Amendment 01 to Solicitation No. W912HZ25R0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Reference Solicitation No. W912HZ25R0003 for GSL Support Services. This amendment is necessary to revise and replace Section M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Apr-2025

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 W912HZ25R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-2025

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

14-Apr-2025

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:

W912HZ25R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.0.1 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) has been established to evaluate proposals submitted for this project. Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M below.

1.0.2 In accordance with FAR 15.306, it is the Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors shall submit their initial offers based upon terms and conditions, which they consider to be most favorable to the Government.

1.0.3 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 format 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.

1.0.4 It is the Government’s intent to award an Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) with a total capacity of $20M. Resulting task orders will be firm fixed priced (FFP).

1.0.5 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.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the Best Value – Tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15 with consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1 -Technical Capability (Subfactor 1 - Management Approach and Subfactor 2- Technical Approach for Sample Task Order); Factor 2 - Past Performance and Factor 3 - Price.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, in consideration of all factors. 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 more advantageous than the lowest priced proposal so as to justify the payment for additional costs.

2.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability is approximately equal to Factor 2 - Past Performance, and when both the Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 2 - Past Performance are combined, they are approximately equal to Price. The Factor 1 – Technical Capability sub-factors are approximately equal to each other. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors).

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

i. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

ii. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Factor I – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Management Approach The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based upon their:

i. Demonstrated understanding of the problems encountered in managing technical personnel by providing clear evidence of processes in place to anticipate, detect, avoid, and resolve personnel issues without impacting task order performance. The proposal will also be evaluated on the organizational chart provided and on the capability shown on the individual resumes of the key personnel. Ability to skillfully manage personnel with clear lines of operational authority, oversight of teaming/subcontractor arrangements and staffing utilization to maximize efficiency including surge requirements, hiring, recruiting, retention, replenishment, etc.

ii. Evaluation of Compensation plan for professional employees - See FAR Clause 52.222-46 (included in Section L by full text).

iii. Quality Control (QC) Plan demonstrating ability to assure that requirements of the contract are met across functional requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach for Sample Task Order The offerors proposal will be evaluated based upon their:

i. Demonstrated understanding of requirements of the Sample Task Order.

ii. Ability to provide labor/skill mix to meet functional/technical requirements as outlined in the Sample Task Order.

The following combined technical/risk rating method below will be used to consider risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the final technical ratings for Factor 1 – ‘Technical Capability’ and all sub-factors.

The following risk descriptions below will be used to describe the meaning of high, medium and low risks as it relates to the technical/risk rating above.

Risk Descriptions Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor II – Past Performance The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in meeting the contract requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation considered when determining the confidence assessment rating: recency, relevancy and quality:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

ACCEPTABLE

MARGINAL

UNACCEPTABLE

TABLE 1A. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

OUTSTANDINGBLUE

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GOODPURPLE

i. Recency – Recency, for this requirement, is defined as government and/or commercial contracts completed during the past three (3) years from issue of the RFP.

ii. Relevance – A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint venture partners and/or significant subcontractors will be made. Relevance is defined as government and /or commercial contracts of same or similar scope, complexity and magnitude (a minimum of $5M) to the work to be performed.

Present efforts must be at least 70% completed to be determined relevant. The relevancy table below will be used in determining the relevancy rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, complexity and magnitude this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope, complexity and magnitude this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope, complexity and magnitude this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, complexity and magnitude this solicitation requires.

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

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

TABLE 2C - 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, therefore, will receive a neutral rating.

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

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

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

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

d. Price Proposal for Sample Task Order: 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. 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)