FA6800-18-R-0004-0001_HRMPF_Amendment_1.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:

a. post answ ers to questions (attached),

b. revise Section L,

c. revise Section M,

d. include a PPQ in Word format (attached),

e. revise the PWS (attached, and

f. add Atch 9 Sub-contractor Consent.

The response date and time remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Jul-2018

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 FA680018R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Jul-2018

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

31-Jul-2018

CODE

AFGSC/A7K - FA6800

841 FAIRCHILD AVE

BLDG 5541, RM 327

BARKSDALE AFB LA 71110-2084

FA6800 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA680018R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 ATCH 1 PWS 39 20-APR-2018 Attachment 2 ATCH 2 PPQ 5 Attachment 3 ATCH 3 WD Barksdale 11 16-JAN-2018 Attachment 4 ATCH 4 WD Dyess 11 16-JAN-2018 Attachment 5 ATCH 5 WD Ellsworth 11 16-JAN-2018 Attachment 6 ATCH 6 WD Minot 11 16-JAN-2018 Attachment 7 ATCH 7 WD Whiteman 11 16-JAN-2018 Attachment 8 ATCH 8 CME Resume

Certification to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 ATCH 1 PWS 39 20-APR-2018 Attachment 2 PPQ (Word) 26-JUL-2018 Attachment 3 Questions and Answers 26-JUL-2018

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1. Evaluation Basis For Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a competitive source selection using Price – Past Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Source Selection. One award will be made as a result of this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements with an “Acceptable” rating in all technical subfactors. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror. The PPT source selection process only permits tradeoffs between price and past performance factors.

1.2. IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, and FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and reserves the right to open discussions, or to award a contract without discussions, with offerors (except clarifications as describes in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determined them to be necessary.

1.3. The Government reserves the right to incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation and as revised and supplemented through the date of Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the terms and conditions of this contract take precedence over any ambiguity in the contractor’s proposal. In those areas where the contractor’s proposal exceeds the stated PWS requirements, the contractor’s proposal is binding and prevails. The contractor is expected and required to adhere to their proposed approach in meeting the contract requirements.

1.4. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M.2. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

2.1. The Government reserves the right to open discussions, or to award without discussions, based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions may be held and result in FPRs. The intent of FPRs is for price changes only; however, technical changes will be evaluated. The Government cautions offerors not to change material aspects of their technical proposals as this could render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (i.e. 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 or negotiations. 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. The Government intends to award after receipt of FPRs without obtaining any further revisions or conducting any further discussions.

M.3. Evaluation Methodology

3.1. The award decision will be made on the basis of Price – Past Performance Tradeoff methodology. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

3.2. Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) Factors: (A) Mission Capability (Technical), (B) Price, and (C) Past Performance. Technical acceptability and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal when compared to price.

3.3. Proposals will be evaluated by Mission Capability (Technical), Price, and Past Performance. Technical will be evaluated for acceptability at the Subfactor level, price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable, and past performance will be determined using a Confidence Assessment. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, open discussions, or to establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). If discussions are utilized, Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be issued to those offerors in the competitive range allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Once the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines that all ENs have been satisfactorily answered, discussions will be closed. Once discussions have concluded, if an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable. Proposals shall meet the PWS requirements and the evaluation criteria requirements in order to be considered for award.

M.4. Factor A – Mission Capability (Technical)

4.1. Initially, the Government Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis assigning one of the ratings described below at the Subfactor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offeror’s proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” at the subfactor level. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of each Subfactor, any deficiencies will be noted. Proposals that receive a deficiency in a Subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” Subfactor rating.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Method

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.3. Mission Capability (Technical)

Manpower Plan. Reference PWS Section 1. Submit a plan outlining the proposed labor mix, including position descriptions and skill level for each employee to accomplish services IAW the PWS. Provide the management approach that will be used to ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the government to effectively execute the PWS requirements. Provide an organizational structure for all functional areas detailing lines of authority and communication, responsibilities, and functional relationships (to include teaming partners and subcontractors). Provide a flow chart or other illustrative tool to show how your organization will utilize resources to respond to and integrate internally and externally driven existing or new mission-related requirements. Provide a detailed staffing plan that depicts the labor categories, skill level, and number of personnel to be utilized. Clearly explain how the staffing plan meets the requirements to fill and maintain personnel in all the positions and effectively execute the PWS requirements at all locations. Describe your company’s plan to recruit and retain employees.

M.5. Factor B – Price

5.1. Next, the Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services, under FAR Clause 52.217-8, by adding one-half of the offeror’s final option-period prices to the offeror’s total price. Thus, the offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the Base Period and all Option Periods, including the potential six-month extension of services period. Offerors are required to price the Base and Option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

If calculations are not correct after initial evalaution, the Government may ask for clarifications to address these errors, or it may be addressed if the Government chooses to enter discussions.

Note: Evaluation of the Option Periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

5.2. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

5.3. In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (see FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed CLIN prices, the Technical Evaluation Team will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalances pricing may pose un unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

5.4. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal initially. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

5.5. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than certified cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

M.6. Factor C – Past Performance

6.1. Finally, the Government evaluators, known as the Past Performance Evaluation Team, will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data, either submitted by the offeror or obtained through other Government sources, to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of each performance reference as it relates to this acquisition when assigning the past performance rating.

6.1.1. There are four aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent. The second, is to determine if the performance information is relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition). The third aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts and the quality of the product or service provided. The fourth is for the Past Performance Team to make an integrated Confidence Assessment. Past performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past performance will be evaluated by examining references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code (541330) for Systems Engineering.

6.2. Past Performance Information Evaluation. Past Performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

6.2.1. The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on: (1) the references provided by the offeror, (2) information provided in response to the Past Performance Questionnaires, and (3) data independently obtained from other Government and Commercial sources.

6.2.2. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

6.2.3. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements. It is important to remember that “past performance” and “experience” is not the same thing. Past performance evaluation is used to determine how well an offeror has performed previous efforts;

experience is an indication of how often and the number of years (or months) an offeror has performed similar efforts, not necessarily how well the offeror performed.

6.2.4. For purposes of this evaluation, the terms “offeror” or “Prime contractor” are the same. Where the offeror proposes any subcontractor, partner, or Joint Venture partner or arrangement, the Government will consider the offeror’s performance information as whole record. If an offeror is proposing as a sole entity, then the performance information will be evaluated on the individual basis. Each offeror will receive an integrated assessment. This assessment may include the recent and relevant present/past performance information relative to the amount and type of work to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. Further, if proposing such arrangements/subcontractor(s), the offeror will be required to indicate the scope pf work the subcontractor(s), partner(s), etc. will perform (both nature of work, criticality of the work, and percentage of overall effort). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, partner, subcontractor, etc. whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will base the relevancy determination on the portion of the effort accomplished, compared to that portion of the proposed effort.

6.2.5. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements will be considered as past performance information for each offeror.

6.2.6. When a relevant performance record indicated performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action take (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.

6.2.7. Past performance data may be obtained through sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, through Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments should be used if the data is recent and relevant. The Past Performance Team will review the past performance information and determine the quality of the product or service provided as it applied to the performance assessment. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy and providing current, accurate, and complete performance information rests solely with the offeror. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

6.3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of this past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to provide HRMPF services that meets user’s needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence” as defined in the table below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information (PPI) for the principle offeror.

Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history, or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no Confidence Assessment ratings can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”;

meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating. Performance confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method 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.

6.4. Recency. Recency will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent” for each PPI contract reference.

Recency is defined in accordance with the following table:

Past Performance Recency

Recent

Active contract/task order performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Not Recent

Contract/task order performance occurring greater than three (3) years, or less than six (6) months, from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

6.5. Relevancy. Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

Past Performance Relevancy

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

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

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

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

6.6. Past Performance Quality. The Government will evaluate the quality of work performed for each PPI contract reference. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule. Performance assessed as “Satisfactory”, “Very Good”, or “Exceptional” in CPARs or PPQs shall be considered compliant with contract requirements. Any CPAR or PPQ performance area assessed as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” shall be considered unfavorable and subject to rebuttal.

6.6.1. Adverse Past Performance Information. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

6.7. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS

L-I - INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

L.1.0 Program Structure and Objectives

(a) The Government plans to award a Firm Fixed Price contract for the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Human Resources Multiple Personnel Functions (HRMPF). The contractor shall provide all personnel, materials, supervision, and services necessary to establish and maintain a customer service capability within the MPF; (b)

Award will be made on the basis of “best value” utilizing Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. Award will be made to the offeror that provides the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance.

L.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation.

The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical), Volume II – Price, and Volume III – Past Performance. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

1.2. ONLY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER

EVALUATION IS REQUESTED. EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO KEEP OFFERS AS CONCISE AS

POSSIBLE WITH THE EMPHASIS BEING ON PROVIDING INFORMATION ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER

EVALUATION. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation board to fully ascertain offerors capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

1.3 The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers.

The offeror’s proposal must affirmatively state an acceptance period equal to, or greater than, 145 calendar days.

1.4 In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files,) the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals electronically. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

1.5 All information contained in the proposal that an offeror feels is “Proprietary Information”, and therefore not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should be labeled “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

1.6 Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in L.2.1 on or before 16 August 2018 @ 1500 hours (CDT). Offers shall be submitted on the Standard Form 1449 (SF1449).

L.2. FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

2.1 Any formal communication shall be submitted in writing (via email) to the POCs below. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of all formal communications.

AFICA/767 SCONF

Regina C. Blue 841 Fairchild Ave, Room 327 Barksdale AFB, LA 71110 Email: regina.blue@us.af.mil

AMRDEC Safe: https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Default.aspx Reference: Solicitation FA6800-18-R-0004

AFICA/767 SCONF

Maj Patrick Graham 841 Fairchild Ave, Room 327 Barksdale AFB, LA 71110 Email: patrick.graham@us.af.mil

AMRDEC Safe: https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Default.aspx Reference: Solicitation FA6800-18-R-0004 mailto:john.sidor@us.af.mil mailto:patrick.graham@us.af.mil

2.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is requesting the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at https://www.fbo.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.1.5 Oral Presentations

Oral presentations will not be used.

2.1.6 Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged.

Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this request by the date and time specified in the amendment(s) by signing and returning the front page of each SF 30 form. Signed amendments will be included in Volume II of the proposal.

2.1.7. Advanced Questions

Advanced questions concerning this solicitation may be submitted in writing (via email) to the POC listed above, clearly marked as “Advanced Questions” to include solicitation number, name of person submitting the question(s), company name, and phone number. Each question should reference the specific section, paragraph, and/or attachment number of the solicitation or PWS (as applicable).

Advanced questions must be received by 767 SCONF, NLT 27 July 2018 by 3:00 P.M. (CDT) in order for an appropriate response to be given.

L.3. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

3.1. The original proposal and copies as specified in this document shall be sent to the issuing office on or before the date and time specified in this solicitation. In addition to your original proposal also provide a “redacted” copy of Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical) without company names, symbols, logos, etc. Please mark all packages as follows:

Via Email:

Subject: Company Name , Solicitation No. FA6800-18-R-0004, Volume # and Title

Via AMRDEC File Description: Company Name , Solicitation No. FA6800-18-R-0004, Volume # and Title

3.2. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the https://www.fbo.gov/ proposal being considered unawardable to the Government and eliminated from consideration for award. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3) “Submission, revisions, and withdrawals of proposals.” If the proposal is received late, the Government will retain the unopened proposal. However, the proposal will not be evaluated or considered for award.

L.4. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

4.1. The following instructions prescribe the format for proposals, and describe the approach to be used for the development and presentation of the proposal data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is unawardable. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand the proposal and perform a thorough and fair evaluation of it. The Government may incorporate into the contract by reference or full text portions of the successful offeror’s proposal as revised and supplemented through the Final Proposal Revision submitted in response to the solicitation.

4.2. Proposal Volumes. Proposals shall be prepared in three (3) separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical) Volume II – Price Volume III – Past Performance

4.3. Proposal Format. Specific guidance regarding format and content is discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Government will only read/evaluate the maximum number of pages allowed. The proposal content shall be formatted as follows:

a. Text: Single-spaced and printed on double-sided paper. Each side counts as 1 page (e.g. two pages per sheet of paper)

b. Font Size: Microsoft Office Word, Times New Roman, 12 font (Except for headings, titles, etc)

c. Margins: One Inch (1”) left, right, top and bottom

d. Paper Size: 8.5” x 11” with a background color of white or ivory stock only

e. Page Numbering: Sequential by volume (i.e., 1, 2, 3, through 100)

Note: The font size requirements do not apply to charts, graphs, tables, etc.; however, the font size must be reasonable and easily readable. Also, page numbering within each volume must be sequential throughout the entire document. New chapters/sections do not restart the page numbering for that volume.

4.5. Electronic Copies. Electronic Copies: Electronic copies shall be submitted via email or on AMRDEC Safe using Microsoft Office 97 through Microsoft Office 2010, or Adobe PDF Version X or earlier, with the exception of Volume II, Price (Section 2.0. of the RFP). Section 2.0. shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format only. Offerors may use JPEG for charts or “screen shots”. Offerors shall name files using standard naming conventions (i.e.

filename.docx for MS Word, filename.xlsx for MS Excel, filename.pdf for Portable Document Format, etc.). DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images” or Windows Photo Gallery, etc. PDF files shall enable textual search and copy functions. Each volume shall be in a single searchable, editable, file and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. The files shall be names in an unambiguous manner using plain language text which facilitates the evaluator’s ease of accessing the files for evaluation. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document. Electronic copies of all proposal information are required for each volume.

4.6. Copies and Page Limit. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. All pages provided by the offeror in excess of the stated limitations will be returned to the offeror unread. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Table 1 – Copies and Page Limits

VOL TITLE PAGE LIMIT

I* MISSION CAPABILITY

(Technical)

II PRICE None III** PAST PERFORMANCE None

* Executive Summary shall be included in Volume I – Mission Capability – limit is 2 pages and does not count against the 100 page limit for that volume

* Resumes are limited to one resume per candidate, with resumes no longer than 3 pages in length, and will not count toward the total technical volume page limit.

** Past Performance Information (PPI) contract references—See Instructions for Volume III—Past Performance, paragraph 8.

4.7. One copy of each Volume shall be marked “Original”. Page limitation is subject to exclusions stated in the paragraph titled “Exceptions” below. Further, the Government will not include the following in the page limitation:

Cover page(s), title pages or tables of contents, tab/section-divider pages, technical definition page(s), acronym list, cross reference matrix. Note: These pages will be counted if they contain any other information, (i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc). Pages marked “This Page Intentionally Left Blank” will also not be counted.

L.5. EXCEPTIONS

5.1. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate such exception(s) in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All substantive exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation (the overview section will not be included in the proposal page limitation described above). While offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the Government is not obligated to accept or consider such exceptions.

Further, exceptions could result in an unacceptable offer. Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract.

5.2. In the event the offeror takes no exception to the stated requirements, a statement to this effect is required at the front of each subject volume.

L.6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I— MISSION CAPABILITY (TECHNICAL)

6.1. Each offeror shall submit a Technical Volume with its proposal. To facilitate the evaluation, the technical volume should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for the accomplishment of the effort. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including Air Force (AF) publications, technical requirements, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors should note that data submitted prior to the proposal submission including data submitted for current contracts and other solicitations will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

Therefore, such data should not be relied upon nor incorporated in the technical proposal by reference. Offerors shall address the requirements noted in this section by imperative verbs regardless of whether such requirements are preceded by “the offeror shall”. The offeror’s proposal shall at a minimum be prepared in a form consistent with the technical criteria set forth in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award of this solicitation. All information that the offeror deems appropriate to address for this factor and its subfactors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. The technical volume shall address all the technical subfactors.

6.2. Technical Contents

A. Table of Contents – A table of contents shall be included in Volume I. Each subfactor/aspect/section shall be clearly marked and tabbed for easy reference. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner as stated under Proposal Preparation Instructions.

B. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms – Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

C. Executive Summary – Included in this volume is the offeror’s Executive Summary (limit is 2 pages).

D. Cross Reference Matrix – Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which 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 its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, and CLIN references found therein.

E. Technical Section – The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, – Evaluation Factors for Award ; Factor 1, Mission Capability (Technical). In this section the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it will meet the requirements and perform the tasks and services described in the PWS (Attachment 1). The offeror shall describe the performance standards that have been established in each area and explain how performance standards will be met. This section shall not contain any pricing data. The technical section shall be completed as follows:

Manpower Plan. Reference PWS Section 1. Submit a plan outlining the proposed labor mix, including position descriptions and skill level for each employee to accomplish services IAW the PWS. Provide the management approach that will be used to ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the government to effectively execute the PWS requirements. Provide an organizational structure for all functional areas detailing lines of authority and communication, responsibilities, and functional relationships (to include teaming partners and subcontractors). Provide a flow chart or other illustrative tool to show how your organization will utilize resources to respond to and integrate internally and externally driven existing or new mission-related requirements. Provide a detailed staffing plan that depicts the labor categories, skill level, and number of personnel to be utilized. Clearly explain how the staffing plan meets the requirements to fill and maintain personnel in all the positions and effectively execute the PWS requirements at all locations. Describe your company’s plan to recruit and retain employees.

L.7. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II – PRICE

7.1. The offeror shall complete Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices of the SF1449 by inserting the price elements (unit price and extended amount) for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINS) for the Base Year and all Option Years. For ease of administration, all Unit prices must be whole dollar values (e.g.

$10.00). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units (Ensure you adjust for any rounding of figures done by MS Excel, etc.). Travel CLINs: A Not to Exceed (NTE) amount has been pre-established for these CLINS. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal. The price proposal shall also contain the following:

7.2. Complete in its entirety the Standard Form 1449. An official having authority to legally bind the company contractually must sign and date the Standard Form 1449. One copy of the Standard Form 33 must bear an original signature and if applicable, all amendments. Failure to acknowledge any amendments to the solicitation can result in an offeror being deemed unawardable. Award CANNOT be made to a unawardable offeror. Note: Be sure to sign and date where required.

7.3. Representations and Certifications. Complete the required Representations and Certifications or indicate if information is contained in the System for Award Management (SAM) located at https://www.sam.gov.

7.4. Supporting Price Backup Data. Certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, the Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals if the Government determines it is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination, and if in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determined that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information other than certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

7.5. Responsibility Determination

To assist in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-3(a), the offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length. The offeror shall address a fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments.

IAW FAR 9.104-5, the offeror is required to comply with the submission regarding FAR 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters. Since it is the Government’s intent to make Award Without Discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1, the Government may request an offeror submit additional information so a responsibility determination can be made. This request for additional information will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306. An incomplete proposal may be considered to indicate lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable” and eliminated from further consideration.

7.6. Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete, verifiable information detailing the arrangement, to include any relevant and recent information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Submit information relative to the formation, organization and operation of the business unit. Additional information that should be submitted shall include cost and revenue sharing agreements and any other information which describes the business arrangement. Disclose existing or planned agreements between and among the principals, each company’s responsibility for financial management of the venture, the business systems contemplated for use by the entity and their location.

L.8. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1. Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal. The Past Performance Volume and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are due no later than 16 August 2018, 3:00 PM CST. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the Contracting Office receives the past performance information. Past Performance Information shall be provided in a format that facilitates an easy assessment according to the past performance evaluation criteria in Sectiom M of this solicitation. Specific guidelines and requirements about volume content and format are provided in this section.

8.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. Offerors may provide information for a maximum of three (3) different contracts and/or task orders for which they served as the prime contractor, a subcontractor, a partner, or a joint venture partner that are recent and relevant as…