A.2.11.3_Amendment_W91U2M19R0008-0001.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

Thr purpose of this amendment is as follow s:

1. Add the w ord "Signficantly" to the relative importance of technical factors compared to price

2. Amend basis of aw ard section, Paragraph 5.0 EVALUATION APPROACH FOR PRICE

3. Remove w atermark "DRAFT" from SF1449

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Aug-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 W912UM19R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jul-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 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

01-Aug-2019

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FAR EAST DISTRICT

UNIT #15546

APO AP 96271

W912UM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912UM19R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD & EVALUATION FACTOR

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the

Government. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. Both the prices offered on the PRICE SCHEDULE and the lump sum price for the sample Task Order will be taken into consideration when selecting the best value. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers at any time prior to award. All evaluation factors are weighted as shown below in paragraph 2.0.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FACTOR DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

1 DoD Top Secret Facility Clearance Acceptable/Unacceptable

2 Corporate Experience Factor 2 is more important than 3

3 Technical Approach for Sample Task Order Factor 3 is more important than

Factor 4

4 Past Performance

5 Price Factors 2, 3, and 4, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2. 1 Technical Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1. Offerors are required to submit CAGE Code and Controlled Unclassified Information Non-Disclosure

Agreement for Security Verification. Offerors are required to use the Non-Disclosure form included in the DD254 form of this solicitation. The Government will utilize the CAGE Code provided by all Offerors to determine if the

Offeror possesses the required Security Verification. If the Offeror is a Joint-Venture, they will be required to submit their Joint-Venture agreement with CAGE code for the Joint –Venture. If the Offeror is unacceptable in this factor, their proposal will not be evaluated any further.

To be eligible for contract award, a firm must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) database. For instruction on registering with the SAM, please see the SAM Web site at https://www.sam.gov/.

Factor 2. Corporate Experience: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s corporate experience based on construction security monitoring services that involve adherence to DCID 6/9, ODNI ICD 705 or Diplomatic

Security Standards; on projects of similar size and scope to the sample Task Order. Experience will be based on the securitization of the site. This includes the installation and management of temporary security facilities including, but not limited to, the site utilization plan, fencing, Secure storage area (SSA), Access Control Facility (ACF), and site security systems. Experience with the management of oversight of the security, to include, but not limited to, training of security personnel, management of work schedules, interaction with construction contractors, and the overall competency of the security staff.

https://www.sam.gov/

Factor 3: Technical Approach for Sample Task Order. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the complex dynamic and required interactions between stakeholders during the construction process to ensure that security does not become an avoidable roadblock to the construction process. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror on how well the narrative describes the interactions within the security team and the Corps of Engineers during the execution of the work and how the Offeror will ensure a collaborative relationship. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed plan for interaction of the security team with the Cognizant Security Authority (CSA) for the project and the construction team during the execution of the work to minimize or eliminate adversarial relationships. The Government will evaluate the proposal for effectiveness in describing its resource loading plan and how it will support the orderly establishment of site temporary security. The Government will evaluate the resource deployment strategy for delivery of services to determine how well the Offeror will address planned lulls and surges in construction activity or evolving security posture. The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan will manage resources to overcome unplanned lulls and surges in construction activity due to construction scheduling issues, security incidents, or changes in security policy.

Factor 4. Past Performance: At least one project for CSM services were for a U.S. Federal Government

Construction Project Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Form PPQ-0). The PPQ included in the Solicitation at

Documents/Exhibits/Attachments Section is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client.

The Past Performance Questionnaire should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity.

Completed PPQs should be submitted to the Contracting Office of the evaluation agency. It is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up with the evaluating agency to ascertain if the required information has been forwarded prior to the establishing closing date of the solicitation. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client Information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The questionnaires should be submitted directly to the Government’s points of contact, both Ms. Chon, Hye Kyong, HyeKyong.Chon@usace.army.mil and to MAJ Won S. Chung, won.s.chung@usace.army.mil by e-mail prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the this factor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal or to review personal knowledge. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance of the Offeror on the submitted projects and any other previous work. 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 (joint venture, 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. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to for relevancy and to conduct a confidence assessment.

3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH FOR PAST PERFROMANCE FACTORS

3.1 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

3.2 Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the mailto:HyeKyong.Chon@usace.army.mil mailto:won.s.chung@usace.army.mil relevancy of past performance. The criteria for recency are projects that are either completed, or more than 75% complete within the last 5 years.

3.3 Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

Any projects for CSM services on US Federal construction projects located Outside the Continental United States and its territories will increase the level of relevance. DoD projects constructed under ICD 705 are considered are also considered more relevant than DoS projects. At least one project will be located at an overseas location involving the use of a CRP and the shipment of secured materials. At least one of the projects must be a SCIF that is larger than 8,000sf in size. All submitted projects must have a SCIF at least 5,000sf in size.

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 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.

3.4 Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.0 EVALUATION APPROACH FOR TECHNICAL FACTORS

4.1 Combined Technical/3.1.2.2 Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical factors requirements.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating Rating [Factors Only] Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red Unacceptable 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.

5.0 EVALUATION APPROACH FOR PRICE. Price will not be rated or scored. Rather, price and cost analysis techniques as annotated under FAR 15.404-1 will be used to establish fair and reasonable labor hour and equipment rates (see Pricing Schedule) for award of the SATOC. Additionally, a cost break-out of the sample task order will be required to ensure that the Offeror is using the labor and equipment rates proposed in the Pricing Schedule. The

Technical and the Past Performance Factors, when combined, are more important than cost or price.

5.0 EVALUATION APPROACH FOR PRICE. Price will not be rated or scored. Rather, one or more of the price analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be used to establish the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed labor hour and equipment rates (see Pricing Schedule) for award of the SATOC. Additionally, a breakout of proposed prices for the sample task order will be required to ensure that the Offeror is using the labor and equipment rates it has proposed in the Pricing Schedule. The Technical and the Past Performance Factors, when combined, are more significantly important than the Price Factor.

5.1 Evaluation Approach for Pricing Schedule. The Government will determine whether the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring.

The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy –in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

5.2 Evaluation Approach for sample Task Order. The Government intends to evaluate the sample Task Order based on the PWS provided in this solicitation (PWS, sample Task Order). The cost breakdown information provided with the sample task order lump sum price will be evaluated to ensure that it is consistent with the labor and equipment rates provided in the Offeror’s PRICE SCHEDULE. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy –in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

6.0 DEBRIEFING

Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from further consideration prior to the final source selection decisions may request a debriefing before award in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors may also request a debriefing after award in accordance with FAR 15.506. The Contracting Officer, with the assistance of the SSEB Chairperson, will provide the debriefings in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506.

(End of Summary of Changes)

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912UM19R0008 24-Jul-2019

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

315-755-6929

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

10:00 AM 23 Aug 2019

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912UM9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

WON S CHUNG

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED ORX

SMALL BUSINESS

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FAR EAST DISTRICT

UNIT #15546

APO AP 96271

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FAX:

TEL: 82-503-355-6091

SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$20,500,000

NAICS:

561612

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF87

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.