W564KV-19-R-0015_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to W564KV-19-R-0015 is to remove the follow ing language from solicitation provision FAR 52.212-2 (C)(4)(a): "Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance w ith this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D." No Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire forms w ill be issues or required for evaluation of past performance.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Z 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Jul-2019

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 W564KV19R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Jul-2019

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

17-Jul-2019

CODE

TCC-KAISERSLAUTERN

KLEBER KASERNE MANNHEIMER STRASSE 238

BLDG 3233

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:

W564KV19R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government anticipates awarding (three) 3 contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

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, Cost/Price, Past Performance. All factors other than cost and price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest prices offered.

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. Experience: Does the vendor have experience in the past three (3) years of providing movement or coordinating movement of:

1. Oversized/overweight vehicles/equipment

2. Handling of hazardous material

3. Passenger movements via bus

b. Management Plan

1. How does the offeror coordinate and obtain 35 trucks per day for transportation from Vlissingen Port, Netherlands to Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, without recycling in the first five days?

2. How does the offeror coordinate Material Handling Equipment at Vlissingen Port, Netherlands and Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland?

3. How does the offeror coordinate and obtain 60 buses with trailers per day at the rate of 20 buses per 3 locations within Europe for 45 days? Location of pickup are Brussels, Belgium, Nurnberg, Germany, and Warsaw, Poland.

All Subfactors are of equal weight. Within the subfactors, each element is listed in the order of importance. Order of importance refers to the evaluation of proposals, with #1 of each subcategory being the most important element of the subfactor.

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 firm-fixed price/T&M/LH (FFP/T&M/LH) hybrid contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. The evaluation of price will be based on a proposed price submitted by the perspective vendor for a planned movement of equipment from the Netherlands to locations in Poland. The vendor will be provided with a list of equipment requiring movement and the MHE that will be required at the set locations. The offerors’ prices for this route will be fixed for a future awardable task order for the same route and equipment combination.

Due to the nature of this procurement, with unknown factors at the level of base award, the T&M/LH portion of this acquisition will be competed at the task order level.

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

C. EVALUATION APPROACH.

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

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed experience of providing movement or coordinating movement of hazmat, oversized/overweight vehicles, and passengers throughout Europe for a three (3) year period. Marginal levels of overall experience 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. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’ experience in coordinating the transportation of:

Oversized/overweight vehicles/equipment

Handling of hazardous material

Passenger movements via bus

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s management plan. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

How does the offeror coordinate and obtain 35 trucks per day for transportation from Vlissingen Port, Netherlands to Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, without recycling in the first five days?

How does the offeror coordinate Material Handling Equipment at

Vlissingen Port, Netherlands and Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland?

How does the offeror coordinate and obtain 60 buses with trailers per day at the rate of 20 buses per 3 locations within Europe for 45 days?

Location of pickup are Brussels, Belgium, Nurnberg, Germany, and Warsaw, Poland.

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.

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 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.

3. Cost/Price Factor. The contract will be a FFP/T&M/LH hybrid contract. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. In doing so, the Government will evaluate the priced effort of the equipment movement from the Netherlands to Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland that is given in the solicitation Attachment 01. Cap rates for ceiling prices for the future movement of the set amount of equipment between Vlissingen Port, Netherlands, and Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, in Attachment 01 will be set for awardees, based on proposed rates.

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. Reserved.

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 “neutral 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) 488510. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three 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 three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

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 three aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and recency and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RECENCY: Past performance will be considered recent if it is within three years of the solicitation issue date.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second 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.

(i) 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 Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

(End of Summary of Changes)