FA002116R0040_Amendment_01.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

The purpose of this solicitation amendment is to:

1. Incorporate changes as a result of Question and Answers as of 5 October 2016.

2. Incorporate revised PWS dated 4 October 2016.

Proposal due date is not extended.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Oct-2016

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 FA0021-16-R-0040

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Sep-2016

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

06-Oct-2016

CODE

765TH SPECIALIZED CONTRACTING FLIGHT

ATTN: MARIA-JAINE SIPIN 427 CODY AVE, BLDG 9

HURLBURT FIELD FL 32544

FA0021 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA0021-16-R-0040

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. All technical subfactors are weighted equally and are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Each technical subfactors will receive an acceptable or unacceptable, using the rating and descriptions outlined in this section of the solicitation. The Government will award offerors who present technically acceptable offers, conforming to the solicitation, with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The solicitation requirement include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no credit will be given for exceeding the Acceptable rating.

1.3. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any subfactor will be deemed unawardable. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of proposals received. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5. Unrealistic Offer. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low prices when compared to Government estimates or information gleaned from the proposal itself, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Any aspect of the proposal judged to be unacceptable may render the entire proposal unacceptable.

1.6. Evaluation Methodology

1.6.1. Proposals will be evaluated using a three-step methodology as follows:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1.6.1.1. STEP 1: Factor 1 – Price Proposal. The Government will perform an assessment of the initial proposals overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the offers to screen for accuracy and completeness. The Government may make corrections to obvious mathematical errors, rounding errors or other minor adjustments for the purpose of initial screening. Factor 1, Price Proposal will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and fair and reasonableness.

See below for detailed evaluation process for this factor. Government will conduct a price analysis and/or a cost realism on all responsive proposals received for this requirement. After price evaluation, offers will be ranked from lowest TEP to highest TEP. The lowest TEP will be selected for further evaluation.

1.6.1.2. STEP 2: Factor 2 – Technical. The Government will evaluate the proposal selected in Step 1 above for technical acceptability, assigning ratings described below. If the technical proposal received an “Acceptable” rating, then the lowest proposal will be selected for further evaluation. If the lowest proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating on any of the technical subfactors, that offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award and the next lowest price offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

1.6.1.3. STEP 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the proposal selected in Step 2 for past performance acceptability, assigning ratings as described below. If the offeror receives an “Acceptable” rating, then the evaluation ends and Government may move forward with award. If the offeror receives an “Unacceptable” rating on past performance, then will go back to Step 1 and Step 2 to find the next lowest offer with a technically “Acceptable” proposal.

1.6.2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Evaluation. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1 – Price Proposal Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Management & Staffing Plan Subfactor 2 – Retention Plan Subfactor 3 – Understanding the Requirement & Résumés

Factor 3 – Past Performance

1.6.2.1. Volume I – Factor 1, Price Proposal

1.6.2.1.1. Price Evaluation. The Government will use a TEP worksheet (Attachment 3) to formulate Total Evaluated Price for all offerors for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). TEP, fully burdened rates for each labor category and premium rates will be evaluated for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. If no unbalanced pricing identified on fully burdened labor rates proposed for each labor category, the Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated further based on the TEP, calculated as stated below. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

1.6.2.1.2. Price Reasonableness. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determined price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each offeror’s TEP and will be used to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price reasonableness may also be determined based on the comparison of tech offeror’s TEP to the average TEP and against the Independent Government Estimate.

1.6.2.1.3. Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost/price and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An example of unbalanced offeror would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates or other labor categories. The Government may also consider and offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offeror’s proposals that are determined unbalanced may be rejected. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalance with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.6.2.1.4. Total Evaluated Price. The Government will utilize the TEP Worksheet, Attachment 3 to calculated TEP of all offerors. TEP is calculated by adding price proposed for the Base Year, Option Year 1, Option Year 2, and half of Option Year 2 (for FAR 52.217-8 evaluation).

For evaluation purposes, the Government will rank offers based on Total Evaluated Price calculated as follows:

Description Amount

B A

SE

(a) CLIN 0001 FFP Labor

(b) CLIN 0002 FFP Travel

(c) TOTAL BASE YEAR (a) + (b)

O

PT

Y

R

(d) CLIN 1001 FFP Labor

(e) CLIN 1002 FFP Travel

(f) TOTAL OPTION YEAR 1 (d) + (e)

O

PT

Y

(g) CLIN 2001 FFP Labor

(h) CLIN 2002 FFP Travel

(i) TOTAL OPTION YEAR 2 (g) + (h)

FA

.2

-8

(j) CLIN 3001 FFP Labor [50% of (g)]

(k) CLIN 3002 FFP Travel [50% of (h)]

(l) TOTAL FAR 52.217-8 OPTION (j) + (k)

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE sum [(c), (f), (i), (l)]

TEP is automatically calculated using Attachment 3, Pricing Workbook.

The Government may determine an offer unacceptable if the proposed prices are materially unbalanced which is defined as significantly understated or overstated in relation to the actual cost of the item or when price is determined to be not fair or reasonable.

1.6.2.1.5. Compensation Plan is compliant with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, and other applicable labor laws.

1.6.2.2. Volume II – Factor 2, Technical

The offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the rating for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as an “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of clarifications or discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.6.2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Management & Staffing Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the contractor’s ability to provide a sound and realistic Management & Staffing Plan to provide Air Traffic Control Training for AFSOC units assigned with STATC mission.

Measure of Merit: The offeror must provide a Management & Staffing Plan that demonstrate its capability in meeting the requirement and its staffing approach. This subfactor is met when:

1.6.2.2.1.1. Offeror’s proposal includes offeror’s management capability brief to include its corporate experience and proposed management techniques, tools and practices the offeror will use to ensure quality and timeliness performance of all required services throughout the life of the contract.

1.6.2.2.1.2. Offeror’s approach for recruiting, retentions, qualification validation and currency, and training shall be compliant with applicable labor laws.

1.6.2.2.1.3. Offeror’s staffing plan clearly describe how its approach will ensure personnel qualifications and licensure/certifications/credentials are maintained without any additional cost or intervention from the Government.

This shall include currency of and renewal before expiration during the term of the contract performance to avoid potential impacts to schedule or performance.

1.6.2.2.1.4. Offeror’s management approach clearly described the offeror’s process to be used to ensure qualified personnel are available upon the negotiated start date of this requirement to avoid potential impacts to the schedule or performance.

1.6.2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Retention Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the contractor’s ability to develop a reasonable and realistic Retention Plan to meet the requirement of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The Offeror must provide a Retention Plan that demonstrate it proposed Retention Plan is effective in retaining qualified personnel and mitigates turnover. This subfactor is met when the offeror:

1.6.2.2.2.1. Clearly described its approach to retain personnel with minimal turnover.

1.6.2.2.2.2. Include historical information that confirms the effectiveness of the proposed retention strategy.

1.6.2.2.2.3. Include a description of onboarding procedures, employee compensation plan, employee recognition, training and development, employee communication and change management.

1.6.2.2.2.4. Reserved.

1.6.2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Understanding the Requirement & Résumés Description: This subfactor evaluates the contractor’s understanding of the requirement for the Air Traffic Control Training and contractor’s ability to find qualified personnel that meets the qualifications specified in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The offeror must submit with its proposal a narrative of its approach to ensure compliance with the PWS of this requirement. This subfactor is met when:

1.6.2.2.3.1. Offeror submits a proposal with a narrative that clearly shows a sound understanding of the requirement.

1.6.2.2.3.2. Offeror submits two sample résumés of qualified personnel that meets the qualifications specified in the

PWS.

1.6.2.2.3.3. Sample résumés are accompanied with Letter of Intent signed by the proposed candidate.

1.6.2.3. Volume III – Past Performance

1.6.2.3.1. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on each offeror based on (1) information provided by the offeror, (2) PPQs, and (3) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

1.6.2.3.2. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be available to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

1.6.2.3.3. Evaluation Process. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to make an assessment of the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror’s past performance records. Past performance evaluation is accomplished through the assignment of confidence assessment rating based on offeror’s recent and relevant performance history focusing in and targeting those that are relevant to this solicitation. Not that these assessment ratings are subjective based on the past performance information collected.

1.6.2.3.4. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the PPI 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 solicitation issue date for this effort. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

1.6.2.3.5. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of the PWS. For each recent past performance information reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical subfactors and Price Factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. The PPIFs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent and relevant contracts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

1.6.2.3.6. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment Description SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting

(or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE (N) Quality and/or performance information not available.

1.6.2.3.7. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 3).

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. FAR 52.212-1, paragraph (c), is changed to read:

(c) Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2. General Information

2.1. Pre-Proposal Conference. There will be no pre-proposal conference for this requirement. However, offerors are encouraged to submit questions regarding this solicitation.

2.2. Submission of Questions. Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to Maria-Jaine A.

Sipin and Lauren Sydnor via email at maria_jaine.sipin@us.af.mil and lauren_sydnor@us.af.mil. Facsimiles and phone calls will not be accepted. All questions must be received no later than close of business 2 October 2016.

2.3. Proposal Delivery. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals to reach the Government office identified here by the date and time specified on page 1 of this solicitation. Hand carried proposals must be turned in to 765th Special Contracting Flight located at 427 Cody Avenue, Bldg. 90333, Suite 215, Hurlburt Field, FL 32544. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the solicitation number, the name and address of the offeror.

NOTE: Alternatively, proposals may also be mailed to the address below:

765th Specialized Contracting Flight mailto:maria_jaine.sipin@us.af.mil mailto:lauren_sydnor@us.af.mil

Air Force Installation Contracting Agency ATTN: Maria Jaine A. Sipin

427 Cody Avenue, Bldg. 90333, Suite 215 Hurlburt Field, FL 32544

Emailed or faxed proposals will not be accepted.

Offerors are cautioned that Hurlburt Field, FL has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HANDCARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at 765SCONF office prior to the time proposals are due. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.”

3. Proposal Preparation Instructions

3.1. To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The proposals shall consist of three (3) separate parts:

• Volume I – Price Proposal

• Volume II – Technical Proposal, and

• Volume III – Past Performance Information

3.2. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit other than certified cost and pricing data as specified in FAR 15.403-3 to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the fair and reasonableness of the price.

3.3. Proposal Organization / Preparation

3.3.1. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 1 – Proposal Organization below.

TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

Volume Title Copies (Electronic Only) Page Limit

I Price Proposal 2 Unlimited II Technical Proposal 3* 35 III Past Performance Information 3 25

* Electronic copies one original and two redacted copy.

Each volume original and copy shall be in contained in a separate virus-free CD-ROM. For instance, Volume I, Price Proposal original shall be in a separate virus-free CD-ROM. Volume I, Price Proposal copy shall be in another virus-free CD-ROM. Based on the above table, the Government expects to receive a total of eight virus-free CD- ROM disks for this requirement.

3.3.2. Cross-Referencing – To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with minimal cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where it would conserve space without impairing clarity.

3.3.3. Glossary – Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries will not be counted against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3.3.4. Illustrations and Tables – For Government printing purposes, electronic proposals shall be formatted for printing as follows: Proposals shall be prepared on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper except for foldouts used for charts, illustrations, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11 x 17 inches. For page count purposes, foldout pages will count as two (2) 8 ½ x 11-inch pages and shall only be used for graphics and exhibits, not text. All information (except for document numbers, page numbers, etc.) shall be provided within an image area of 9 x 15 inches. For page count purposes, each printed side of foldout page shall count as two(s) pages. Text used for call-outs on graphics and exhibits shall be no smaller than Times New Roman or Arial, 8-point in height after final reduction.

Call-outs may be single-spaced.

3.3.5. Indexing – Each volume shall contain a detailed Table of Contents to identify the section and paragraph subjects within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to separate and identify both Volumes and Sections.

3.3.6. Page Limitations – Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Page limitations excludes table of contents and dividers. However, dividers containing information other than section title will be included in the page limitations. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be shredded or destroyed as soon as practicable.

Excluded from Page Limitation: Dividers, Cover Pages, Title Pages, Indexes, Table of Contents, Glossaries, Consent Letters, Present and Past Performance Recipient List, Résumés (2-page limit per résumé), and Organizational Charts.

3.3.7. Page – A page is defined as each face of an 8 ½ x 11-inch sheet of paper containing information. Page margins shall be a minimum of 1-inch each for the top, bottom and sides. All material shall be contained within the page limitations in Table 1 above. The page limitations shall be treated as maximum limits to assist in the evaluation of each proposal. Total page count will be based on the printed proposal submission. Number the pages sequentially by volume. The background color of each page of the proposal submission shall be white or ivory paper only. If Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) are required, the same page limitations apply.

3.3.8. Font – Font shall be Times New Roman, no smaller than 12-point with normal spacing. Text lines will be no less than single-spaced. EXCEPTION: For Attachment 3 and Attachment 5.

3.3.9. Electronic Copies – The entire proposal shall be submitted on a virus-free CD-ROM in electronic file formats compatible with Microsoft 2003 or higher applications. Each CD-ROM shall be clearly identified with the Contractor’s Name, Solicitation No, Volume(s) number, Volume Title, and Date. Use separate folders or files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Do not password protect or compress files. Replacement CD-ROMs will be required if the proposal is revised or if a final proposal revision is requested. Apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, paragraph (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

3.3.10. Redacted Copy – Redacted copy shall not include any company name and logo. Replace your company’s name with “Company” and subcontractor’s company name with “Subcontractor”. If using multiple subcontractor, you may differentiate each subcontractor with a letter identifier. For example, “Subcontractor A”, “Subcontractor B”, etc. Redacted copy shall not include any employee names. Replace employee names with their role or title. For instance, Program Manager John Doe, shall be replaced with “Program Manager” only. Redacted copy shall be free of any company specific formatting and shall be in Black and White color scheme only.

3.4. Specific Proposal Volume Instructions.

The contractor submitting a proposal for this requirement shall address all factors:

• Factor 1: Price Proposal

• Factor 2: Technical Proposal o Subfactor 1 – Management & Staffing Plan o Subfactor 2 – Retention Plan o Subfactor 3 – Understanding the Requirement & Résumés

• Factor 3: Past Performance Information

3.4.1. Volume I – Factor 1: Price Proposal. Submit copies IAW Table 1 – Proposal Organization.

3.4.1.1. Complete the “Signature of Offeror/Contractor” part of the Standard Form 1449 in Blocks 30a, 30b, 30c, 12, and 17a. An authorized official of the firm must sign the Standard Form 1449. Provide a complete pricing for all items listed in CLIN 0001 through 2002 for the basic period and all option periods except for CLINs 0002, 1002, and 2002, which will be Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts supplied by the Government on the resultant contract. The offeror shall submit its proposed pricing for the items listed on Attachment 3, Price Proposal workbook, or similar workbook with the same information requested in Attachment 3. Failure to provide the minimum information requested for pricing may deem the proposal nonresponsive and ineligible for award.

3.4.1.2. The contracting officer has determined that there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. The cost documentation is considered other than cost or pricing data and shall not be certified in accordance with FAR Part 15.406-2. Should adequate price competition not exist after receipt of proposal, the provisions of FAR Part 15.403-4 shall apply, and the offeror will be asked to provide certification of cost or pricing data. Any updates, amendments, or modifications to the Schedule B originally submitted shall include or accompanied by a clear and concise explanation of such changes significant to the negotiation process to the proposal.

3.4.1.3. Price Proposal Workbook (Attachment 3).

The offeror shall complete the Price Proposal Workbook (Attachment 3). Offerors are reminded that they shall be required to provide all necessary labor to perform the tasks of this requirement. Offerors shall not follow the instruction provided in the Price Worksheet.

3.4.1.4. Price Proposal Support. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror. Provide an explanation/narrative of the method used for the price buildup such that the evaluator can readily identify how each computation was made including option year pricing.

3.4.1.5. Compensation Plan. Offerors shall include with its price proposal a total compensation plan setting forth the salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

Compensation plan shall be compliant with FAR 52.222-46.

3.4.1.6. Financial Responsibility Questionnaire. The offeror shall have its financial institution complete and submit the Financial Responsibility Questionnaire, Attachment 4. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the government receives a completed Financial Responsibility Questionnaire on or before the proposal due date.

3.4.1.7. Cost/Pricing Information. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in Volume I, Price Proposal ONLY. Under no circumstances shall any pricing information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

3.4.2. Volume II – Factor 2: Technical. Submit copies IAW Table 1 – Proposal Organization The technical proposal will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis IAW 52.212-2 Addendum.

As part of the technical proposal the offeror must submit (a) Management & Staffing Plan, (b) Retention Plan, and

(c) Understanding the Requirement & Résumés.

3.4.2.1. Subfactor 1: Management & Staffing Plan

Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative of the offeror’s management capability to include corporate experience and management techniques, tools and practices the offeror will use to ensure quality and timeliness performance of all required services throughout the life of the contract.

Offeror’s proposal shall include the offeror’s approach for recruiting, retention, qualification validation and currency, and training. Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall describe how the offeror’s proposed approach will ensure personnel qualifications and licensure/certifications/credentials are maintained without any additional cost or intervention from the Government. This shall include currency or and renewal before expiration during the term of the contract performance to avoid potential impacts to schedule or performance.

The offeror’s Management Approach shall describe the it’s process to be used to ensure qualified personnel are available upon the negotiated start date of this requirement to avoid potential impacts to the schedule or performance.

3.4.2.2. Subfactor 2: Retention Plan

Submission Requirements: Describe the management approach to/plan proposed to retain personnel with minimal turnover. Include historical information that confirms the effectiveness of the proposed retention strategy. At a minimum, include a description of onboarding procedures, employee compensation plan, employee recognition, training and development, employee communication and change management.

3.4.2.3. Subfactor 3: Understanding the Requirement & Résumés Submission Requirements: Proposal shall include narrative on the offerors approach to ensure compliance with the PWS of this requirement and include a minimum of two sample résumés to show the contractor’s ability to obtain qualified personnel. Résumés submitted shall include Letter of Intent signed by the proposed Contractor Manpower Equivalent (CME). Résumés shall not exceed two pages and Letters of Intent shall not exceed one page.

3.4.3. Volume III – Factor 3: Past Performance Information – Submit copies IAW Table 1 – Proposal Organization

3.4.3.1. Joint Venture/Subcontractor/Teaming Partner

3.4.3.1.1. Joint Venture Partners shall specifically identify the managing partner and other partners.

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner shall identify Prime Contractor.

3.4.3.1.2. CPARS or other performance reports may be provided as attachments to the PPIs at the discretion of the offeror; however, they will be counted toward the total page count.

3.4.3.1.3. Consent Letters (Attachment 8). Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government’s Performance Evaluation Team in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, have the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal complete the Consent Letter and submit them as part of your Performance Volume.

3.4.3.2. Past Performance Information (PPI)

3.4.3.2.1. The offeror shall present factual material dealing with contracts held with Government agencies or with private sector businesses on which the same or similar services are provided. Recent is defined as work completed or ongoing during the three (3) years prior to the Government issuance of this solicitation. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy or quality, and will perform an independent assessment of relevancy and quality of the data provided or obtained. If the offeror has no recent or relevant past performance information, this should be documented in Volume III. The Government reserves the right to determine whether any relevant present or past performance information exists and its relevancy, notwithstanding the alleged absence thereof by any offeror.

3.4.3.2.2. Offeror shall submit no more than five (5) PPIs (at a minimum two (2) from the Prime Contractor). At least one (1) PPI for each subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 20% or more of the requirement. Each of the five (5) PPIs shall be on a separate Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) (Attachment 5). Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and date obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

3.4.3.2.3. Use one PPIF per PPI submission for contracts and all applicable order numbers (i.e. Task Orders, Blanket Ordering Agreement Order, Blanket Purchase Agreement Order, etc.) that corresponds to the information or effort identified in the “Description of Effort” and/or “Period of Performance” blocks on the PPIF. Each PPIF submitted shall count only as one (1) PPI, even though multiple orders are combined on one (1) PPIF.

3.4.3.3. Present and Past Performance Recipient List (Attachment 6) Complete all information required on the Past Performance Recipient List at Attachment 6. The performance evaluation team may make reasonable efforts to obtain completed Past Performance Questionnaires from the evaluators that were identified by the offeror. However, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure all PPQs are received by the designated POC for this solicitation on or before the proposal due date.

3.4.3.4. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) with cover letter (Attachment 7) The Government requests the offeror send out PPQs (Attachment 7), with attached Transmittal Letter from the CO to the POCs identified in the citation familiar with each performance reference. Completed PPQs shall be submitted directly to the POC(s) at the address provided on the form on or before the proposal due date. ***Responses submitted through the offeror will not be accepted. Once the PPQs are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. The offeror may include their own cover letter requesting completion of the questionnaire in addition to the transmittal letter provided. To expedite receipt of completed questionnaires, it is highly desired that offeror’s POC return the PPQ on or before the proposal due date. PPQs may be mailed or emailed to the POC identified on the form.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment No. Title or Description Pages Date

1 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 19 4 Oct 2016

1A Letter of Identification (LOI) 2 6 Sep 2016

1B Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) A001 to A002, DD1423-2 2 7 Sep 2016

1C CDRL A003 to A004, DD1423-2 2 7 Sep 2016

2 Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification, DD 254 3 TBA

3 Pricing Workbook 5 7 Sep 2016

4 Financial Responsibility Questionnaire 2 7 Sep 2016

5 Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) 2 7 Sep 2016

6 Present and Past Performance Recipient List 4 7 Sep 2016

7 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 6 7 Sep 2016

8 Consent Letter 1 7 Sep 2016

The following have been deleted:

52.207-3 Right of First Refusal of Employment MAY 2006

(End of Summary of Changes)