14r0019_Am-03_Clarify_Sectn_M__2014.05.21.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 clarifies the definition of relevant contracts in Section M Evaluation Factors. See continued pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-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

21-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 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.

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 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) EXPERIENCE AS A PRIME CONTRACTOR: 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) RECENCY: The For contracts that are already complete, contract wasthey must have been completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP. or andhas beenFor contracts that are still ongoing, for they must have began at least one year before the closing date of this RFP.

b.c. DURATION: The contract was at least one year in duration.

c.d. (3)SIMILARITY IN SCOPE & MAGNITUDE: 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.

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 far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very 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 unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Accept-able

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance 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 unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. 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. An example of the sort of information the Government would like to see is provided in the list of questions in Section M of the PWS & SPECS Package. 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-standing

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very 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 unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Accept-able

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance 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 unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. 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)).

(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 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.

(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 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.

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.

Unknown 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.

(Neutral)

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)