W912HP-14-R-0011_Amend_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

W912HP-14-R-0011 Facilities Investment Region H

The purpose of this Amendment is to revise section M Paragraph C Evaluation Approach Subpar 1” NON Price Factors” as follow s:

See Block 14 Continuation Page

THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAIN UNCHANGE.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Mar-2014

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 W912HP-14-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Feb-2014

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 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

04-Mar-2014

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

DISTRICT, CONTRACTING DIVISION

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HP-14-R-0011

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

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the lowest evaluated price of Total Base Schedule and all options of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors/subfactors (see section B below). To receive consideration for award, a rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the non-price factors (to include all subfactors).

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements. They are the uniform baseline against which each Offeror’s proposal is evaluated, allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors/subfactors. The LPTA process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will evaluate the abilities of the Offeror to perform work identified in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will evaluate each non-price factor/subfactor on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph C of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph D of this section.

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offerors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

NON-PRICE FACTORS. The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. An unacceptable evaluation for any one of these factors will result in an overall unacceptable proposal

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Understanding of the Work

PRICE FACTOR. The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non‐price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non‐Price Proposal.” If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the J.V. submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. If the Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor” as described in FAR 9.6, it is Government policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non‐price factors and sub‐factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member. The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the offeror. In the case of prime‐sub teams, the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so.

The team agreement submitted with the proposal will govern the performance of the work by the team.

The agreement must address the following items: identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement. In the case of Joint Ventures or other partnerships seeking award to the team as a prime contractor, the agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party. In the case of a prime‐sub team, the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Contractor teams should not submit an agreement in their proposal that is subject to substantive revision because the agreement will be part of the evaluation process. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. In the case of prime‐sub teams, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement.

Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime‐sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. Note:

Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract is as follows: A recent contract awarded to the Offeror (or in the case of an Offeror which is a JV, a contract awarded to either member of the JV) as the prime contractor:

a. completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP

Or

b. ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of RFP.

In addition, a relevant contract must include the following:

c. Similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work per section 150200 paragraph 3 in this solicitation.

d. A contract value of no less than $400,000.

Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. Offers shall submit a minimum of three (3) relevant contracts, but no more than five 5. If there is a teaming arrangement, a minimum of 3 relevant contracts are required from the prime. Offerors shall complete and provide a Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix D2. The Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract. The Government’s experience evaluation will include an assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above. For the experience evaluation, Offerors will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable:

Factor 2, Past Performance. The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined above). The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts, to demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance.

Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix D3 on the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. This information sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract.

The offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires

Acceptable The Offeror provided evidence of experience on at least three (3) relevant contracts.

There is good probability of success and little to moderate risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the contract requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror did not provide evidence of experience on at least three (3) relevant contracts. There is low probability of success and high risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the contract requirements.

shall be submitted with the proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. Include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an offeror has no relevant past performance history, the offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. 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. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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.

For the past performance evaluation, Offerors will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, as follows:

Acceptable The Offeror’s overall past performance for relevant contracts is at least satisfactory.

There is good probability of success and little to moderate risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the contract requirements. (see note below)

Unacceptable The Offeror’s overall past performance for relevant contracts is less than satisfactory.

There is a low probability of success and high risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the contract requirements

Note: In the case of an Offeror 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, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.

Factor 3, Understanding of the Work. Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s demonstrates an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

At a minimum, the proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. At a minimum, the narrative shall address how the Offeror will perform Service Calls (routine and emergency); develop and implement a Preventative Maintenance Program; provide Inspection, Testing and Certification services and perform IDIQ work that includes facility repair, restoration and modernization work. The narrative should contain a description of the:

a) work in terms of required activities and their interrelationships and interdependencies;

b) appropriate types of resources required to perform the work and of their appropriate allocation to the work activities in multiple locations during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable;

c) difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work; and

d) personnel and subcontractors necessary to perform the work

e) organizational chart

f) ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the RFP

g) ability to create and maintain the CMMS performance requirement as specified in Annex 0200000 2.6.4.1.

This description shall include the names of all proprietary and/or COTS software the Contractor will utilize for this effort.”

The information shall provide charts, tables, sketches and maps as needed to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall not exceed 20 pages.

Organizational Chart: The offeror shall provide an organizational chart that identifies key personnel and individuals on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and subcontractor interface. Offerors should propose a logical flow of authority and demonstrate how assigned responsibilities and experience of proposed on-site personnel for the multiple geographic sites will enhance operation of the project.

For the Understanding of the Work evaluation, Offerors will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, as follows:

Acceptable The Offeror submitted a narrative that demonstrates the Offeror’s

a) knowledge of the content of the work in terms of required activities and their interrelationships and interdependencies;

b) knowledge of the appropriate types of resources required to perform the work and of their appropriate allocation to the work activities in multiple locations during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable;

c) familiarity with the difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work;

and

d) knowledge of the personnel and subcontractors necessary to perform the work

e) organizational chart

f) knowledge in the ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the RFP

g) ability to create and maintain the CMMS performance requirement as specified in Annex

0200000 2.6.4.1. This description shall include the names of all proprietary and/or COTS software the Contractor will utilize for this effort.”

Unacceptable The Offeror did not submit a narrative that meets all the required acceptability criteria a-g, which is required to be considered acceptable for this factor.

2. PRICE FACTOR. Offerors will be required to price all line items for each contract period (base and option years). Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1, to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal.

Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Contract Line Items (CLINS) will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)