W91QF0-17-T-0011_Amendment_0001.pdf

0011050422-0001

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 change FAR 52.212-2 Evaluations from Incorporated by Reference to Full Text.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Sep-2017

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 W91QF0-17-T-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Aug-2017

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 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-Sep-2017

CODE

MICC ICO CARLISLE BARRACKS

314 LOVELL AVE STE 1

CARLISLE PA 17013-5072

W91QF0 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91QF0-17-T-0011

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)

*** SEE ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION-FOR MORE INFORMATION UNIQUE TO THIS COMBINED

SOLICITATION/SYNOPSIS***

(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:

The Technical, Past Performance, and the Small Business Participation Factor, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation. Past Performance and Small Business Participation are of equal importance. The Past Performance and Small Business Participation Factors are less important than the Price Factor.

(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). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, first option, second option, third option, fourth option, and one-half of the fourth option. Offerors are required only to price the base and four options. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential one-half year extension of services period.

(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)

Addendum – 52.212-2 (Basis of Award-Evaluation)

52.212-2 - Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Basis for Purchase Order Award. The Government intends to make a single award resulting from this RFQ to the responsible quoter whose quote conforming to the RFQ is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered, conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12 Commercial Contracting and 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFARS).

b. The Government intends to issue one (1) award using a trade-off analysis as a result of this

RFQ. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. The Government may request additional oral or written information from one or more quoters, but not necessarily from all quoters. In accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

c. Evaluation Criteria. This procurement is being conducted under FAR Part 12 Commercial Contracting and 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures.

The Evaluation criteria consists of 4 factors (Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price). The quote submission will be evaluated under these four (4) evaluation factors. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Each offeror’s quote will be evaluated and the Government will make a determination of the adjectival rating for each of the subfactors using the scales in the Technical Matrix. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the Tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The offerors that provide the best value to the Government are based on the results of the evaluation criteria described in the paragraph below. All Technical subfactors are of equal importance.

The Technical, Past Performance, and the Small Business Participation Factor, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation. Past Performance and Small Business Participation are of equal importance. The Past Performance and Small Business Participation Factors are less important than the Price Factor.

Factor 1: Technical:

The quote format shall contain a complete written response that provides the Government with a full understanding of their approach to accomplish all work required herein. All quotes are required to submit a complete quote that is self-sufficient, and responds directly to the requirements of the RFQ. Each quote shall be complete in and of itself.

Subfactor 1: Library Functionality (PWS paragraph 5.2). Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of library functions and the functionality being requested.

Subfactor 2: Archival Functionality (PWS paragraph 5.3). Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of archival functions and the functionality being requested.

Subfactor 3: Digital Management & Preservation Functionality (PWS paragraph 5.4). Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of both digital asset management and the preservation of digital material functions and the functionality being requested.

Subfactor 4: Collection Management Functionality (PWS paragraph 5.5). Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of collection management functions and the functionality being requested.

Subfactor 5: Discover/Search Functionality (PWS paragraph 5.6) Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of Discover/Search functions and the functionality being requested. An acceptable plan must be a public discover/search function which is separated from the government stored data.

Subfactor 6: Systems/IT (PWS paragraph 5.7). Approach shall demonstrate an understanding of the requested systems and information technology functions and the functionality being requested.

1. Technical Ratings. The technical ratings evaluate the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's quote. The rating depicts how well the quote meets the Technical subfactors requirements. Subfactors ratings, Technical Matrix, shall be rolled up into an overall adjectival rating for a single Technical factor rating.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of the basic requirements.

Technical Matrix

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

Definitions:

Strength: An aspect of a quote that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful award performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.

Weakness: A flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance. A “significant weakness” in the quote is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies include a statement by the quoter that “I cannot or will not” meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of the quote for which the intent of the quoter is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the quote or because inconsistencies in the quote indicate that there may be an error, omission or mistake. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy: The quote submission is in compliance with the instructions in the solicitation.

Factor 2: Past Performance

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).

Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the quoter’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered

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

relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the quoter is to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. 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, and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

A relevancy determination of the quoter’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual awards, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being submitted by the quoter, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose award is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the quote submittal and information obtained from any other sources available to the Government (e.g. PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, DCMA) may be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Quoters without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" Confidence Assessment rating for the Past Performance factor.

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 conducted in support of the solicitation 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 to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the quoter’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that quoter’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the quoter’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the item being procured under this solicitation.

Past contract performance should demonstrate the selected quoter’s ability to meet project goals as specified in the Performance Work Statement and the Instructions to Quoters. The quoter must demonstrate that he/she has performed work of a similar scope and magnitude of effort.

There are four levels of relevancy. The quoter will receive one of the four relevancy ratings identified below. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating:

Adjectival 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.

The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the Confidence Assessment ratings defined below. A quoter whose submittal demonstrates no past performance will be rated “Neutral.” An award will not be made to any quoter who receives a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” past performance rating. All past performance information collected will be reviewed to determine the quality of the quoter’s past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information to establish the performance confidence assessment rating below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating:

Adjectival 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

- Large businesses primes may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

- Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

The government will evaluate: The Small Business Participation Plan for quotes from both Small and Large Business Concerns, and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for Large Business Concerns for the following:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in quotes;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business 35%; Small Disadvantaged Business 5%; Woman-Owned Small Business 5%; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business 3%;

Veteran Owned Small Business 3%; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3%. (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects 7% for Woman-Owned Small Business, would count towards the overall Small Business Goals.))

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions. The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated by the SSEB Small Business Team using the following adjectival rating chart:

Adjectival Rating

Extent of Achievement of RFQ SB Participation Objectives

Extent to Which SB Firms are Specifically Identified for Each Goal

Extent of Commitment to Identified Firms

Complexity & Variety of Work SB Firms are to Perform

Past Performance Against SB Goals as shown in recent Gov Contracts

Extent of Participation of SB firms in terms of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Outstanding Proposed Goals Achieve or Surpass all

RFQ

Objectives

SB Firms are identified by name in each category proposed

Written Agreements in place with firms satisfying each goal

Wide variety of work to be provided by SB firms to include technically complex work

All RFQ identified categories of goals met or exceeded as shown on latest reports

SB firms will provide a significant amount of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Good Proposed Goals Achieve or Nearly Achieve all RFQ Objectives

SB Firms are identified by name in most categories proposed

Written agreements in place with firms satisfying several goals

Some variety of work to be performed by SB firms to include technically complex work

Most RFQ identified categories of goals met as shown on latest reports

SB firms will provide a substantial amount of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Acceptable Meaningful Goals Proposed for All RFQ Objectives

SB Firms are identified by name in some categories proposed

Written agreements in place with several SB firms

Some variety of work to be performed by SB firms

Most goals met or close to being met on latest reports

SB firms will provide meaningful amount of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Marginal Meaningful Goals Proposed for only some RFQ Objectives

SB Firm identified by name in only one category proposed

Written agreement in place with at least one SB firm

SB firms will only be utilized to provide supplies on the contract

Shows some effort to meet RFQ goals as seen on latest reports

SB firms will provide a noticeable amount of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Unacceptable Failed to Propose Meaningful Goals Against Almost All

RFQ

Objectives

No SB Firms Identified by Name

No identification that any binding commitment is in place with any SB firm

No identification of how SB firms will be utilized

Most goals not met and no valid excuses given for not meeting those not met

SB firms will provide an insignificant amount of the total proposed subcontract effort.

Factor 3: Price

Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 13.106-3. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. In as much as the best value quote will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest evaluated price. On the other hand, if the Government determines that a higher rated quote provides value-added features but at an unreasonable/unjustifiable amount, it is not bound to award to a higher technically rated quote.

The price must be appropriate for the benefit provided to the U.S. Army, and the.goal of this solicitation is to obtain a firm-fixed price award. Quoters will submit the total price for completing required work inclusive of all costs associated with this requirement.

Options- the total price including all options will be evaluated.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)