Sol_D15PS00125_Amendment_000002.pdf

(x)

D15PS00125

x x 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

x

D33

Sierra Vista AZ 85635 354 S Hwy 92 Division 3/ Branch 3 Interior Business Center, AQD

07/02/2015000002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers 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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

07/02/2015

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

Amendment 000002 is issued to administratively correct Sections F.5 Period of Performance and M.2 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award (Best Value).

Period of Performance: 05/01/2016 to 04/30/2021

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Nancy Griffiths

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Solicitation Amendment

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

SECTION F -- Deliveries or Performance

F.5 Period of Performance

The effective date of this contract is May 1, 2016. The Ordering Period for this contract is 5 years from the effective date of this Contract. The contract shall not exceed $164,000,000.00. The period of performance for each individual task order will be specified within the order.

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

SECTION M -- Evaluation Factors for Award

M.2 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award (Best Value)

(a) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the "best value" to the Government. Such offer may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost or receiving the highest technical rating.

(b) Proposals will be rated on the evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost/price is neither a color nor an adjectivally weighted factor. When the Offerors within the competitive range are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the government, price may become the determining factor for award. In summary, price/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

(c) Priority Statement: The evaluation areas are listed in descending order of importance: Technical and Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Evaluations will be accomplished in separate phases. All evaluation factors, other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. The evaluation areas will be assessed with the factors and subfactors listed below and each will be assigned a single color rating (except Cost/Price). Small Business Participation is not a weighted factor, but must be rated “Go” for a proposal to be eligible for award.

1. FACTORS

I. Technical and Management

- Subfactor 1: Technical Approach and Personnel Qualifications to Perform the Sample Tasks Performance Risk (See Chart)

- Subfactor 2: Overall Contract Management Plan

- Subfactor 3: Organizational Experience

- Subfactor 4: Contractor Facilities

II. Past Performance

- Relevancy

- Quality Assessment

- Confidence

III. Cost/Price Realism

2. RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

Subcontract Goals (Responsibility Determination)

- Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan

- Subfactor 2: Subcontracting Plan

3. RATINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS

- Technical and Management will be evaluated with the factors and subfactors will be assigned a single color rating of Exceptional (BLUE), Good (GREEN), Acceptable (YELLOW), Vulnerable (PINK), and Unacceptable (RED).

- Cost/Price Realism evaluations are used to determine if the offeror’s proposal is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

- Past Performance will be assigned color ratings (BLUE) Very Relevant, (GREEN) Relevant, (YELLOW) Somewhat Relevant, and (RED) Not Relevant. The Confidence Assessment Ratings of (BLUE) Substantial Confidence, (GREEN)

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

Satisfactory Confidence, (YELLOW) Limited Confidence, (RED) No Confidence, and (WHITE) Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

- Subcontracting Goals/Small Business will be evaluated in meeting minimum small business goals and compliance with the FAR and DFARS as Acceptable or Unacceptable, Go/No-Go basis.

(d) Compliance with RFP: Each offer will be evaluated to determine its acceptability. An offer will be considered acceptable when it manifests the Offeror's assent, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of this RFP, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference. An offer that takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP, imposes additional conditions, or omits material information required by this RFP may be considered to be unacceptable.

(e) The evaluation factors and subfactors information are listed below.

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT

This volume shall be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete as to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough understanding and knowledge of the problems inherent in performing the requirements of the PWS. Any unique or innovative approaches will be considered during this evaluation if offered. Any unique or innovative approach must be separate from the requested approach, and must be included within the page requirements for this section. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will perform the listed functions without supporting information or narrative is inadequate. Paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof, is similarly inadequate, as are phrases such as "standard procedures will be employed" or "well-known techniques will be used." The Government will evaluate whether the services offered adequately respond to the specific Government requirements and shall contain the following evaluation subfactors in descending order of importance.

Subfactor 1 Technical Approach and Personnel Qualifications to Perform the Sample Tasks Subfactor 2 Overall Contract Management Plan Subfactor 3 Organizational Experience Subfactor 4 Contractor Facilities

SUBFACTOR 1 - Technical Approach And Personnel Qualifications To Perform The Sample Tasks

The Government will assess the technical approach for providing support for each of the sample tasks (attachment 6). This assessment will include an evaluation of the proposed program support structure, to include an assessment of staffing qualifications, makeup, and availability as proposed. Each resume designated as providing at least twenty-five (25%) percent to the sample task order will be evaluated against the desired qualifications outlined in the Performance Work Statement and in comparison to the technical requirements under the Sample Tasks (attachment 5).

The Government will consider the following factors when evaluating availability of personnel:

a) What percentage of time the personnel is committed to this effort as proposed against the Sample Task(s).

b) The availability of the staff at the start of the contract.

c) Whether an individual is currently employed by the contractor/subcontractor versus whether the individual's service is conditional or under a letter of intent.

d) The demonstrated ability to ensure that services will be provided on an as required, timely basis for any personnel providing less than 100% of a man-year.

SUBFACTOR 2 - Overall Contract Management Plan

The Government will assess the feasibility of the Offeror's proposed management approach for accomplishing the tasks delineated in the PWS.

1. Organizational Structure: The evaluation will consider the corporate structure and functional relationships and responsibilities among the organizational elements that will participate in accomplishing this effort. Internal management communication lines and methods of supervision of all proposed staff as well, as how the Offeror will interface and coordinate with the MTO Leadership, DARPA Program Managers, the Government Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), other DARPA offices, and other contractors will be evaluated.

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

2. Staff Management: The Offeror’s approach to monitor and measure staff performance, including subcontractor and independent consultant staff, will be assessed. A strong process is one that clearly identifies self-assessment methods and remedial plans as part of its quality assurance. The Offeror’s approach to train and mentor new personnel on DARPA procedures and policy; as well as the methods and processes that will be used to ensure continued operations during vacations and other temporary staff absences (the methods and processes used must assure that the ability to perform all required functions will not be impaired) will also be assessed.

3. Staffing/Hiring Methodology: The Offeror’s overall staffing/hiring methodology will be evaluated. The Offeror’s external hiring practices, its process to leverage its proposed teaming relationships, and its willingness and process to identify and create new partners in order to ensure that it will effectively meet MTO’s current and future needs will be considered. The Offeror’s approach and plan to respond to the scenarios outlines in Section L will be evaluated.

4. Transition Plan: The Offeror’s transition plan will be considered. The Government will evaluate how the plan will mitigate any performance, schedule and/or cost risks associated with transition to this new contract.

The minimum threshold is met when the proposal demonstrates a sound approach to effectively plan, control, organize, train, and manage all resources necessary to accomplish the Section C, PWS requirements and within the established performance, quality, and time standards -- with adequate flexibility to changing requirements and fluctuation in workload.

SUBFACTOR 3 - Organizational Experience

This evaluation will consider the breadth, depth, and relevance of Offeror work performed within the past five years. The Offeror shall complete a matrix that details their organization experience in five (5) key areas from the Performance Work Statement (PWS) stated below. The areas listed below are all equally important.

(1) Experience in technical support tasks as defined in the PWS

(2) Experience in programmatic, financial, and administrative support tasks as defined in the PWS

(3) Experience in contract administrative and management support tasks as defined in the PWS

(4) Experience in meeting/conference support tasks as defined in the PWS

SUBFACTOR 4 - Contractor Facilities The Offeror shall demonstrate the capabilities of the company's facilities to support the requirements delineated in PWS and each Sample Task. Acceptable local company facilities are required for performing all technical requirements of this effort. This includes the capabilities presented in the PWS. It is highly desirable that the Offeror possess all of its own off-site computer equipment and support software required for this effort. It is also highly desirable that the Offeror possess the proper telecommunications and network to protect USG and other sensitive and classified data. If the Offeror proposes to establish a local office(s) for this effort, then the acceptability of a detailed plan, schedule, and cost for implementation if awarded the contract is required. Inclusion of the subcontractor's facilities, if applicable, is required.

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT RATING SCHEME:

The technical/management evaluation will be expressed using the following color ratings:

Rating Definitions BLUE (Exceptional) Proposal is exceptional exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements. Proposal has significant strength(s) in meeting the RFP requirements that is not offset by any weakness(s) or risk(s). Proposal represents a low risk.

GREEN (Good) Proposal is good; exceeds most of the Government’s minimum requirements. Proposal has strength(s) in meeting the requirements of the RFP and/or may have a weakness(es) or risk(s). Proposal represents a moderate to low risk.

YELLOW (Acceptable) Proposal is acceptable; meets all of the Government’s minimum requirements.

Proposal may have a strength(s) in meeting the requirements of the RFP and/or may have a weakness(es) or risk(s). Proposal represents a moderate risk.

PINK

(Vulnerable)

Proposal is vulnerable; Government’s minimum requirements are not met. Insufficient evidence that offeror’s proposed capability or proposed effort is of an acceptable level of quality. Inconsistencies and incompatibilities with other portions of the proposal exists. Proposal may have a strength(s) in meeting the requirements of the RFP;

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

however, they are offset by either significant weakness(es) and/or risk(s). Correction of weakness(es), deficiency(ies) and/or risk(s) could result in an acceptable proposal, without a major rewrite of the proposal. Proposal represents moderate to high risk.

RED (Unacceptable) Proposal is unacceptable; Government’s minimum requirements are not met. The offeror’s proposal lacks evidence of capability to perform proposed effort. Numerous major inconsistencies, weaknesses, significant deficiency(ies), and/or risk(s) exist.

Proposal has minimal or no chance of success and correction would require extensive revision, a major rewrite, to be rated as acceptable. Proposal represents a high risk.

PERFORMANCE RISK RATING SCHEME:

Rating Definitions BLUE (LOW) Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

YELLOW (MODERATE) Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

RED (HIGH) Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past and recent performance on contracts similar to this effort in order to evaluate; (a) how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this acquisition, (b) to determine how well the Offeror performed on the efforts, and (c) the Government will use these evaluations to make a determination as to the level of confidence the Government has in selecting a particular Contractor for award. The information provided by the Offeror in Volume IV

- Past Performance, and any other information the Government obtains from other sources, will be used to determine a company's performance history on that effort.

(a) Relevancy: The Government will assess the relevancy of each Offeror's past performance. This assessment, conducted for each contract referenced in Volume IV, will include an evaluation of the relevancy of the technical scope, level of effort (cost and size), and period of performance of the referenced contract to the services required under this solicitation. An offeror will be seen as having very relevant past performance when the contracts referenced in Volume IV are similar in the types of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract teaming in comparison to the requirements set forth in the PWS. More relevant past performance will indicate a stronger confidence assessment (see Section (c) below).

(b) Quality Assessment: This assessment will be based on the quality of an Offeror's past performance on (1) records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and (2) statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an Offeror's performance, or about the quality of an Offeror's overall performance. The Government may solicit information from an Offeror's customers and business associates; federal, state, and local government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. The performance attributes which the Government will assess include, for example: the Offeror's record of conforming to contract requirements, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror's reputation for good workmanship; the Offeror's record of forecasting and controlling costs; the Offeror's record for adhering to contract schedules; the Offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and, generally, the Offeror's reputation for demonstrating a business-like concern for the interests of its customers. The Offeror and its subcontractors and teaming partners will be evaluated as a team.

If the Offeror is a new entity and none of the company principals has relevant work experience, the Offeror will be considered as having no past performance. 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's lack of past performance will be expressed as an unknown risk, having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

(c) Confidence Assessment: The aggregate results of the survey of customers, and any other information deemed appropriate, will be analyzed to identify performance trends. The Government will determine a Confidence Assessment based upon the relevancy of the past performance information provided, along with the results of the Quality Assessment of the past performance information.

The Past Performance Evaluation for relevancy will be expressed using the following color ratings:

RATING DESCRIPTION

BLUE (Very Relevant) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

GREEN (Relevant) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

YELLOW (Somewhat Relevant) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RED (Not Relevant) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Performance Confidence Assessment will be expressed using the following color ratings:

RATING DESCRIPTION

BLUE (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.

GREEN (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.

YELLOW (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.

RED (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.

WHITE (Unknown Confidence) (Neutral))

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance received is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

FACTOR 3 - COST/PRICE REALISM

The Government will evaluate the labor categories and rates as identified in Volume III along with the rates, Other Direct Costs, and travel proposed with the Sample Task Cost Proposals. Complete listing of labor categories and rates for Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, and Time & Materials schedules are required. These listing shall be separate and concise. The Government is seeking realistic and reasonable costs for a high-quality SETA personnel. The Government will evaluate the task order cost proposals for cost realism (i.e. is the cost proposed realistic for the work proposed), along with comparing costs proposed for the varying contract types, as well as the costs for on-site versus off-site rates proposed, along with the Offerors ability to keep subcontractor and consultant costs at a minimum. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the costs outlined in Volume III, specifically looking at unburdened and fully loaded labor rates, proposed travel and material costs, proposed indirect rates, and subcontractor pass through (or handling) charges. These costs will be compared against industry standard and the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). Included in this evaluation will be a review of methods to be employed by the prime contractor to keep subcontracting costs, and costs for independent consultants (i.e. "pass through" costs), as low as is practicable. The Government will consider the extent to which the proposed cost at the detailed and summary levels are realistic against the industry standard and IGE, and the level of risk, considering other aspects of the Offeror's proposal, e.g., compensation package, fringe package, overtime rates, and use of uncompensated overtime.

SUBCONTRACT GOALS/SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: Responsibility Determination

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Proposal/Small Business Subcontracting Plan on a Go/No-Go basis, for compliance with FAR 19.704, 52.219-9, DFARS 215.304, and required subcontracting goals. To receive consideration for award the Offeror shall have small business participation and subcontracting plans rated “Go”. The subfactors listed below are of equal importance.

Document No.

D15PS00125/000002

Document Title

DARPA/MTO

Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan.

(1) Compliance with DFARS 215.304.

(2) Offerors are advised that only those subcontractors whose estimated costs correlate directly with the Offeror's Volume III cost proposal will be evaluated for this factor.

(i) The extent to which the Offeror has identified and committed to small business, HUBZone small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned small business performance under their proposal, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement or subcontractor.

(ii) The extent of participation of firms identified above in terms of the total acquisition value.

Subfactor 2: Subcontracting Plan.

The subcontracting plan will be evaluated separately by the Contracting Office and Small Business Specialist for compliance with the FAR, DFARS, and subcontracting goals. If the minimum small business goals are not met, the rationale provided by the Offeror will be thoroughly examined to determine if that Offeror's proposal merits further evaluation. To receive consideration for award the Offeror shall have a subcontracting plan rated “Go”.

For information purposes the DoD subcontracting goals are:

Small Business 36.7% Small Disadvantaged Business 5% Woman Owned Small Business 5% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% HUBZone 3%

The extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of the contract will be assessed using the following evaluation ratings:

- GO: Proposal is deemed “Go” if it meets the minimum small business goals and is in compliance with the FAR and

DFARS.

- NO-GO: Proposal is deemed “No-Go” if it does not meet the minimum small business goals or is not in compliance with the FAR or DFARS.