W9127817R002200007_Amendment.pdf

W91278-17-R-0022

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:

1. Verify date for receipt of offers. The date for receipt of offers w as not changed from amendment W91278-17-R-0022-0005, how ever it w as improperly updated due to system error. This erroneous change is to be disregarded. The correct date and time are show n in this amendment.

2. Update contact information for solicitation. Interested offerors should contact Eric J. Hurtado at (251) 690-2571 or eric.j.hurtado@usace.army.mil

3. Section M paragraph numbering corrected.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-May-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 W91278-17-R-0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Apr-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

16-May-2018

CODE

ENDIST MOBILE CONTRACTING DIVISION

109 ST JOSEPH ST

MOBILE AL 36602

W91278 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-May-2018 12:00 AM to 22-May-2018 02:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M Evaluation Factors For Award Part 1 Evaluation Criteria and Basis For Award

1.0 General Requirements

2.0 Evaluation Process

3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I

4.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II Cost/Price Proposal

5.0 Need For Discussions

6.0 Basis For Award

Part 2 FEDERAL ACQUISITION CLAUSES (FAR)

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Part 1 Evaluation Criteria and Basis For Award

1.0 General Requirements. Request for Proposal (RFP) Section L describes the proposal submission requirements and instructions. This section, Section M, outlines the evaluation process and basis for award.

2.0 Evaluation Process

2.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB, which is comprised of a technical evaluation team and a cost/price team, will utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

2.2 The evaluation process consists of four parts: (1) proposal compliance review; (2) Volume I, evaluation of non-cost/price factors (non-cost/price factors are all evaluation factors other than cost/price); (3) Volume II, cost/price analysis; and (4) tradeoff analysis.

2.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is review by Contracting Division to ensure that all required Volumes, forms, certifications, etc., are complete and all administrative requirements are met in accordance with the RFP.

2.2.2 Non-cost/price Factor Evaluations: Without knowledge of cost/price, the SSEB (technical team), will evaluate all Volume I proposals furnished to them by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Non-cost/price factor evaluation consists of an evaluation and adjective rating of all source selection factors. The rating systems and definitions used for the non-cost/price factor evaluations are included in this Section.

2.2.3 Cost/Price Evaluations. The Cost/Price team will evaluate proposals furnished to them by the Source Selection Authority. Volume II will be analyzed by the SSEB (cost/price team), using cost/price analysis and probable cost analysis. Cost/Price is not rated with an adjective rating. Cost/Price will not be revealed to the technical evaluation team until it has completed its quality evaluations and ratings of the Volume I submissions.

2.2.4 Tradeoff Analysis: Upon completion of its evaluations, the SSEB will then consider and compare the cost/price in connection with the evaluation of non-cost/price factors to determine the proposal offering the most advantage to the Government. The tradeoff analysis will be conducted after evaluations of initial offers, if discussions are not necessary, or upon completion of the non-cost/price factors and cost/price evaluations of final proposal revisions, if discussions are necessary. Offerors are reminded that some tradeoff considerations are usually part of the process of determining which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions, if discussions are necessary.

3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I

3.1 In general, there are two factors evaluated in Volume I and they are listed below in order of relative importance.

Volume Location Factor Description Order of relative importance Volume I TAB A

Factor 1 Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

1st in relative importance

Volume I TAB B Factor 2

Technical Approach 2nd in relative importance/less important than Factor 1

3.2. Factor 1, Tab A- Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor. In Factor 1, there are two aspects of past performance information:

(a) Relevant Company Effort

(b) Quality of Past Performance

Only the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the signed Standard Form 33 submitted in Volume III will be evaluated. The experience of the Offeror’s principal officers, key employees, related companies, such as a parent company, affiliate or subsidiary, or its various subdivisions will not be considered the past performance of the Offeror.

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate and rate Factor 1-Past Performance Information, using two rating schemes as described later in this Section.

3.2.2 Evaluation of Past Performance Information. This is a three-step evaluation process.

The SSEB (technical team) will first evaluate all past performance information submitted in the proposal for compliance with the RFP submission criteria found in Section L, paragraph 2.1.1(a) “Relevant Company Effort” and (b) Quality of Performance. A compliant project is a recent project that has both the “Relevant Company Effort” and the required PPIRS or PPQ record of quality. Only RFP compliant projects will be included in step two, Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The SSEB will compare each compliant effort to the effort to be acquired in this solicitation, reach a consensus and assign a relevancy rating. The SSEB will also evaluate the quality of the effort accomplished.

There is no overall relevancy rating. The SSEB determines relevancy and in making this determination, the following definitions for relevancy will apply:

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.

3.2.3 When the recent/relevant performance record indicates performance (quality) problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). If discussions are held, an Offeror will be given the opportunity the address any problems that they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

3.2.4 Based on the Past Performance Relevancy assessment phase of the evaluation, the SSEB will conduct the third step in the evaluation process which is the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating is an overall rating which takes into consideration the level of relevancy of each project, the recency of each project the quality ratings for those projects, and the general trend of the project portfolio as a whole. The more relevant the projects are, and the greater degree of satisfaction expressed by the project owner, the stronger the prediction that such Offeror will successfully perform.

For JV Offerors, the SSEB will evaluate and assess the JV’s Past Performance Information, and/or each JV partner’s Past Performance Information, as appropriate.

The overall rating Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The performance confidence assessment ratings are described below.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings 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 reasonable 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 successfully perform the required effort.

3.2.5 In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past performance or where past performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In such cases, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

3.3 Factor 2 Tab B-Technical Approach. In Factor 2, there are 15 Technical Provision (TP’s) listed with certain aspects of that TP to be discussed in this source selection. All TPs of this factor are equal and not rated separately. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach.

The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approach for each TP listed in Section L 2.2 adequately describes its procedures, methods, and delivery of services that meet or exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements. The number of direct labor hours and mix of labor classifications for cost plus TPs will also be evaluated for logic and reasonableness.

3.3.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme.

Based on the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness and deficiencies found, if any, Factor 2 will receive a Combined Technical/Risk Rating to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements of that factor. The combined technical/risk ratings are described below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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.

3.4 Additional Definitions used in Volume I and Volume II.

3.4.1 Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (see FAR 15.001). A deficiency will preclude award action to that Offeror.

3.4.2 Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror (See FAR 15.001).

3.4.3 Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciable advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.4.4 Clarification. Means limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information/ adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision. Clarifications do not require discussions or submission of additional proposal information.

4.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II Cost/Price Proposal

4.1 Price Analysis (Fixed Price TPs). Price will not be rated, but analyzed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, those listed in FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis for Commercial and Non-Commercial Items.

4.2 Cost Realism (Cost Plus TPs). Cost will not be rated, but analyzed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques.

a) Cost Realism Analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed. Cost Analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit in an Offeror’s proposal (including cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data), and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. The Offeror’s cost proposal will be reviewed for completeness, reasonableness, and realism.

b. Probable Cost. Cost realism analysis is used to determine the probable cost of performance. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The probable cost is determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

4.3 Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of the cost/price proposal, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the bidding schedule(s) as submitted by the bidders:

a) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

b) In case of discrepancy between unit cost/price and extended cost/price, the unit cost/price with govern;

c) Apparent errors in extension of unit cost/prices will be corrected; and

d) Apparent errors in addition of lump-sum and extended cost/prices will be corrected.

For the purpose of bid evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the Offeror intends its bid to be evaluated on the basis of unit cost/prices, extensions, and totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above, and the bid will be so reflected on the abstract of bids.

5.0 Need For Discussions

5.1 In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without “discussions” with Offerors. The Government however reserves the right to conduct “discussions”, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest. Considering the foregoing, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both cost/price and non-cost/price factor submission with their initial offers, and not automatically assume they will be included in the competitive range for “discussions”, if “discussions” are deemed necessary.

Note that “clarifications”, as described in FAR 15.306(a), conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors do not constitute “discussions”.

5.2 If discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated with a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive discussions and major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those having competitive offers.

5.3 If discussions are required, Offerors included in the competitive range shall receive, at a minimum, a list of significant weaknesses and deficiencies found in their proposals along with any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Offerors shall be given an opportunity by the Contracting Officer to respond in writing (8 1/2” x 11” format and/or spread sheets if responding to cost/price comments).

Responses, subsequent proposal revisions, and the final proposal revision (FPR) shall be submitted in both electronic and hard copy format. The Contracting Officer will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposals revisions are to be submitted.

5.4 If the Offeror’s cost/price proposal is revised, the changes in the proposal must be explained, traceable, and understandable.

5.5 Upon conclusion of discussions, offerors will be reevaluated and those still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit a final revised proposal.

6.0 Basis For Award

6.1 The Government will award a Firm Fixed Price Contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINS to that responsible Offeror whose combined proposal (non-cost/price factors proposal and cost/price proposal), conforms to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government non-cost/price. The evaluation factors (Volume I), other than cost or price, are more important than cost/price (Volume II). This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher cost/priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher cost/priced Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. As the differences in non-cost/price factor ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in cost/price are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in cost/price become less distinct, differences in non-cost/price factor ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror with any deficiencies as defined above.

6.2 Offerors with little or no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance. However, the proposal of an Offeror with little or no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral confidence in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government, and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to proposals of other Offerors.

6.3 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest cost/price offer. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price or cost of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest cost/priced offer is selected for award, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest cost/priced offer to justify the payment of additional amounts.

6.4 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

End of Part 1

Part 2 FEDERAL ACQUISITION CLAUSES (FAR)

Below is a statement to the bidders based on the cited FAR Clause for this solicitation. The FAR clause is incorporated by full text.

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

End of Section M

(End of Summary of Changes)