A22__W912P918R0025-0001_amendment.pdf

W81C8X81106223

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

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er the questions that have been sumbitted and correct the email address for Virginia Bjornson w hich should be virginia.e.bjornson @usace.army.mil under the clause 52.212-2 commercial items. All others terms and conditions remained unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jul-2018

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 W912P918R0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jun-2018

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, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Jul-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY ENGR DIST ST LOUIS

1222 SPRUCE STREET, RM 4.207

ST LOUIS MO 63103-2833

W912P9 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P918R0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. Basis of Award

Award will be made based on Best Value, using the trade-off process for proposals in accordance with FAR Part 13.106-2(b)(1), “The contracting officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. The procedures prescribed in FAR Parts 14 and 15 are not mandatory. At the contracting officer’s discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in Part 14 or 15 may be used.” In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, the evaluation factors, including sub-factors have the following importance.

Technical combined with Past Performance are significantly important than price.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factors (to include all sub-factors). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors (including sub-factors), and it is reasonably determined that the technical superiority, and/or overall technical approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

Offerors are informed that the Government does not intend to conduct discussions as part of the evaluation and source selection process. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the Government’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) to be in the best interests of the Government to do so.

Therefore, offerors are cautioned to provide all the information required and requested by the solicitation at the time of its initial proposal submission.

B. Factors and Sub-Factors to be evaluated

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability*:

- Sub-factor 1 Oral Presentation

- Sub-factor 2 Key Personnel Qualifications

*Sub-factors are of equal importance.

Evaluation of the proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating, identifying any strengths and/or weaknesses combined with risks and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and recency.

Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract. Proposals will be assigned a total price. The total price is calculated by adding the prices proposed for the base and all option years.

C. Evaluation Approach

TECHNICAL FACTORS

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

a. 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 the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. 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 technical requirements with the required schedule.

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and sub-factors:

Factor 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES (Including two (2) sub-factors)

The Offeror shall present their technical approach to successfully accomplish all requirements of the PWS. The Offeror must demonstrate the capability to perform. The Technical Capabilities factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1 - Oral Presentation:

In a 15-minute presentation, the proposed Lead Instructor must verbally describe their overall approach to teaching leadership over a program year. The instructor must also describe how their method would be applied to teach one particular topic (instructor’s choice). The presentation may optionally be supplemented with a visual aid, such as electronically-projected slides, paper handouts, flip chart, etc., in addition to the oral portion.

Oral presentations will be scheduled for each proposal at the mutual convenience of the offeror and the Government during the time period of 25- 27 July 2018. The presentation will be held in front of approximately six - ten people in a conference room at the St. Louis District Office. The facilities will provide projector with adaptor, podium, and tables. The instructor must supply any materials that will be used, five (5) business days in advance of the scheduled presentation. Participation in this presentation is at the cost of the participant and is not reimbursable if not awarded the resulting contract.

Sub-factor 2 - Key Personnel Qualifications:

The program Lead Instructor and Back-up Instructor (key personnel) shall have at a minimum a masters-level degree or Juris Doctor Degree. The proposed Lead Instructor shall have been responsible for creating and implementing at least one relevant program within the last 5 years of similar complexity and length.

If the key personnel is affiliated with an institute of higher education that is able to confer masters-level credit to the LDP/SLDP class members upon completion of the program, submit documentation establishing this affiliation.

The Combined Technical Factor Risk Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color

Ratings

Description

Blue

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.

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

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.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Red

Unacceptable

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

“Strength” is 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.

“Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts as related to the past performance areas as indicated in (c) below.

a. 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. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources including data in Government files or data through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (562910 NAICS) Environmental Remediation Services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

b. The Government will evaluate past performance information regarding predecessor companies when such information is relevant to the acquisition. Past performance submittals regarding predecessor companies who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered less than equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency and Relevancy.

Recency:

The government will first evaluate the recency of past performance information submitted. Past performance will be deemed recent if it has been completed, or ongoing within the past five (5) years, and is more than 75% complete at the time of proposal. The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each Offeror, as well as any additional recent past performance information obtained by the Government in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Relevancy:

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the PWS of this requirement. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent and relevant past performance efforts.

Relevant past performance means the references have a logical connection to the work described in the performance areas identified below and recent past performance means the references are ongoing or were performed within the past three years of the quote due date. The Government will begin its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance by first determining the recency and relevance of each past performance effort being evaluated.

Submission requirement: Submit at least one program description that clearly demonstrates work on previous and/or current relevant programs. Include the following information for each program:

Program title & location;

Dollar value of services;

Performance period (month/year start to month/year completion);

Current primary point of contact (POC) for the customer (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city and state, phone number).

Program description(s) must clearly demonstrate each of the following:

1. Experience implementing an adult leadership program featuring a minimum of 80 hours of classroom training. Programs of a longer duration may earn a higher rating.

2. A program tailored to the culture and specific needs of the customer. Programs created for federal, state, and local governments may earn a higher rating.

3. A diversity of teaching methods, not solely relying on lectures and in-class instruction. Programs featuring coaching/mentoring/one-on-one interaction with program participants and team building components may earn a higher rating.

The submitted Program descriptions, when combined, must demonstrate the three specific experience areas listed above, all three areas do not necessarily need to be present in any one Program.

Experience that exceeds the minimum requirement for past performance described above may receive a higher rating. Experience descriptions that are of programs created and administered by the proposed program Lead Instructor may receive a higher rating. If Program descriptions fail to demonstrate one or more of the above experience requirements the Quote will be Not Relevant.

The following definitions will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort:

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

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality Assessment

Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance proposal, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment

The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Note: Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

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 (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.

FACTOR 3: Price

The proposal will be assigned a total price. The total price is the sum of all items required by the PWS.

D. Proposal Submission

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

1. Submittals. The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital copies, as set forth below. The proposal shall be received on or before the response date and time specified on the solicitation, or as amended on a SF30 (if applicable). Proposals shall be submitted according to the following: Electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted to Ms. Danielle Gainey and Ms. Ginger Bjornson, via e-mail to: Danielle.M.Gainey@usace.army.mil and virginia.e.bjornson@usace.army.mil, in a format that can be read and edited by Microsoft (MS) Word 2000, MS Excel 2000, MS Project 2000, and MS Power Point 2000 (or newer versions, thru MS Office 2013).

Proposals too large for email submission may be transmitted by utilization of the AMRDEC Safe Web Application.

Access the AMRDEC Safe Web Application, at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx

- Select non-CAC user

- Enter Personal Info (your info)

- Select Files to transmit to St. Louis District Corps of Engineers Recipient Information:

Virginia.bjornson@usace.army.mil

- Select email settings as applicable/preferred

- Select "UPLOAD"

Note: Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the FAR, DFARS and AFARS as applicable.

Offerors’ proposals must be valid for a period of time not less than 120 days from the original submission date.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following volumes:

I – Executive Summary II – Technical III – Past Performance IV – Price V - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations.

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and an accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Questions & Answers: All requests shall be made via e-mail to Danielle Gainey at Danielle.M.Gainey@usace.army.mil and Virginia Bjornson at Virginia e.bjornson@usace.army.mil. The email request, shall contain the subject “Question! LDP – W912P918R0025”. All inquiries will be answered in writing and provided to all Offerors via Federal Business Opportunities at www.fbo.gov.

Questions & Clarifications to be answered by the Government shall be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the response date of the solicitation.

Question 1: Has there been an outside Contractor who facilitated the LDP (SLDP) in the past 12 (7) years since the program(s) started? If so, who is the incumbent contractor?

Answer 1: There is not currently an incumbent contractor, as the program has been supported through internal resources.

Question 2: Can the Security Training requirements (1.6.7.5 and 1.7.7.5) of the Contractor be completed online or onsite during one of the program dates?

Answer 2: These trainings can be completed remotely. Anti-Terrorism training can be completed online and the Suspicious Activity Reporting is a power point training. Upon award of the contract, the contractor will be given the link to the Anti-Terrorism course and for the Suspicious Activity Reporting they will be given power point presentation which they will review and then send an Memorandum for Record (MFR) stating they have reviewed the training.

Question 3: Can you estimate the number of hours required for this project, at least for the first 5 months?

Answer 3: The contractor should propose the number of hours they will dedicate to the program.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Volumes. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and /or footer.

Note:

** Self extracting (.exe) files are not acceptable.

The following additional restrictions apply:

Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of proposals. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

PROPOSAL VOLUMES

PAGE LIMIT

Volume I – Executive Summary

3 pages

Volume II – Technical Approach

30 Pages, plus oral presentation

Volume III – Past Performance Information

25 pages total

Volume IV – Price

No Limit

Volume V – Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications and Representations

No Limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

(ii) VOLUME VI SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

(a) Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete the SF Form 1449, blocks 17a, and should include the CAGE code.

(b) Acknowledge of Solicitation Amendments (if any): Return one signed copy of each amendment (if applicable).

E. Discussions

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

(a) Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range, the contracting officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. Provided the solicitation notifies offerors that the competitive range can be limited for purposes of efficiency (see 52.215-1(f)(4)); the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 3703).

(b) If the contracting officer, after complying with paragraph (d)(3) of this section, decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503.

(c) Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing (see FAR 15.505 and FAR 15.506).

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions via teleconference or email.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)