using the proposal analysis techniques and procedures as defined in FAR 15.404-1 and DFARS 215.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

3) Balance: The Government will review the proposed prices for balanced pricing. This review will ensure that the price of one or more line items is not significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price for one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the out-year prices or individual contract line items are significantly unbalanced. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items, subline items, or exhibit line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements

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

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 4.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 561210, Facilities Support Services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

1) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess 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. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

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.

2) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

3) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)