W9124G24R0005 Amendment 2.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

REASON: AMENDMENT

a. The follow ing updated attachment has been added: Question and Answ er Sheet (11 June 2024).

b. Correction w as made to the number of geographical areas listed in section M. Correction is highlighted in green.

c. “Schedule” w as removed from the past performance information in section M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jun-2024

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 W9124G24R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-May-2024

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

11-Jun-2024

CODE

MICC - FORT NOVOSEL

BUILDING 5700 ROOM 380 NOVOSEL STREET

FORT NOVOSEL AL 36362-5000

W9124G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9124G24R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2. Award will be made to a single Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All technically acceptable proposals, with acceptable past performance, shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government intends to award a single award to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the RFP and the PWS, provides the overall best benefit to the Government.

For the purpose of award, the government shall evaluate offers based on the evaluation factors described below:

Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the 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 described below:

Factor 1 – Technical Proposal (Volume II)

Subfactor 1.A – Management and Staffing Plan Subfactor 1.B – Work Schedule Subfactor 1.C – Quality Control

Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal (Volume III) Factor 3 – Price Proposal (Volume IV)

Proposal Evaluation:

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Technical Approach and Past Performance will be evaluated on the basis of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable." To be eligible for award and receive an overall rating of “Technically Acceptable”, Factor 1 and Factor 2 must both be rated as "Acceptable."

The individual members of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate each proposal in relation to Factor 1 and 2, and then the board will assign consensus technical ratings. It will be the overall subjective conclusion of the board as to how the proposals will be rated. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will be the sole authority to make the final award decision.

Factor 1 - Technical Approach:

The Offeror's technical approach will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed approach demonstrates clear knowledge and thorough understanding of the PWS and the nature and scope of the work specified therein.

Technical submissions that simply reiterate the PWS requirements; or are considered incomplete or unreasonable, may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may be assigned a rating of "unacceptable".

It will be the overall subjective conclusion of the SSEB as to how the proposals will be rated. If award is made without discussions, a proposal with a factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” is not eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the PWS and RFP. Proposal contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and any identified weaknesses do not impact the probability of meeting minimum requirements. The degree of proposal risk is low to moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and RFP. The proposal contains significant weaknesses and deficiencies that cannot be corrected without a major rewrite of the proposal. The degree of proposal risk is high to very high.

Note: A final rating of Unacceptable is ineligible for award.

Technical Proposal. Evaluation of the Technical Capability evaluation factor provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. To receive an acceptable rating for Technical Capability the offer must receive an acceptable rating for each subfactor identified below.

Subfactor 1.A: Management and Staffing Plan. The staffing plan shall clearly describe the proposed staffing and shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of each task specified in the PWS. The Offeror’s proposal must summarize the plan for selection, retention, training, support, and replacement (when necessary), of specifically qualified personnel that provide uninterrupted professional services support for the life of the contract.

The Offeror shall demonstrate clear past experience, knowledge, and skills providing concurrent custodial services, in accordance with the PWS, at eight (8) geographically separate locations that have multiple separate facilities receiving custodial services. Summarize the experience of all proposed key personnel that will provide support services for the life of the contract.

The Offeror shall clearly describe rational used to develop number of crews, size of crews and task performed by crews.

The offer shall provide a labor hour matrix that shows the quantity of hours per labor category to be worked by each task in the contract, for one 12-month period.

The matrix shall show what tasks the workers will perform and the total labor hours for each category of worker.

The Offeror’s proposal must summarize the staffing plan for selection, retention, training, support, and replacement (when necessary), of specifically qualified personnel that provide uninterrupted professional services support for the life of the contract.

Offers are to include a list of each proposed staff position, labor category, the number of proposed man-hours, and experience required by the PWS, and the position to which each proposed staff position reports.

Staffing information is to be position driven.

The minimum standard shall clearly reflect that the offerors PM has at least four (4) years’ experience in the type of service with the same or similar scope, size, complexity and geographic distance between locations receiving custodial services as required by the PWS.

The minimum standard shall clearly reflect that the offerors Quality Control Management (QCM) has at least two (2) years’ experience in the type of service with the same or similar scope, size, complexity, and geographic distance between locations receiving custodial services as required by the PWS.

Subfactor 1.B: Work Schedule. Describe procedures for scheduling work to assure logical and expeditious performance of custodial services at eight geographically separate locations that have multiple separate facilities receiving custodial services, within the normal workday. Describe procedures for recovering from Federal Holiday’s, while still meeting timeliness and schedule requirements in the PWS.

The offer shall Provide a detailed schedule showing the number of crews, the building numbers serviced by those crews, the routine work performed by those crews and project work identified by days and times in accordance with the PWS.

The Offeror shall clearly describe the proposed procedures for scheduling and performing required tasks for recovering from Federal Holiday’s, that clearly demonstrate an understanding of the nature and scope of each task specified in the PWS.

Subfactor 1.C: Quality Control. Describe the proposed Quality Control Program in accordance with section

1.7.10.7 of the PWS, to include the proposed QC staffing and inspection system, including frequency and methods of identifying and preventing deficiencies. The Offeror shall address how they will obtain ISSA CIMS-GB certification, IAW section 1.9 of the PWS, and maintain such throughout the life of the contract. The Offeror shall describe any and all staff training requirements.

The Offeror’s Quality Control Program shall clearly identify procedures to identify, prevent and ensure non-recurrence of deficiencies.

The Offeror shall clearly address how management will train employees in safety requirements and proper chemicals handling in the tasks to be accomplished.

The Offeror shall clearly address how refresher safety training will be maintained throughout the life of the contract.

The Offeror shall describe the specific surveillance techniques for all contract services identified in the Performance Requirements Summary in the PWS, and how often each service will be inspected.

The Offeror shall provide a copy of any proposed inspection forms / records to be used by Quality Control personnel.

The Offeror shall describe how the inspection forms / records will be used to maintain quality of service performed throughout the life of the contract.

Factor 2 - Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with a Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the PWS requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the contractor'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 contractor's proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Technical Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Customer Satisfaction

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.

Relevancy Assessment. 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. 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 information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Adjectival Rating Definition Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant 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 recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3 - Price Evaluation:

The Offeror shall provide prices as identified in Section B. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating; however, proposed prices evaluated as unbalanced may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or the Offeror has submitted unbalanced proposed prices.

Price will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror's proposed price is fair, reasonable, and balanced utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR 15.404-1(2).

Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Offerors are required only to price the base, optional quantities and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.

The government shall conduct a Total Evaluated Price evaluation of all acceptable offers using a table and process similar to the example provided below (all example prices are arbitrary):

EXAMPLE ONLY:

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Total

Base Year

0002 $5 0003 $5 0004 $5 0005 $5 0006 $5 0007 $5 $20,000

Option Year I

1002 $5 1003 $5 1004 $5 1005 $5 1006 $5 1007 $5 $20,000

Option Year II

2002 $5 2003 $5 2004 $5 2005 $5 2006 $5 2007 $5 $20,000

Option Year III

3002 $5 3003 $5 3004 $5 3005 $5 3006 $5 3007 $5 $20,000

Option Year

IV

4002 $5 4003 $5 4004 $5 4005 $5 4006 $5 4007 $5 $20,000

Grand Total for Base plus four Option Years

$100,000

Six Month Ext

5002 5003 5004 5005 5006 5007 Half of Opt Yr IV

(End of Summary of Changes)