A07.23_W912HZ-17-R-0001-0005.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

This amendment is to revise Section M, paragraph 3.0.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Jan-2017

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 W912HZ-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Dec-2016

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

04-Jan-2017

CODE

ERDC CONTRACTING OFFICE

3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

W912HZ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HZ-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.1 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) has been established to evaluate proposals submitted for this acquisition. Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M below. In accordance with FAR Part 15.306, it is the Government’s intent to award without discussions but does reserve the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Offerors shall submit their initial offers based upon terms and conditions, which they consider to be the most favorable to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, in consideration of all factors, including Operational, Past Performance, and Price, including all options (see clause 52.217-8). The basis for award will be an acceptable proposal, the price of which may not be the lowest. However, if the award is not based on the lowest price, the proposal must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced proposal so as to justify the payment for additional costs.

1.2 When the term “offeror” is used, it is defined as a single offeror, joint venture, or a team of offerors and major sub-contractors. Proposals submitted under a formal partnering agreement or joint-venture must be accompanied by a copy of the legal document establishing such. Documentation shall be provided as established in Section L.

1.3 It is the Government’s intent to award one indefinite delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract resulting from this solicitation with provisions for issuing firm- fixed-price (FFP) task orders and/or cost-reimbursable (Cost) for other direct costs.

1.4 Selection of a Contractor will be made by an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted and in light of the following criteria. The integrated assessment will involve a determination by the Government of the overall merit of each offeror's proposal, recognizing that subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators are implicit in the entire process. Award will be made to the offeror whom the Government determines able to accomplish the necessary work in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation of Technical and Past Performance will be accomplished without reference to price. A price analysis will be performed.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

All factors and significant sub-factors that will affect contract award are listed below:

2.1 Volume I – Operational Proposal

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the methods, processes, and tools used to provide its technical solution. The offeror will be evaluated on the understanding of the requirements through its technical solution, and be evaluated on how it aligns and fulfills the contract objectives as provided in the PWS, Section C of the Solicitation.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the capability to provide an efficient and effective management approach. The offeror will be evaluated on the procedures for planning, executing and administering the entire effort. The offeror will be evaluated on an organizational structure that demonstrates an effective approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on an organizational business practices and management of subcontractors that will be implemented to facilitate the successful execution of the Government’s requirement.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan

The offeror will be evaluated on a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce and employ any major subcontractors. The offeror will be evaluated on an approach to accommodate short-term and longer term requirements for unique skills and capabilities (surge) and reacting to new situations requiring execution. See FAR clause 52.222-49 Compensation Plan.

2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Key Personnel

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 PWS. Proposals that provide adequate and clear information that establishes the key personnel possess adequate qualifications and experience to effectively perform and manage the requirements of the PWS will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to sufficiently discuss the qualifications and experience of the key personnel clearly describing in detail efforts similar in technical scope and contractual complexity. Proposals that substantiate the key personnel have the qualifications and experience required to successfully perform and manage this effort will be evaluated more favorably.

2.1.5 Subfactor 5: Corporate Experience

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to describe its significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in performing services similar to the PWS requirements. Proposals including significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in providing similar services will be rated more favorably.

2.1.6 Subfactor 6: Sample Task Order Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a sound technical approach that meets all of the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with an effective and efficient staffing solution based on the technical approach and Task Management Plan submitted that addresses technical approach, organizational resources, and management controls to be employed to meet the proposed price, performance, and schedule requirements throughout the sample task order PWS execution. Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deliver services to meet the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with a proposed staffing solution will be rated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on a Task Management Plan demonstrating the technical approach, organizational resources, and management controls.

2.2 Volume II - Past Performance Proposal

The government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality products and services in a timely and cost effective manner.

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 major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as those intended to perform a critical contract function, and/or work efforts involving more than 4,000 man hours per annum.

The Government will consider the combined Offeror's and proposed subcontractor's experience and performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of our requirement during the last three (3) 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 a satisfactory history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the Performance Work Statement.

The Government's assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions:

Relevance - similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Confidence- gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Aspects to be considered in the past performance evaluation include the Offeror’s record of: 1) conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 3) ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively; 4) business-like concern for the interest of its customers; 5) establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 6) quality of product delivered.

Any significant achievement, problem or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall high-risk rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. In the case of an offeror without any relevant past performance history, past performance will be evaluated as "neutral". If the past performance information is negative, the offeror may be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal if it has not previously had such an opportunity.

The Government will use data provided in the Offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with 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.

2.3 Volume III - Price Proposal

Price Analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will encompass the following:

Labor Rates: The purpose of the price analysis will be to ensure fair and reasonable price associated with proposed labor rates.

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

Price for Sample Task Order 0001: The purpose of this price analysis is to ensure that prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal for Sample Task Order 0001. An excessively high or low price proposal will be considered an indication of a limited understanding of the task or an inefficient organization and may be render the offeror as non-responsive.

Sample Task order 0001 price proposal will be evaluated based on:

Overall labor cost based on NTE total (estimated labor mix and hours proposed will be evaluated in

Technical Approach).

Travel – The offeror is to include a set amount of $24,000 for travel costs in their task order proposal.

Other direct costs associated with performance of Sample Task Order 0001 Total price proposed for the sample task order to include labor, travel, and any ODCs

3.0 Evaluation Weights and Adjective Ratings

An award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the non-price/cost factors.

The Operational factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor and Price factor. Within the Operational factor, all subfactors are of equal importance. Past Performance is more important than Price. All of the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. To be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined to be acceptable in all areas. A deficiency in any of the areas could constitute a basis for rejection of a proposal.

3.1 Operational Rating. The rating for overall Operational Rating includes Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, Subfactor 2 – Management Approach, Subfactor 3 – Staffing Plan, Subfactor 4 – Key Personnel, Subfactor 5 – Corporate Experience, and Subfactor 6 – Sample Task Order will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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.

Acceptable 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.

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.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.2 Performance Rating Definitions. The Past Performance Risk ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Relevance: There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The below table will be used when determining relevancy

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.

Confidence: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The below table will be used when determining confidence:

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.

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 (Neutral)

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.

3.3 Price Evaluation. The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness by price analysis. Each proposal will be reviewed with regard to adequate pricing to confirm that proposals have addressed all aspects of pricing as required in the solicitation, and that such information is presented in a clear and logical manner consistent with the instructions in the proposal. Price will not be rated. The total contract price will be considered as an independent element from the operational evaluation and past performance evaluation.

3.4 Key Evaluation Terms. The following terms are applicable to the evaluation process.

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.

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.

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Communications. Communications between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals and before establishment of the competitive range are exchanges, leading to establishment of the competitive range (if required). Communications shall be limited to:

Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications will address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and

Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain.

Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise their proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g. perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes and information relating to relevant past performance).

Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Relative Order of Importance Terminology. The following terminology is provided to give offerors an understanding of the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors.

Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given far more consideration than another factor.

More Important. The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Comparatively Equal. The factor is nearly the same in value as another factor; any difference is very slight.

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible offeror whose proposals are responsive to the solicitation and determined to be the best value and most advantageous to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)