W81XWH19R0067-Amendment_1.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 provide answ ers to questions along w ith revised documents.

Proposal due date is extended until 6/17/19 1pm EST.

Attachment 10 LOE estimate is provided w ith Questions and answ ers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jun-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 W81XWH19R0067

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-May-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 X is extended, 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

07-Jun-2019

CODE

USA MED RESEARCH ACQ ACTIVITY

820 CHANDLER ST

FORT DETRICK MD 21702-5014

W81XWH 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W81XWH19R0067

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Jun-2019 10:00 AM to 17-Jun-2019 01:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

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

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror 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:

Basis of Award: Award of this requirement will be made on a Tradeoff Source Selection Process (TSSP) best value procurement. The Government intends to award contract without discussions. Offeror shall submit their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the

Contracting Officer. The Government may select to award to other than the lowest priced proposal, based on the evaluation of the non-priced factors and the best value to the Government. Proposals submitted in response to the

Requests for Quote (RFQ) will be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 - Experience

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Price

The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than the price factor however, as the collective non-price factors begin to reach equivalency in the evaluation the price factor becomes more important in the trade-off analysis. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-cost/price evaluation factors using different standards.

Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. After each of the non-cost/price factors is rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these factors. If any of the non-price factors receives an individual rating of “unacceptable”, the

Offeror’s proposal will be deemed unacceptable. Only proposals receiving at least an overall rating of “acceptable” or higher will be considered for award. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of non-price factors will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of the Offeror’s failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the contract requirements and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest-price Offeror. The Government reserves the right to: reject any or all proposals, award no contract at all depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted, award to other than lowest-price Offeror, waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received an award a contract without discussions.

FACTOR 1: Technical Approach

The technical approach shall be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates:

1. A clear understanding of all the tasks required to be performed in the PWS.

2. The methodology and flexibility that be will use in performing the requirement.

3. How the approach is likely to yield the required results with the required time frame as outlined in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Offeror’s demonstrated overall understanding of the knowledge of:

i. Administrative Support

ii. Photography support

iii. Graphics Shop Support

iv. Event Support

v. Developing content support

FACTOR 2: Experience

The offeror’s experience shall be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates:

1. The Offeror’s relevant corporate experience identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the PWS. The Offeror’s experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an

Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) in performing proposed processes and procedures; experience of supporting subcontractors, consultants, and business partners (if required);

and that the organization has current capabilities for assuring performance of this requirement.

Rating Scale

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

FACTOR 3: Past Performance

Past performance consists of two aspects for evaluation, past performance relevancy and performance confidence. The first aspect 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. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The past performance evaluation shall result in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the

Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the

Defense Contract Management Agency.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Description

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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

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.

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 a low expectation that the Offeror will 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.

FACTOR 4: Price Analysis

Cost/price will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-cost/price factors, and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated to ascertain consistency with the level of effort described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

(b) Options: The Government will evaluate the offer by establishing a Total Evaluated Cost/Price which will consist of the total cost/price proposed for all base contract line items, option contract line items, and the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the rates proposed for the last option period, prorated six months.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, electronically delivered or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)