FA4890-16-R-0032_Amendment_0005.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 amendment is to incorporate revisions to Section M and RPA PWS.

A. Section M has been revised to include paragraph M-2.5.1.1 Small Business Participation Rating.

B. RPA PWS Section C Paragraph 8.0 Table 3 Government-Provided Training has been revised to include additional Government provided training.

C. RFP Section J has been updated to reflect the most current PWS date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Apr-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 FA4890-16-R-0032

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Mar-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 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-Apr-2017

CODE

ACC AMIC/PKC

129 ANDREWS AVE, STE 110

LANGLEY AFB VA 23665-2788

FA4890 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4890-16-R-0032

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 RPA Performance Work

Statement

59 30-MAR-2017

Attachment 02 RPA DD254 - DRAFT 9 01-FEB-2017

Attachment 03 Manpower, Labor Rates, & Pricing Tables (Excel)

46 20-MAR-2017

Attachment 04 List of SCLS Wage

Determinations

1 03-APR-2017

Attachment 05 List of Collective

Bargaining Agreements

1 03-APR-2017

Attachment 06 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan -

PLACEHOLDER

1 01-MAR-2017

Attachment 07 Proposal Adequacy

Checklist

8 29-JAN-2014

Attachment 08 List of Task Order Unique

Requirements

1 14-MAR-2017

Attachment 09 RPA Test, Measurement, and Diagonistic

Equipment (TMDE) List

242 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 10 RPA Tool Accountability

System (TAS) List

877 13-JUL-2016

Attachment 11 RPA Vehicles List 14 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 12 RPA Toolbox List 282 15-DEC-2016

Attachment 13 NAS Sigonella TAS

Inventory

26 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 14 Andersen AFB Tool

Inventory

371 13-DEC-2016

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 RPA Perfomance Work

Statement

59 06-APR-2017

Attachment 02 RPA DD254 - DRAFT 9 01-FEB-2017

Attachment 03 Manpower, Labor Rates, & Pricing Tables (Excel)

46 20-MAR-2017

Attachment 04 List of SCLS Wage

Determinations

1 03-APR-2017

Attachment 05 List of Collective

Bargaining Agreements

1 03-APR-2017

Attachment 06 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan -

PLACEHOLDER

1 01-MAR-2017

Attachment 07 Proposal Adequacy

Checklist

8 29-JAN-2014

Attachment 08 List of Task Order Unique

Requirements

1 14-MAR-2017

Attachment 09 RPA Test, Measurement, and Diagonistic

Equipment (TMDE) List

242 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 10 RPA Tool Accountability

System (TAS) List

877 13-JUL-2016

Attachment 11 RPA Vehicles List 14 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 12 RPA Toolbox List 282 15-DEC-2016

Attachment 13 NAS Sigonella TAS

Inventory

26 16-DEC-2016

Attachment 14 Andersen AFB Tool

Inventory

371 13-DEC-2016

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

M. Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures and Air

Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the

Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, through an integrated assessment of the specific evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

M-1.2. The Government contemplates award of a single award IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation and intends to select only one contractor for this acquisition and all associated task orders. After award of the IDIQ contract, task orders will be issued based on fully loaded labor rates incorporated into the contract. However, the

Government reserves the right not to award a contract or any task orders, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-2.

M-1.3. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.

M-1.4. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the

Government determines it is necessary. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. If required, the competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c) (2). Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M-1.5. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6. Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions.

Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using four evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability,

(2) Past Performance, (3) Price, and (4) Small Business Participation. Technical Capability is most important with

Past Performance and Price of less but equal importance. Small Business is less important than Past Performance and Price. The greater the equality of technical proposals the more important Past Performance and Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

M-2.2. Factor 1: Technical Capability (Technical & Risk). Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. There are three (3) subfactors under the

Technical Capability evaluation factor. They are Program Management, Operations and Maintenance, and

Transition. The Program Management and Operations and Maintenance subfactors are equal in importance and are the most important subfactors. Transition is the least important subfactor.

M-2.2.1. Technical Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against evaluation criteria at the subfactor level. Technical subfactor ratings are determined based on the Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each subfactor shall be assigned a color rating, shown below, as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to an overall color rating for Technical factor. Each subfactor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies. These findings will determine the overall rating for each subfactor.

Technical Capability Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-2.2.2. Technical Risk Rating. The technical risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s approach. Risk is assessed at the subfactor level, and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance based on the offeror’s identified approach and/or processes. In conducting the risk assessment, the Government will also consider information provided by the offeror in its proposal as to how the contractor will manage and mitigate risk. Proposal risk will be evaluated using the following ratings as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-2.2.3. Technical Subfactors

M-2.2.3.1. Subfactor A: Program Management.

M-2.2.3.1.1. Aspect I: Management and Integration. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. An effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure based upon PWS Appendix N requirements that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels by position, skill levels by position, utilization of personnel to include details regarding any specific plans for cross-utilization, assigned roles and responsibilities, and lines of authority to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements. Demonstrates and justifies appropriate manning levels to meet task order unique requirements by position and skill levels.

ii. Demonstrates a comprehensive communication approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

M-2.2.3.1.2. Aspect II: Human Resources. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates an effective integrated approach to hire, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel by job category/position to execute all PWS requirements. Training approach shall consist of all required initial, qualification, proficiency, certification, and recurring training actions taken to provide and maintain a qualified workforce with no interruption in service.

ii. Demonstrates a comprehensive plan for creating and maintaining a work environment with incentives for employee performance and innovation.

M-2.2.3.1.3. Aspect III: Quality Management System (QMS). The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the

i. Documented ISO9001 or AS9100/9110 registration/certification by the prime contractor.

ii. Demonstrates an effective approach to implement AS9100/9110 compliance by contract start, and sustain QMS processes and concepts from corporate management throughout the RPA

Operations and Maintenance team and workforce to accomplish contract requirements

M-2.2.3.2. Subfactor B: Operations & Maintenance

M-2.2.3.2.1. Aspect I: Deployed Operations Management. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the

i. Demonstrates effective workforce resource management supporting deployed and main operating base (MOB) OCONUS locations:

a. Demonstrates specific approach and innovations to decrease response time from initial requirement tasking through requirement execution for new operational requirements.

b. Demonstrates an effective approach to comply with foreign government requirements for contractor personnel to include, but not limited to, country entry and exit requirements, work visas, work permits and/or residency permits.

c. Demonstrates an effective management approach for maintaining the capability to support the combat line requirement IAW PWS paragraph 2.22.7

M-2.2.3.2.2. Aspect II: Aircraft/GCS Availability Management. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates effective integrated processes and procedures to manage and maintain the weapons system and associated equipment and meet operating site aircraft/GCS availability service summary metrics as prescribed in the PWS. Demonstrates specific methods and any innovations to increase aircraft/GCS availability rates, decrease total abort rates, decrease repeat/recur rates, increase the 12-hour fix rate, and meet other applicable service summary metrics.

ii. Demonstrates an effective approach to coordinate with necessary internal and external agencies, if required, for performance of approved modifications and identification and resolution of nonstandard aircraft/GCS discrepancies in minimal time.

M-2.2.3.3. Subfactor C: Transition

M-2.2.3.3.1. Aspect I: Transition Plan. The offeror’s proposed transition plan must demonstrate effective establishment of required management processes resulting in continuity of mission support, contract performance, and transition of resources and personnel into the contract. The proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates realistic milestones to execute transition tasks in the mandated 120-day timeframe across all MQ-1, MQ-9 and Aircrew LRE active task orders, and in the mandated

100-day timeframe for all active RQ-4 task orders. Proposed approach adequately incorporates program management functions and accounts for government furnished equipment and materials.

ii. Demonstrates an effective organizational structure that includes appropriate number of personnel and functional assignments to effectively accomplish transition tasks.

iii. Demonstrates an effective approach to hire qualified personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities upon commencement of contract performance period.

iv. Demonstrates an effective process to acquire and integrate open actions (maintenance actions, requisitions etc.) upon commencement of contract performance period to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

v. Demonstrates an effective approach for interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

M-2.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

M-2.3.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance record to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract performance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

M-2.3.2. Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (PPI/Other Source). Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

M-2.3.3. Relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference in accordance with the following criteria:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational-level DoD MQ-1, MQ-9, or RQ-4 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) maintenance contract at CONUS, and either

OCONUS or forward-deployed locations IAW AS9100/9110 or ISO 9001 quality management systems. LRE past performance effort: Managed MQ-1 or MQ-9 RPA contract operations providing aircrew to support DoD operations at CONUS and forward-deployed locations.

Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational-level U.S. Federal RPA or

U.S. military aircraft maintenance contract at CONUS and OCONUS locations IAW

AS9100/9110 or ISO9001 quality management systems. LRE past performance effort:

Managed RPA contract operations providing aircrew to support U.S. Federal operations.

Somewhat Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational, intermediate, or depot level aircraft maintenance contract at CONUS or OCONUS locations utilizing a quality management system. LRE past performance effort: Managed contract operations providing aircrew to support Federal operations.

Not Relevant Past or present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-2.3.4. For each recent and relevant PPI/Other Source evaluated, the Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine the quality of recent/relevant PPI. The

Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance. The Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals, and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, the following: 1) Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS); 3) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases; 4) Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) channels; and 5) Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

M-2.3.5. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Past Performance Team will consider offerors’ past performance as an entire team (where primes propose with subcontractors or in partnerships) or on an individual basis for Contractors proposing on their own. Each offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and subcontractors, joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. An offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. More recent performance that demonstrates a trend and/or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M-2.3.6. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-2.3.7. Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral

Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor as depicted in M-2.3.5.

M-2.3.8. Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

M-2.4. Factor 3: Price. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the

Government receives a fair, reasonable, balanced and realistic price.

M-2.4.1. An offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award. The total evaluated price consists of the sum total proposed price for all task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options, 50% of the last option period (for the individual task orders) for the six month extension of services option IAW FAR 52.217-8.

M-2.4.2. Part A – IDIQ Price Matrix

M-2.4.2.1. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables, comparison of all priced task order for all period of performance and comparison of the total proposed surge pricing at deployed locations.

Proposed fully loaded labor rates and prepriced surge pricing FFP rates will be used to price task order requirements at contract award and serve as the ceiling rate for additional task orders and task order modifications throughout the life of this contract. The pricing table for CONUS locations will serve as the baseline for negotiations for adding sites that were not included in the price matrix at contract award.

M-2.4.2.2. The preferred and intended price analysis technique will be the evaluation of offeror’s pre-priced fully loaded labor rates (as proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and

Pricing Tables for all contract performance periods), comparison of proposed prices for all task orders for all periods of performance, and comparison of the total proposed pricing for surge requirements for deployed locations in response to the solicitation. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.4.3. Part B – Task Order Pricing

M-2.4.3.1. A cost/price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total evaluated prices. The total evaluated price consists of the sum total proposed price of task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options and offeror provided estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs as well as the sum total of the proposed pricing for the surge deployment requirements. Task order pricing shall be consistent with the offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix provided in Attachment 3 –

Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables, to include all priced options. Adjustments to the manpower requirements identified in the manning matrix provided in Volume I are permitted, but shall be justified based on the proposed technical solution for the unique task order requirements and must be clearly identified in the proposed price. Evaluation of options at the task order level shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Performance award fee/incentive will be excluded from the overall evaluated price as the Government determines the available pool amount.

M-2.4.3.2. Evaluation of Firm Fixed Price portions of the requirement will include comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation, which is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.4.3.3. Evaluation of the Cost Reimbursable portions of the requirement will include a comparison of proposed costs in response to the solicitation and a review of the offeror’s basis for cost estimating, as well as the application of any proposed indirect cost rates. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.4.3.4. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer with unbalanced pricing; see FAR 15.404-1(g). An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates for other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed costs/prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation.

If any of the proposals are deemed unreasonable, incomplete, unbalanced or unrealistic, that Offeror will no longer be considered for award.

M-2.4.3.5. Price Realism. Price realism will be assessed by evaluating proposed prices/costs to ensure they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an apparently low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the Offeror.

M-2.4.4. Part C – Proposal Documentation

M-2.4.4.1. General Responsibility Determination – The contractor must be in compliance with the requirements of

FAR 9.104-1.

M-2.4.4.2. Supplemental Responsibility Determination - DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD

Form 254). DD Form 254 requirements will be assessed for contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9. The

Government will use the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) to verify offeror and subcontractor(s) clearance information. The Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the decision brief awaiting an offeror or subcontractor to comply with DD Form 254 classification requirement(s). Contractor responsibility includes:

1. Offeror and subcontractor(s) having the highest classification specification required on the DD Form

254 attached to this solicitation; and

2. If applicable, the offeror submitting a request for authorization to subcontract COMSEC work for each subcontractor.

3. Resolution of all FOCI issues, if any (see Section L-11.4.2).

M-2.5. Factor 4: Small Business Participation.

M-2.5.1. Large Business Prime Contractors Only. The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Small

Business participation on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. To be determined acceptable, offerors proposal shall demonstrate a progressive small business subcontract approach that complies with the requirements of FAR Part 19 and its supplements, while maximizing subcontracting opportunities. Offerors proposal shall demonstrate sound and effective methods to determine and meet goals, the extent to which offerors specifically identify small business firms in the proposals and commitment to using the small business in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement or subcontractor and the past performance of the offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

M-2.5.1.1. Small Business Participation Rating. Each proposal assessed under paragraph M-2.5.1 will be assigned a color rating as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown below.

Small Business Participation Ratings

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M-2.5.2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan Checklist (Section L, Attachment 5) will be used to evaluate completeness of the plan and compliance with FAR 52.219-9. The minimum small business subcontracting goal for this requirement is 25% of total contract dollars at the IDIQ contract level.

While offerors are invited to propose a higher overall small business subcontracting goal, proposals that exceed the

25% subcontracting goal will not receive higher ratings. In addition, the offeror shall comply with FAR 52.219-9 by also expressing goals in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors.

(End of Summary of Changes)