A22_Solicitation_Amendment_22R0003_P00003.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

Reference solicitation W912EE22R0003 for the operation and maintenance of the Mississippi Lakes, including Sardis Lake, Enid Lake, Arkabutla Lake, and Grenada Lake. This amendment includes the follow ing changes:

Equipment verbiage in paragraph M.3.1.C. w ill be moved from paragraph M.3.1.C to paragraph M.3.1.D.

Management verbiage from paragraph M.4.3.B. w ill be moved from paragraph M.4.3.B. to paragraph M.4.3.C.

Updated Governemnt Furnished Property List is incorporated.

Final list of all ProjNet questions and answ ers are incorporated w ith this amendment. The government w ill not accept nor answ er any remaining or additional ProjNet questions.

No other changes w ill be made. All terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jun-2022

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 W912EE22R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-May-2022

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

21-Jun-2022

CODE

VICKSBURG CONTRACTING OFFICE

4155 CLAY ST

VICKSBURG MS 39183-3435

W912EE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EE22R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. Introduction. This section provides information on the evaluation of proposals received from this Solicitation. It is the intent of the Government to award a single Contract from this solicitation without discussions for facilities support, operations and maintenance services for the Inspection, Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Project Facilities and Features Managed by The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, Mississippi Lakes

– Arkabutla Lake, Enid Lake, Grenada Lake, and Sardis Lake). The government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Award shall be made utilizing the Best Value Continuum using the Tradeoff process prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1, as supplemented. This section provides for the process by which the Government will evaluate proposals and make its award decision as a result of this solicitation.

M.2. Basis for Contract Award. For a proposal to be considered for award, the proposal must meet all submission requirements, Performance Work Statement Requirements, and all other terms and conditions as provided in the solicitation. An assessment will be made of each offeror’s proposal based upon the non-cost and cost evaluation factors listed herein and discussed below:

a) Volume I – Factor 1 – Technical A) Sub-Factor 1 - Technical Experience B) Sub-Factor 2 - Staffing C) Sub-Factor 3 - Management Plan D) Sub-Factor 4 - Equipment

b) Volume II – Factor 2- Past Performance

c) Volume III – Factor 3 – Cost

Technical (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2). All Sub-Factors within Factor 1 are of equal importance. Technical (Factors 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2) combined, are significantly more important than Cost (Factor 3). Price may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer approximately equal Technical Experience and Past Performance.

Source Selection Evaluations will be made utilizing the Best Value Continuum Trade off process prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1, as supplemented. The Government intends to select for award, without discussions, the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to be the Best Value to the Government. The government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Subjective judgement is implicit throughout this process.

As part of the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal, each non-cost evaluation factor will be rated using the adjectival rating to each factor rated.

Past Performance. The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the previous and current and significant subcontractors. A significant subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor responsible for 25% or more of the performance required.

The Government will consider the combined and proposed past performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of this requirement during the last five (5) calendar years.

The Government will assess the experience to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate an acceptable history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the section C.

M.2.2. All offeror’s proposals will be evaluated for technical quality and quantity and assigned an adjectival rating based upon the criteria set forth herein.

An overall Performance Assessment Relevancy and Confidence rating for the Past Performance will be assigned.

A cost realism analysis will be performed. Cost proposals will be evaluated for realistic compatibility with the work to be performed; a clear understanding of the contract requirements;

and consistency with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. As a result of the cost realism analysis, a most probable cost will be developed, which will be considered as the evaluated cost in the source selection evaluation, and in any best value trade-off performed.

If no award on initial offers is made under the authority of the Clause entitled, “Instructions To Offerors – Competitive Acquisition” in Section L. of this solicitation, then the procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3-Source Selection and DOD Source Selection Guide will be followed in making a recommendation for award which will be provided to the Contracting Officer as a basis for final determination.

This acquisition will be conducted using the Tradeoff Source Selection Process outlined in FAR 15.101-1. This trade-off process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a “best-value” contract award. Award will be made to the Offeror whom the Government determines will be able to accomplish the necessary work in the manner most advantageous to the Government and whose offer represents the best value to the Government, as determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) after considering all factors, including estimated cost. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The evaluation of technical capability will be accomplished without reference to cost.

M.3. Evaluation of Technical Proposals (Volume I).

The term as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of these factors is to assess whether the proposal will satisfy the requirements. The technical aspects of the proposal will be evaluated based upon the following technical factors: Technical Experience, Management Plan, Staffing, and Equipment. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it demonstrates an effective technical approach for accomplishing of the Government’s objectives and requirements identified herein.

M.3.1. Factor 1 – Technical

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating in this factor.

Thorough, detailed and complete narratives will be rated more highly than those not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the Offeror’s proposed approach. Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating than those which provide all the information identified.

The offeror’s proposal for Factor 1, Technical Experience, shall include all required submittal data relating to the sub-areas as described in Section C.6.

Submittal data under this factor will be evaluated in accordance with Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Evaluation Ratings (Volume I, Factors 1 – 2).

M.4.3.A. SubFactor 1 – Technical Experience

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating in this factor. Thorough, detailed, and complete narratives will be rated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to describe its significant capabilities and relevant experience in performing services similar to the solicitation requirements. Proposals including significant capabilities and relevant experience in providing services for a wide range of Operation and Maintenance services will be rated more favorably.

M.4.3.B. Subfactor 2 – Staffing

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to identify key personnel that will contribute to overall performance and management of the effort to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Proposals that provide adequate and clear information that establishes the proposed key personnel possess adequate qualifications and experience to effectively perform and manage the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated more favorably.

M.3.1.C. Subfactor 3 – Management Plan

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating in this factor. Thorough, detailed, and complete narratives will be rated more favorably. Proposals identifying effective lines of communication, lines of responsibility and interfaces between management/supervisory and technical staffs, Government personnel, and other support contractors and customers will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce, employ significant subcontractors, and provide an effective management plan to accommodate shortfalls. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate an effective organizational structure and staffing concept approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deliver services to meet the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a sound plan to achieve all phases of planning, executing, and administering the effort including resourcing, scheduling, and budgeting. Proposals that demonstrate clear and effective processes for budgeting and expending hours and dollars, identifying expenditure and schedule problems, tracking and measuring performance, and providing timely detailed performance status to corporate management and the government will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate an effective and efficient process for timely incorporation of subcontractor/team member technical, schedule, and financial performance data into the prime’s monthly reports if subcontractors will be used.

M.3.1.D. Subfactor 4 – Equipment

The offeror must demonstrate the equipment capability required by the contract and must clearly identify how the equipment will be used effectively and efficiently for operations in accordance with the solicitation requirements (including any Government furnished equipment, Exhibit 005).

Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of equipment needs, to include acquisition, depreciation, and arrangements to acquire additional equipment not currently held by the officer will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate an understanding of materials and equipment required to perform the solicitation requirements.

M.3.1.E Technical Factors Evaluation Ratings Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Evaluation Ratings (Volume I, Factors 1 – 2)

Proposals shall be evaluated and assigned a rating based upon the following table.

b4ctsgsw Highlight b4ctsgsw Highlight

Table 1. Combines Technical/Risk Rating Method (Volume 1, Factor 1)

M.4. FACTOR 2 - Past Performance (Volume II).

M.4.1. The Offeror’s past performance record will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the Contract requirements. This assessment is based upon the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information regarding facility support, operations, and maintenance services. The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror’s Past Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the Offeror’s previous and current record of contractual performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and significant subcontractors, if applicable.

The Government will consider the combined Offeror’s and proposed subcontractor’s past performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of our requirement during the last five (5) calendar years. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Team to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate an acceptable history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the section C.

NOTE: A teaming agreement is an arrangement in which a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more companies to have them act as its subcontractors, or a teaming agreement may be a JV agreement. If the relationship is a JV, SBA must have approved the resulting JV agreement for an 8(a) contract at the time of award to be JV certified and approved for a contract award. These documents MUST be available at the time of award.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in meeting the contract requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information.

i. Recency – Recency, for this requirement, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant is defined as government and/or commercial contracts at least 70% completed to be determined relevant. In this requirement, recency is defined as five (5) years.

ii. Relevancy – A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint venture partners and/or significant subcontractors will be made (significant subcontractor meaning a subcontractor responsible for 25% or more of the performance required). Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source RFP requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Present efforts must be at least 70% completed to be determined relevant. The relevancy table below will be used in determining the relevancy rating for each offeror.

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Volume II, Factor 3) Adjectival 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.

iii. Quality – Overall quality of the past performance submitted will be assessed on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from PPQs, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Confidence Assessment – Each offeror will be evaluated and given a confidence rating based upon the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered using the table below:

Table 3: Past Performance Confidence Assessments (Volume II, Factor 3) 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 facto 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.

M.4.2. New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent Contracts (within the last six (6) calendar years) involving its officers and employees.

However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior Contracts cited. Offeror may submit information on key personnel, joint venture, and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

M.4.3. Past Performance – Other. The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance and determining the resulting confidence assessment rating. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate)identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The Government may also use other tools to gather information regarding an Offeror's qualifications and past performance. The Offeror shall provide information on any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of proof rests with the Offerors to provide past performance information that is accurate, detailed, current, and complete.

NOTE: In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).)

In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral." The Source Selection Authority may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

M.5. Factor 3 - Cost. (Volume III)

The Government will evaluate all aspects of the price proposal for fair and reasonableness, and realism. Cost/Price will not be an adjectivally rated criterion but will be evaluated as to the reasonableness and realism, and for providing the best value to the Government. Offerors found to be unreasonably high or low may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

The Government will evaluate the realism of offeror’s proposed prices to determine whether the price is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements;

and is consistent with the methods of performance described in the offeror's proposal. The agency may reject an offer that reflects a serious lack of cost/price realism.

The price factor will not receive an adjectival rating. The price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), (c), and (d).

M.5.1 Price analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will encompass the following:

a. SF 33 completed and signed, including acknowledgement of all amendments.

b. Detailed breakdown of costs. The purpose of the price analysis will be to ensure fair and reasonable proposed prices and rates. A price analysis will be performed to evaluate the fixed price labor rates.

(i) Six Month Rates: The purpose of evaluating Year Six rates is to include FAR Clause 52.217-8 only. If the option is exercised, Six Month rates will be utilized.

(ii) ODC Cost Rate: The purpose of this cost analysis is to insure a fair and reasonable rate to be applied to other direct costs.

c. Verification and acceptance of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements, if applicable.

d. Accounting system: Demonstration of adequacy will be reviewed of accounting system.

M.6. Completeness of Cost Proposals. Cost/price proposals will be examined to determine the extent to which all cost elements of the offer have been addressed. This will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the solicitation.

M.7. Realism of Cost Proposals. Cost proposals will be analyzed for realistic compatibility with the work to be performed; a clear understanding of the contract requirements; and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. A most probable cost will be developed as a result of the cost realism analysis.

M.8. Responsiveness.

It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness and accuracy of his or her proposal.

Excepting any apparent clerical or arithmetic mistakes found in the bidding schedule (Section B), corrections will not be made by the Government. Any proposal that modifies or fails to conform to the requirements of this Solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

M.9. RELATIONSHIP OF ACCEPTED PROPOSAL CONTENT TO THE CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS. By acceptance of an offeror’s proposal, the Government does not warrant that the capability presented by the offeror will, at all times, be sufficient to perform the required work.

However, by the submission of an offer pursuant to this solicitation, you, as the offeror, agree that the capability presented in your proposal shall be provided under this contract, and any allocable costs are included in your cost proposal. Subsequently, a failure to provide needed capability, which results in deficient contract performance, can place the contract in jeopardy of default.

(End of Summary of Changes)