W912QR21R0007-0002.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 W912QR21R0007 to provide maintenance services for DFAS Bldg. 21 located in Columbus, OH is hereby modified as follow s:

a. Due to an administrative error all references to Standard Form (SF) 1442 in Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Criteria, are hereby revised to Standard Form (SF) 1449.

b. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912QR21R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Oct-2020

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

30-OCT 2020

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE

600 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PLACE

ROOM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2239

W912QR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR21R0007-0002

W912QR21R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the maintenance service contract for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Columbus Center located within the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) installation, located in Columbus, OH. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable in price, and offers the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than the highest technically rated offeror, or to reject all offers.

1.2 The facility to be maintained includes approximately 592,000 square feet containing seven stories plus a basement and three penthouses. Individual floor space varies from 66,804 to 87,825 gross square feet. The central mechanical plant and main electrical switchgear are housed in a separate Central Plant structure.

The cooling towers servicing the Columbus Center are located directly north of the Central Plant building.

The maintenance activities required under this project include, but may not be limited to general building operation, scheduled and preventative maintenance executed in accordance with a Preventative maintenance plan, routine maintenance and repair, and contract administration services. It also includes demand maintenance and repair services that are additional maintenance and repair services necessitated by age, wear and tear, which cannot be reasonably anticipated.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. The proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Place, Room 821, Louisville, KY 40202-2267 no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1449. Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Miriaha Sigmon. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted in a three-ring binder and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

*NOTE: The complete Volume I shall be submitted in original and six (6) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced.

Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted in a three-ring binder (placed in a separate envelope) and shall include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1449 and Price Breakout Schedule Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Volume II shall be submitted in original and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab/factor may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical (Volume I) and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Management Plan will be rated using Table 3 below.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, 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.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Management Plan 2nd

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Sealed Envelope)

Tab A Standard Form 1449 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the one (l) rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description 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.

TABLE 2

Past Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

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 factor 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 successfully perform the required effort.

TABLE 3

Management Plan Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

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

Good 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.

Acceptable

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

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

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

4.6 Definitions

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6. 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime

Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be submitted by offerors and considered by the SSEB for evaluation purposes. but the overall relevancy rating for such projects may be reduced depending on how much older the project is beyond the five (5) year timeframe. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size to this project are operations and maintenance services for a multi-story building(s) having a combined square footage of at least 150,000 square feet. This square footage may be a combination of multiple buildings provided that all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include building operations and maintenance, to include scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, for occupied multi-story building(s) such as office/administrative spaces, research laboratories, data facilities, and similar facilities. The prime contractor must demonstrate experience with dispatching personnel and contracting for maintenance work using a work order system.

5.1.4 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a) Experience working with Federal Government Agencies

b) Demonstrated experience managing a reoccurring maintenance contract for a period of one year or greater

5.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

b) Date of Award that contract was complete to include start and end dates

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility

d) Size of the facility/facilities maintained

e) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed

5.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action(s).

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1449. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture (JV) must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV proposal. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table above.

5.2.2 The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

6.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a Management Plan narrative that describes how your labor, resources, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the contract requirements. Additionally, the Management Plan shall include the following information:

Describe your plan for immediate/emergency response maintenance action.

Describe your plan for mitigating disruption of day to day operations of an occupied space (noise, site cleanliness, etc.).

Describe your plan for managing subcontractors during contract performance.

Describe your process for managing, coordinating, and tracking changes that arise during contract performance.

Describe your plan for establishing and performing preventative maintenance (PM) procedures on electrical, heating and air conditioning, and mechanical equipment?

Describe the performance metrics (i.e. Mean Time Between Failure, Mean Time To Repair, etc.)

you’ll use to measure your preventative maintenance and process improvement goals, including how you will communicate your performance in these metrics to the customer.

Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management, and the responsible chain of command. JV offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Management Plan factor. There is a page limit of one (1) single sided 11” x 17” page for the organizational chart portion of this factor. The organizational chart does not count in the 10 page limit. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be evaluated.

6.1.1 Evaluation Criteria:

Management Plan narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for successfully managing the solicited project.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1449 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1449 and Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal. A copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business set-aside acquisitions and/or any small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit proof of financial ability (most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing the offeror's ability to be bonded for this project.

Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

(End of Summary of Changes)