14r0019_Am-01_sf30_Various_Chgs__2014.05.15.pdf

123456

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-0019 81st Municipal Services, FL

This amendment makes tw o changes:

1. Provides appendices for Section L that w ere mistakenly left out of the original solicitation, and

2. Makes a change to the definition of a "Relevant Contract" in section M Evaluation Factors for Aw ard, ¶C.3.b.

See continued pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-May-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-0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-May-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 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

15-May-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-0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text :

SECTION L APPENDICES

APPENDIX L1:

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This OFFEROR PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL DATA SHEET must be completed and attached as the first page of the body of your proposal. The information required by this data sheet may be completed directly on this form or attached to the form as supplemental data sheets.

1. NAME OF OFFEROR.

Name of Offeror(s):

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Nature of Association:

2. DUNS NUMBER FOR OFFEROR

(If more than one DUNS number is to be considered, explain affiliation to Offeror)

3. CCASS INDENTIFICATION FOR OFFEROR

4. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

5. CAGE CODE:

6. Tax ID#

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP). List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

APPENDIX L2:

CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DATA SHEET

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

On an attached sheet, provide information for substantially complete or completed projects within the last five years that are similar in terms of cost, complexity, design or features that have been constructed by the Offeror to be used for reference and evaluation purposes. For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Performance period (month/year start to month/year end and # of years complete if underway):

Address of project:

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project (narrative):

How this project to relevant to the requirements of this solicitation (narrative):

Cost/Price Data (must clearly indicate yearly price information):

Initial Award / Year 2 / Year 3/ etc:

Modifications:

Total cost:

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation, as well as a Point of Contact (Name, organization, email, phone number) for each terminated project.

APPENDIX L3:

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone / email::

Point of Contact (name/phone/email):

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number & Title:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION

ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES

DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE

RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U

N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U

N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U

N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U

N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U

N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively E VG S M U N lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor. The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406. NOTE: NON-

PRICE FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE TO PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. 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.

The non-price and price factors are as follows:

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

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.

Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors (factors 1 - 3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (factor 4). In addition, of the non-price factors, Factor 2 is more important than factors 1 and 3.

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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P19_2844 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P19_2844 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P584_117420 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P325_56139 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P243_37497

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. 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 appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s 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, 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 (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.). 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. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures. 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. The http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46318 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P707_126651 agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), 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. Offerors are reminded that 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 9.104-4, 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. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default.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. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

a. (1) The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an

Offeror which is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team (see previous paragraph on teaming arrangements) the contract must have been awarded to the prime or the key subcontractor.

b. (2) The contract was completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or and has been ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of this RFP.

c. (3) The contract contains one or more of the services in the PWS associated with this RFP (Janitorial, Grounds Maintenance, Refuse, Pest Control, or Environmental), performed at multiple facilities and/or sites. If a contract is for a single facility or site, the size of the facility must exceed 20,000 SF and/or the site must exceed 5 acres in size.

4. NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

a. Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. The Government’s experience evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract, as defined above. Each contract submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to confirm its relevancy. More consideration will be given to an Offeror for this factor that demonstrates any of the following:

(i)Experience on at least one relevant contract that involves performance among dispersed mulitple sites, buildings, and/or facilities

(ii) Experience on at least one relevant contract that involves performance spanning a large geographical area.

(iii) Experience on at least one relevant contract valued at $200,000 per year

(iv) Experience on a single contract, as the prime contractor, that involves two (2) or more of the service types identified in the PWS

(v) Familiarity with DoD contract administration requirements.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P42_8238

For the Corporate Relevant Experience evaluation, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Out-standing

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths f ar outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is v ery low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is low.

Green Accept-able

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are off setting or will hav e little or no impact on contract perf ormance. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is high.

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more def iciencies. Proposal is unawardable.

b. Factor 2, Understanding of the Work. Evaluators will determine whether the offeror’s submission for this factor demonstrates thorough understanding of the complexity and magnitude of the services identified in the PWS, as well as the current commercial standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in accomplishing the services identified in the PWS, and the interrelationships and interdependencies associated with the work. More consideration will be given to an Offeror for this factor that demonstrates any of the following: ***

(i) A thorough understanding of the current commercial standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in each of the service areas identified in the PWS ***

(ii) A thorough undersanding of the interrelationships and interdependencies associated with each of the service areas identified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole ***

(iii) A thorough understanding of the difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with each of the service areas identified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole ***

(iv) A logical performance approach each of the service areasidentified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole ***

(v) Management & administration capabilities commensurate with the magnitude of the resulting contract. ***

*** to meet any single criterion listed for this factor, Offerors must address EACH CRITERION as it pertains to EACH SERVICE (janitorial, grounds maintenance, refuse, pest control, and environmental)

For the Understanding of Work evaluation, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal each of the service areas identified in the PWS (Janitorial, Grounds Maintenance, Refuse, Pest Control, and Environmental), as well as administering the contract as a whole :

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Out- Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the standing requirements. Strengths f ar outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is v ery low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is low.

Green Accept-able

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are off setting or will hav e little or no impact on contract perf ormance. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessf ul perf ormance is high.

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more def iciencies. Proposal is unawardable.

c. Factor 3: Past Performance. The Government’s past performance evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Evaluators will assess past performance on each relevant contract, as defined above. The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ):

• Quality

• Schedule/Timeliness of Performance

• Customer Satisfaction

• Management/Personnel/Labor

• Cost/Financial Management

• Safety/Security

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, The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. 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)).

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P273_41600

(i) Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relev ant

Present/past perf ormance eff ort inv olv ed essentially the same scope and magnitude of eff ort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relev ant Present/past perf ormance eff ort inv olv ed similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relev ant

Present/past perf ormance eff ort inv olv ed some of the scope and magnitude of eff ort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relev ant

Present/past perf ormance eff ort inv olv ed little or none of the scope and magnitude of eff ort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Conf idence

Based on the Off eror’s recent/relev ant perf ormance record, the Gov ernment has a high expectation that the Off eror will successf ully perf orm the required eff ort.

Satisf actory Conf idence

Based on the Off eror’s recent/relev ant perf ormance record, the Gov ernment has a reasonable expectation that the Off eror will successf ully perf orm the required eff ort.

Limited Conf idence

Based on the Off eror’s recent/relev ant perf ormance record, the Gov ernment has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perf orm the required eff ort.

No Conf idence

Based on the Off eror’s recent/relev ant perf ormance record, the Gov ernment has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successf ully perf orm the required effort.

Unknown Conf idence (Neutral)

No recent/relev ant perf ormance record is av ailable or the Off eror’s perf ormance record is so sparse that no meaningf ul conf idence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. 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)