FA7014-18-R-1011-0002_Amendment_2.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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION 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 changes, corrections, and clarifications resulting from the soclitiation questions. Please see the accompanying solicitation questions and response document. Of note: the period of time to request an oral presentation required by the solicitaiton has been extended. The request may be made up to the submission due date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Aug-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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 FA701418R1011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jun-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 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

27-Jul-2018

CODE

FA7014- AIR FORCE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1500 W PERIMETER RD SUITE 2750 (PK)

ANDREWS AFB MD 20762

FA7014 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

FA701418R1011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

1.0- INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL

PREPARATION

TYPE OF CONTRACT

The Government contemplates award of a hybrid contract with both Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Cost-Reimbursement (CR), and Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs resulting from this solicitation.

1 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without exchanges with offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with the offeror if i t i s later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be in the best interest of the Government.

Failure to submit any of the information requested by this solicitation may be cause for unfavorable consideration or proposal rejection.

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

Proposal preparation costs and evaluation participation costs are the responsibility of the Offeror.

URL addresses may be included in proposal text and graphics, but the use of active hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited other than for the table of contents. Any such links will not be viewed or considered.

2 INFORMATION PROTECTION

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” [5 USC§552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) _______.”

Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

3 SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL

The Offeror shall submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this solicitation and include the Offeror’s approach for providing all personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to provide services in support of Synthetic

Theater Operations Research Model (STORM). Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the

Offeror intends to accomplish the requirements and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the solicitation are not desired.

Offerors shall include in their proposals graphs, charts, diagrams and narrative, in sufficient detail for the Government to understand and evaluate the nature of the approach. The

Government will consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed approaches in the proposal volumes.

All correspondence in conjunction with this solicitation should be directed to the Government

CO and Contract Specialist (CS) identified below:

Ms. Kari K. Walters, Contracting Officer

E-mail address: kari.k.walters.civ@mail.mil

Lt. William Engelhart, Contract Specialist

E-mail address: william.m.engelhart.mil@mail.mil

3.2 PROPOSAL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The cover letter shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information. The first or title page shall be in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, paragraph (b)(2). Only proposals submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The following are further descriptions of the information that shall be provided with the proposal.

Volume Section

Reference

Elec.

Copies Page Limit

I. Gateway Question 4.1 2* 10 pages maximum

II. Technical Approach (Oral

Presentation)

4.2 2*

35 Slides, max supplement 10 pages, transition plan max 25 pages

III. Past Performance 4.3 1 3-5 References, 15 pages maximum

IV. Price 5.0 1 N/A

*1 unredacted copy and 1 redacted copy for a total of two copies delivered electronically.

3.2.1 Page Limitations

The cover letter, title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations & acronyms for each volume do not count against page count limitations.

Proposal contents that exceed the stated page limitations will be removed from the proposal by the CO, prior to turning the proposal over to the Government evaluation teams, and will not be considered in the evaluation.

3.2.2 Format

Text shall be single-spaced, on 8½” x 11” paper (except as specifically noted), with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Submission as double-sided printing/ copying on recycled paper is encouraged. Offerors may use 11” x 17” sized fold-out pages for tables, charts, graphs, or pictures that cannot be legibly presented on 8½” x 11” paper. An 11” x 17” is a two-sheet equivalent (with regards to the page count limitations). Print shall be of a minimum 12-point

Times New Roman font size. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

Each volume in the proposal shall include a title page and table of contents. The table of contents shall list sections, subsections and page numbers. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used and listing of tables, drawings, diagrams and/or figures.

Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each proposal volume.

3.2.3 Submission Address

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to verify receipt of proposals with the CO or CS. No hand deliveries will be accepted. Complete proposals shall be emailed to:

Ms. Kari K. Walters, Contracting Officer

E-mail address: kari.k.walters.civ@mail.mil

Lt. William Engelhart, Contract Specialist

E-mail address: william.m.engelhart.mil@mail.mil

3.2.4 Submission Due Dates

Proposals must be received in accordance with the date and time stated on the STORM solicitation cover page. Late submissions will not be accepted.

3.2.5 Electronic Copies of Proposal

Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft

(MS) Word 2013 and/or Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. Visual presentation material shall be readable by MS Office 2013. The Offeror must ensure that the submission is readable, in the format specified in the solicitation, and has been verified free of computer viruses. Prior to any evaluation, the Government will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event that any files are corrupted or unreadable, the Government may request the Offeror to resubmit the electronic media.

A second, redacted, electronic copy of Volumes I & II shall be provided. Remove all references to company names and all other identifying markings (i.e., logos, slogans, individual’s names, phone numbers, addresses, emails, CAGE and DUNS codes, etc.). Failure to provide a redacted proposal is considered non-compliance with this ITO. The purpose of this copy is to furnish proposals usable in a blind analysis.

3.2.8 Organizational Conflicts of Interest Avoidance

Offerors are required to identify any actual or potential Conflict of Interest in their proposals, and may be required to submit a mitigation plan during the proposal period. The successful Offeror shall prepare an OCI mitigation plan, if required. Mitigation Plans, if required, will be evaluated

IAW FAR 9.5.

3.2.9 Attachments to Model Contract

The Offeror shall utilize the following attachments included in the solicitation package in development of the proposal:

a. Attachment 1 – DD254 Contract Security Classification Guide

b. Attachment 2 – Performance Work Statement (PWS)

c. Attachment 3 – Contractor Performance Data Sheets

d. Attachment 4 – Government Furnished Information (GFI) Index

3.3 Communications

Offerors may e-mail written inquiries clarification of the RFP to the Contract Specialist. The

Government will answer questions received up to the question date on the solicitation cover page and will provide responses to interested parties through FBO.gov postings. Questions received after this date may be considered and answered if time permits at the discretion of the CO.

3.4 Debriefings

Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying to unsuccessful offerors where changes can be made to improve proposals for future acquisitions. Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer.

Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505 for pre-award debriefings and

FAR 15.506 for post-award debriefings. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, successful/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.

3.5 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CS in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CS 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.

3.6 System for Award Management (SAM)

Offerors will not be eligible to receive a contract award from a Department of Defense (DoD) activity unless they are registered in SAM. Offerors must be registered in the SAM Database prior to award of any contract. Firms must register on a one-time basis and annually confirm accuracy and completeness of registration information. On-line registration and instructions can be accessed at https://www.sam.gov/index.html.

3.7 Government Furnished Information and International Traffic in Arms Regulation

(ITAR) Compliance

This solicitation offers Government Furnished Information (GFI) that is protected under the

Arms Export Control Act of 1976. As such, offerors shall be compliant with ITAR. Compliance is awarded after registration and approval by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a component of the U.S. Department of State.

Proof of registration must be provided to this solicitation’s points of contact above before any of the GFI contained within Attachment 4 will be released to the requesting organization. This

GFI provides greater insight into STORM’s technical requirement. GFI will be delivered to the approved requestor via Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE), also known as AMRDEC.

Instructions on accessing SAFE will be provided via email as the GFI is delivered.

Information on ITAR and DDTC registration may be found at:

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/registration

4.0 FACTORS

Proposal evaluation consists of three technical factors and one price factor. Factor I is the response to a gateway question. Factor II is an oral presentation of the offeror’s response to the gateway question. Factor III is the offeror’s past performance. Factor IV is the price proposal.

4.1 FACTOR I: GATEWAY QUESTION

The Gateway Question is to ascertain whether the offeror has sufficient understanding of technical concepts and requirements of STORM to warrant further analysis of their proposal. The question is as follows:

https://www.sam.gov/index.html

“Ground minefields/barriers and associated combat engineering units with the ability to emplace and clear these obstacles are not explicitly a part of STORM’s Ground War Model.

This limitation is a noticeable shortcoming when STORM campaign analysis results are presented to a DoD Joint Community. In ten pages or less, please describe an approach to remedy this shortcoming with a detailed combat engineering representation within the STORM

Ground Model. Please include a short discussion on appropriateness of this requirement at the

Campaign modeling level and be cognizant of the different requirements within the STORM community (i.e. Air Force vs Navy vs Marines vs Joint Staff etc...).”

DO NOT include any cost projections, but rather a discussion on the modeling and simulation design approach you would recommend.

4.2 FACTOR II: TECHNICAL APPROACH ORAL PRESENTATION

Oral presentations shall discuss the offeror’s proposed answer to the gateway question, process for implementation, and details. All materials presented shall be submitted to the Government on the due date of the RFP. Materials submitted will count as the technical portion of the evaluation.

a. Time Limit – The Government will not consider offeror’s oral presentation if exceeding one hour. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to terminate the presentation if it overruns the prescribed time limit. During the presentation, the Technical Evaluation Team members will not interrupt the offeror to ask questions (except to request the repetition of inaudible words or statements or the explanation of terms that are unknown to them) or otherwise engage the offeror in any dialogue. There will not be a question and answer period following the oral presentation.

b. Offeror Attendees – If you require Visitor Base Access please complete the Unofficial

Visitor Base Pass Request Visitor Information and return to Ms. Walters and Lt. Engelhart before the proposal due date per the solicitation cover page. We can only obtain 50

TOTAL visitor passes for the event.

c. Topics – The offeror’s oral presentation will address the following:

Topic Specific Instructions

Present problem set (Gateway

Question)

Develop a detailed combat engineering representation within the STORM Ground War

Model.

What is process for implementing the answer to the

Gateway Question

Include in this discussion how this modification will be integrated in STORM’s logical design.

Details on the concept, the implementation, testing, validation and release of code modification

Include as much coherent detail as possible within the hour time lime. Details should include, but are not limited to the following sample questions:

What input file modifications will be required?

What new input files will have to be created?

How will this modification be integrated into the STORM

Ground Adjudication methodology?

How will these modifications be integrated into the C2 and

ISR manager’s?

What is the detailed code testing process?

How will this modification be integrated into training courses/manuals and how will it be released to the

STORM community?

Considerations and Summary

d. Presentation Media – Offerors are free to structure their oral presentations using 8½” x 11” view-graphs (slides, transparencies) or computer-generated media. The number of view-graphs (or other media) should be reasonable for the stated time limit for presentation. Use of these visual aids is at the offeror’s discretion.

The offeror shall submit a final electronic version via email of their Oral Presentation materials as part of their written technical submission.

The key personnel resumes shall be submitted as part of the supplemental page count.

e. Scheduling – Offerors must submit a request for Oral Presentation prior to the submission due date to the Contracting Officer. All presentations will be conducted on one day after proposal submissions are collected. The Government reserves the right to reschedule presentations at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

f. Location – The location will be Joint Base Andrews, MD or other announced location.

Any location change announcement will be made on FBO.gov.

The Government reserves the right to change the Oral Presentation site at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

g. Transition Plan – A transition plan must be furnished in accordance with PWS Section

3.10.5. To accommodate this document it has a separate page limit.

4.3 FACTOR III: PAST PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Offerors are directed to provide Contractor Performance Data Sheets on no more than five (5) of the offeror’s most recently completed Federal Government or Commercial contracts, not to exceed five (5) years since completion for like or similar services to those to be provided under this RFP.

The offeror has both the duty and discretion to determine which of its prior contracts are most relevant to the currently described requirements. However, the offeror should consider that the

Government shall give special attention to past performance relating to the United States Federal

Government.

If the offeror is unable to provide five (5) relevant contracts for past performance evaluation, a lesser number may be submitted.

Contractor Performance Data Sheets shall be submitted directly to Ms. Walters and Lt.

Engelhart.

Offeror’s will receive a performance confidence assessment for their past performance submissions in accordance with this solicitation’s Section M – Evaluation of Offerors.

4.4 FACTOR IV: PRICE

The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

The contractor shall include pricing on unburdened rates for submitted labor categories.

Organization: The Price Volume shall be organized as follows:

a. Section 1 – Table of Contents

b. Section 2 – Cost and Pricing Schedule (contractor format)

Supporting Fixed-Price Data: Price proposals must adhere to the pricing structure established in the CLIN of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s price proposal must be based on the Offeror’s own technical proposal, the Government’s specifications, and other contractual requirements. If the prices to be used are based on a published price list or catalog, the Offeror shall so state, and provide a copy of the document with the price proposal. If the prices are to be based on established market price, not otherwise published, or if prices are applicable only to the proposed contract, the Offeror shall so state.

a. Pricing shall be completed by the Offeror in accordance with the following:

i. Proposed prices shall be provided reflecting the established CLINs.

ii. All prices contained in the pricing schedule reflect total compensation for the services detailed therein and are fully inclusive of all costs including labor (workers, management, aids, assistants, and operators), overhead, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit.

iii. Price proposals shall be evaluated for the presence of “unbalanced pricing” based on a contractor’s attempt to “buy in” to the acquisition.

The Contracting Officer will perform a price proposal analysis to determine balanced pricing. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer if it is determined that the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government in accordance with FAR Part

15.404-1(g).

b. The Government expects that this contract will be awarded based upon adequate price competition.

Rounding Methodology: All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

END OF SECTION

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

This requirement will be under FAR Part 15, a Performance-Price Trade-Off will allow the

Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Technical acceptability and past performance are more important than price. Award will be made to the offeror who is technically acceptable, has a satisfactory or neutral performance confidence rating, and has a fair and reasonable price.

This contract is a competitive small business set-aside procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model (STORM), however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a hybrid contract with both Firm Fixed Price, Cost-Reimbursement, and Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee

CLINs.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

There are four evaluation factors for the STORM effort:

Factor I: Gateway Question

Factor II: Technical Approach

Factor III: Past Performance

Factor IV: Price

2.1 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness; if a proposal is non-responsive then it will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate proposals of the responsive offerors for Factor I Technical Approach on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Only proposals that receive an acceptable rating for Factor I Gateway Question will proceed to Factor II Technical

Approach. Factor II also culminates in an acceptable or unacceptable rating, with only those considered acceptable moving on to be evaluated in Factor III. Factor III Past Performance will be assessed at the overall factor level via a performance confidence assessment, which is derived from evaluations of the individual past performance submissions. Only those proposals that receive a rating that is neutral or satisfactory and better will move on to Factor IV, Price. Price will be evaluated to ensure it is fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic. Award will be made to the offeror who is considered technically acceptable, has at least a satisfactory performance confidence assessment or neutral, and has a fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic price.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without exchanges with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price, technical, and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with the offeror if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interest of the Government.

2.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2.1 – Factor I: Gateway Question

The Gateway Question is to ascertain whether the offeror has sufficient understanding of technical concepts and requirements of STORM to warrant further analysis of their proposal.

Offerors must answer the question within the page limit. An adequate response is considered to address the combat engineering function and context of a joint force environment. The below table contains the Gateway Question topics:

Topic Specific Instructions

Present problem set (Gateway

Question)

Develop a detailed combat engineering representation within the STORM Ground War

Model.

What is process for implementing the answer to the

Include in this discussion how this modification will be integrated in STORM’s logical design.

Gateway Question

Details on the concept, the implementation, testing, validation and release of code modification

Include as much coherent detail as possible within the hour time lime. Details should include, but are not limited to the following sample questions:

What input file modifications will be required?

What new input files will have to be created?

How will this modification be integrated into the STORM

Ground Adjudication methodology?

How will these modifications be integrated into the C2 and

ISR manager’s?

What is the detailed code testing process?

How will this modification be integrated into training courses/manuals and how will it be released to the

STORM community?

Considerations and Summary

Gateway question responses will receive an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table.

Gateway Question Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Response adequately addresses the gateway question.

Unacceptable Response does not adequately address the gateway question.

Offerors receiving an Acceptable rating will move to Factor II.

2.2.1 – Factor II: Technical Approach Oral presentations shall discuss the offeror’s proposed answer to the gateway question. The oral presentation is evaluated on a pass/fail basis. To be considered passing, the presentation should address the three topics required. Sample questions an offeror should consider were included with the topics but answering these is not explicitly required to pass – they are intended to guide the presentation topic. The presentation should walk through a development process, from problem solution, integration, and implementation/release.

Note: There is a one (1) hour time limit for the presentation and the contracting officer shall terminate the presentation after the one hour mark.

The pass/fail determination is aligned with an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:

Technical Approach (Presentation) Ratings

Acceptable Presentation adequately addresses technical topics.

Unacceptable Presentation does not adequately address technical topics.

Offerors receiving an Acceptable rating will move to Factor III.

2.2.3 – Factor III: Past Performance

Each individual past performance submission is reviewed on three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality. Once all an offeror’s individual submissions are reviewed a factor-level rating called the Performance Confidence Assessment will be assigned.

a. Recency – For past performance to be considered recent it must consist of an effort that had a period of performance taking place within the last five (5) years. Past performance submissions are considered acceptable or unacceptable in regards to recency in accordance with the below table.

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Acceptable Period of performance for work within last five years.

Unacceptable Period of performance for work not within last five years.

b. Relevancy – For past performance to be considered relevant the offeror should consider the similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and key personnel use. Example past performance subjects for STORM include, but do not necessarily require, the following:

1. Campaign Modeling

2. ANSI/IEEE 828-1998 System and Software Standards

3. Software Development

4. Help-Desk Support

5. Website Support (Restricted Access)

6. Classroom Presentation & Training Support

7. Courseware Development

For the purposes of evaluation these objectives are given equal weight. The offeror’s past performance relevancy for each submission provided will be given an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved five of the seven example objectives provided.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved four of the seven example objectives provided.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved three of the seven example objectives provided.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved two or less of the seven example objectives provided.

c. Quality – This aspect of past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Each recent past performance submission reviewed will receive an assessment of the performance quality. The past performance quality for each citation will receive and adjectival rating from the below table:

Past Performance Quality Ratings

Exceptional

During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

Very Good

During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

Satisfactory

During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level.

Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Marginal

During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance that was relevant, or information was not available.

d. Performance Confidence – As a result of recency, relevancy, and quality rating for the past performance submissions offerors receive one integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation reviews each past performance submission, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents and overall evaluation of the contractor performance. The performance confidence assessment rating will receive an adjectival rating from the below table:

Performance Confidence Rating

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant and quality ratings the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant and quality ratings the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant and quality ratings the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant and quality ratings the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

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

Offerors receiving a Substantial, Satisfactory, or Unknown Confidence rating will move to

Factor IV.

2.2.4 – Factor IV: Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based on the total price proposed for the core task requirements. The proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, fairness, realism, and balanced pricing

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. The proposals will be evaluated under the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) and evaluated for realism IAW FAR 52.222-46.

The Government shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the established criteria. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who is Technically

Acceptable, has at least a satisfactory performance confidence assessment or neutral, and has a fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic price.

END OF SECTION

(End of Summary of Changes)