Solicitation_Amendment__W91151-19-R-0020-0002_6_Months_Grounds_Maintenance_1_Mar_19.pdf

SEE SCHEDULE

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 solicitation amendment is issued to correct Addendum to 52.212-2 BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Subfactor 1:

Staffing Approach. (see TE C for Areas and Acreage calculations) is revised to read ( see revised TE A for Areas and Acreage calculcations.

B. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

B. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Mar-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 W9115119R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Feb-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

01-Mar-2019

CODE

MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING

MISSION CONTRACTING OFFICE (MCO)

36000 DARNALL LOOP, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5025

W91151 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9115119R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures, and Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).

The Government will award to the Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best value by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation and represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable. As a basis for award, trade-offs between cost/price and noncost/price factors are not permitted.

The Government anticipates adequate price competition and evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) and (c). Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete, and balanced. Unrealistically low/high and/or unreasonably proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis of lack of understanding of the requirement or unreasonable/unrealistic proposal. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess cost and performance risks. Proposals that fail to meet the requirements set forth in FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors-Commercial Items, will be rated as unacceptable.

FAR 15.403-1(c) states that there is adequate price competition when “Two or more responsible Offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement (i.e. Technically Acceptable).”

Award for All of the Work

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in 52.212-1 ADDENDUM will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f) (4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoints. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. Proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors:

Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Factor I. Technical Capability. The Technical Capability evaluation factor provides an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to manage and support the Grounds Maintenance Service requirements in accordance with the subfactors set forth below.

Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to ensure:

(a) Whether the offeror’s proposed staffing approach is sufficient to satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement in terms of labor hours and skill mix (see revised TE A for Areas and Acreage calculations). The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s staffing narrative and other supporting documentation to determine if the offeror has adequately justified/explained, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how the proposed staffing approach was derived and how the staffing approach will be successful in the performance of contract requirements.

(b) Whether the offeror’s staffing approach adequately addresses personnel recruitment and retention, emphasizing how the offeror will retain sufficient and qualified personnel throughout the contract and how the offeror will respond to attrition and/or separation so as to preclude/minimize any impact to scheduled services.

c) Whether the offeror’s staffing approach narrative adequately addresses a clear and feasible approach to obtaining all personnel resources required prior to the performance start date.

Subfactor 2: Performance Management. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to effectively manage the Grounds Maintenance Service performance.

(a) Key Personnel. The evaluation will focus on technical capability, management experience, and certifications of proposed key personnel and whether they meet the criteria in accordance with PWS sections 1.4.2.2, 1.4.2.3, and 1.4.5.

(b) The evaluation will assess whether clear lines of authority exist and demonstrate effective communication to ensure timely execution of contract requirements, including relationships with subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners.

(c) That the Offeror has the minimum five (5) years relevant work experience in an awarded contracts similar to the requirements stated in this solicitation in accordance with PWS section 1.3 Contractor Requirement, starting from the solicitation release date and going back five years. The evaluation will assess whether the offeror adequately substantiated its relevant work experience as required in 52.212-1 of this solicitation. “Relevant” is defined as similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the solicited effort.

Subfactor 3: Proposed Equipment and Supplies Listing. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed equipment and supplies listing to determine:

(a) Whether the proposed equipment and supplies listings are realistic and adequate to satisfy PWS requirements. TE A for Areas and Acreage calculations, outlines the Government’s estimate of equipment and supplies necessary to ensure successful accomplishment of contract performance.

(b) Whether the offeror’s narrative describes the mechanisms that the offeror will employ to procure and maintain adequate equipment necessary to ensure successful accomplishment of contract performance.

The Technical Capability Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. If any of the subfactors receives an unacceptable rating, the Technical Capability Factor will be rated overall unacceptable and the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award.

Technical Capability Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the Offeror probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance 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:

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Customer Satisfaction

(a) 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 Contract requirements.

(b) 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 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be 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 of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

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. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an Offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the Offeror is capable of satisfying this requirement.

(d) Offerors that have been terminated for cause or default on any Government contract or on any private sector contract for unsatisfactory performance within the last three years will receive an unacceptable rating.

(e) Offerors that receive an overall rating of “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” on their past performance questionnaires will receive an unacceptable rating.

(f) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, neither a favorably nor unfavorably past performance rating will be assigned. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. If an Offeror receives an “unacceptable” past performance rating the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Factor 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. The Government anticipates adequate price competition and evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) and (c).

Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete, and balanced.

The Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8 (by adding one-half of the Offeror’s final price to the Offeror’s total price.

Unrealistically low and/or unreasonably proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis of lack of understanding of the requirement or unreasonable/unrealistic proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess cost and performance risks. Proposals that fail to meet the requirements set forth in FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors-Commercial Items, will be rated as unacceptable.

(End of Summary of Changes)