A21 - W912PM19T0048_AMD6.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

Solicitation hereby amended to clarify the transition period to show 14 days instead of 30 days in the Technical provisions as w ell as in the Evaluation Criteria and to extend the due date for responses to Friday, 12/27/2019 at 11AM EST due to the Federal Holidays. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The due date for questions has NOT been extended.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Dec-2019

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 W912PM19T0048

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Nov-2019

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 X 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 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

19-Dec-2019

CODE

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

WILMINGTON DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

69 DARLINGTON AVE

WILMINGTON NC 28403-1343

W912PM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PM19T0048

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Nov-2019 11:00 AM to 27-Dec-2019 11:00 AM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(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 Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer;

and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

This solicitation shall be evaluated by awarding to the quote that is determined to offer the best value to the Government where a tradeoff in accepting a higher price will be considered for a superior techncially rated offer.

Quotes will be evaluated using informal simplified acquisition source selection procedures.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

See “Evaluation Factors for Award for Services” below for more information.

1. Technical (Management Approach, Technical Solution, Transition)

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

(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)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD FOR SERVICES

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. Conduct of Acquisition: This acquisition shall be conducted using the policies and procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The government will evaluate quotes and submittals in accordance with the evaluation scheme, factors and criteria in this section of the Request for Quotations (RFQ). The Contracting Officer (CO) shall select an Offeror for award using the best value analysis described in this section of the RFQ. Award will be made to the responsible contractor whose quote is responsive to this RFQ and is determined to represent the best value to the Government.

An offer will be eliminated from consideration prior to completion of evaluations if the submission is so deficient or incomplete as to be rendered unacceptable and to preclude a meaningful evaluation. For example, an Offeror’s submittal shall be deemed unacceptable if it does not represent a reasonable effort to address the minimum requirements of the Technical Provision. The Offeror will be notified in the event his quote and technical submission are eliminated from evaluation.

b. Best Value: Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with evaluation criteria stated in the RFQ. A Best Value selection basis reflects the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest cost/price if the perceived benefits of the proposal with the higher price merit the additional cost/price. Proposal evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation scheme and criteria stated below. The award decision will be made based on an integrated assessment of each proposal on a “tradeoff” basis between technical excellence, past performance and price (cost/price). The rationale for the tradeoffs between a higher cost or price proposal and the benefits obtained for that offeror’s technical proposal and past performance will be documented in the Selection Decision Statement. In making this integrated assessment of all offers, the Government strives to obtain superior performance rather than the lowest overall cost/price. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost/price to the Government to obtain only slightly improved performance or past performance.

c. Number of Awards: The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFQ.

However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

2. OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS IS NOT APPLICABLE

UNDER SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES.

In accordance with 52.212-2, the following factors will be evaluated:

1. Technical (Management Approach, Technical Solution, Transition)

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

The Government will not make an award to an Offeror whose evaluated price is disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one Offeror’s Technical and Past Performance submission over another. Therefore, to the extent that Offerors’ Technical and Past Performance are evaluated as similar in merit, then the Offeror’s Cost/Price is more likely to be the determining factor for award.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION (MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL APPROACH, TRANSITION)

(a) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the Offeror’s technical submission:

I. Outstanding: The Offer meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Evaluations resulting in outstanding ratings possess multiple significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and only minor weaknesses. Exceptional submissions possess no omissions. The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with low risk.

II. Good: The technical submission demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that meet the requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes.

Offers evaluated with good ratings possess significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and several minor weaknesses. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in the achievement of the Government’s objectives with low risk.

III. Acceptable: The technical submission demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the technical requirement, and proposes an approach that will meet the requirements using commercially acceptable industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce moderate risk but are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. An Acceptable rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses.

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

V. Unacceptable: The technical proposal demonstrates that the Offeror does not understand the technical requirement; the Offeror’s technical approach is not technically feasible or is based upon outdated or risky technologies, methodologies, and questionable processes. The Offeror failed to meet minimum requirements specified in the solicitation. Proposals with unacceptable ratings have few or no strengths and several significant weaknesses and/or minor deficiencies, minor weaknesses and omissions. An unacceptable proposal fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling the Government’s requirements. An unacceptable proposal is one in which an unacceptable risk of performance failure exists and is considered unawardable.

(b) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance:

I. Very Relevant: The Offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the

Government can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction with minimal risk. Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation.

II. Relevant: The Offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect successful performance and customer satisfaction with low risk.

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation.

III. Somewhat Relevant: The Offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction.

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation.

IV. Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation.

V. Unknown: No performance record is identifiable. This is a neutral weighting. It does not hinder nor help the offeror.

(c) The Government will evaluate price to ensure it is complete, reasonable and realistic by verifying that all prices/labor rates and costs to the Government are in accordance with market prices and values. Each Offeror’s level of effort and mix of labor proposed will be evaluated to determine that the total price proposed is fair and reasonable. An adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will not be conducted.

(d) The Government will develop a separate adjectival rating for Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical based upon the three (3) subfactors- Management Approach, Technical Solution and Transition). Each subfactor will receive a separate adjectival rating.

4. THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE ALL PROPOSALS AGAINST THE FOLLOWING

FACTORS: The evaluation will be based on both the Offeror’s written technical and past performance proposal.

4.1 EVALUTION FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL (Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance).

4.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Management Approach

The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding of the program requirements and ability to manage all aspects in an efficient and effective manner that will achieve the program and mission requirements set forth in the Technical Provisions. The evaluation will also consider the degree to which the management approach provides for a sound partnering approach to complement core competencies, and service level agreements directly related to meeting or exceeding mission critical performance requirements. The Government will assess the offeror’s core competencies to perform and/or manage team members/subcontractors to provide an integrated approach to planning, organization and personnel required to achieve its mission objectives.

ORGANIZATION CHART: An evaluation of the Offeror’s organizational chart that shows the company structure, management personnel, and Individual responsibilities of contractor employees who will oversee and perform O&M services under this requirement at Philpott Lake for the base year and option years will be conducted. Along with the chart, evaluations will be conducted regarding qualifications for each management and quality control personnel position responsible for these services.

PERSONNEL AND HOURS: An evaluation of the Offeror’s personnel will be conducted to include the man-hours proposed for each position and number of employees with their job series (i.e. Project Manager, Foreman, laborers, etc.). A Man-hour report shall be provided for each Technical Provision in this contract for the purposes of this evaluation. The evaluation will take into consideration the number of hours and positions proposed as it relates to typical commercial practices and standards in conjunction with scheduled performance dates listed within each TP.

SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH: An evaluation of the Offeror’s methods, techniques, and approaches to accomplish all contract requirements will be conducted to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and capability in meeting the timelines within each TP. The Offeror shall address each Technical Provision and a description of how requirements will be accomplished in order to assist with this evaluation.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2 - Technical Solution

The Government will assess the quality of the proposed technical solution; determine the offeror’s understanding of and knowledge of the program mission, TP objectives, work requirements, and potential challenges which may occur as a result of performing the work; and the inherent risk and their mitigation in achieving the TP objectives. The Government will assess the offeror’s performance measures and metrics and monetary incentives and disincentives incorporated into its proposed Quality Assurance Plan.

QUALITY CONTROL: An evaluation of the Offeror’s methods and procedures in how quality control will be performed in terms of risk prevention measures will be conducted. These methods and procedures must include key personnel and timelines as necessary to demonstrate this element. In order to achieve potentially higher ratings, the Offeror must be able to clearly describe prevention measures as opposed to reactive measures.

EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS: An evaluation of the Offeror’s list of all proposed contractor furnished equipment to be used throughout this contract i.e. (Vehicles, mowers, heavy equipment, dump trucks, etc.)

will be conducted. This list must be able to show the quantities and equipment type as they will be used within each Technical Provision. Higher ratings may be considered with an equipment list that exceeds the required pieces listed and if the Offeror is able to describe measures taken to repair or replace broken equipment so as not to disrupt services. As a part of this evaluation, a summary of materials with quantities will be evaluated to determine accessibility and capability in performing services timely. The material list will show items the Offeror will have on hand, and on location. Higher ratings may be considered if the proposed equipment list exceeds the required equipment and the Offeror is able to describe measures taken to repair or replace broken equipment so as not to disrupt services. A higher rating may also be given if the Offeror is able to provide an approach to acquiring materials not onsite in a timely and efficient manner.

4.1.3 Subfactor 3 - Transition

The transition/phase-in plan will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s approach and ability to assume full contractual responsibility in minimum time for the entire proposed PWS without degradation of high quality services. The Offeror will incorporate a 30-day 14-day transition period into the proposed technical proposal.

The organizational structure for the transition/phase-in period, detailing numbers of personnel growth over the period and skills associated with each element of the contractor organization will also be evaluated. The Offeror must be able to provide a timeline for providing required submittals, and acquiring Contractor-furnished equipment needed to begin work onsite. A higher rating may be given where Offers include methods used in transitioning services from the current incumbent Contractor.

4.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation will examine the Offeror’s actual performance on a minimum of three (3) recent and relevant efforts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) that are similar to the Government requirement. The term "recent" is defined as projects where a minimum completion has taken place no less than 50% or where the project is 100% complete between September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2019.

This review will focus on the size, scope, and complexity of the efforts, the performance measures/service levels applied, the actual performance results against those measures, and customer satisfaction achieved by the Offeror.

In conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data obtained from other sources as well as that provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to check the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and team members and include the results in its assessment.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.3 EVALUATION FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate the proposed total cost/price of the 60 months of the performance period to determine that the cost/price is valid, realistic and consistent and cost is complete and reasonable.

The cost/price proposal will be evaluated for consistency and understanding of the project requirements and the Offeror’s technical submittals in response to this RFQ and Technical Provisions.

Although the technical proposals will be evaluated against the evaluation factors, as Simplified Acquisition Procedures are being utilized, comparative analysis of the proposals may also be included in the evaluation process, which allows the comparison of each technical proposal against the others to facilitate the tradeoff analysis and a determination of the best value for the Government. The establishment of a competitive range is not required.

5. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

For award purposes, in addition to an offeror’s response to the base period requirements, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal in response to all RFQ option periods. Evaluation of the option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

(End of Summary of Changes)

4.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE