FA877310R0088_Amd 0001.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

Amendment is issued to: provide a revised Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 14 Jan 11 w hich supersedes PWS dated 14 Dec 10; a revised DD254 dated 13 Jan 11 w hich supersedes DD254 posted on 20 Dec 10; and to add DD254 For Official Use Only (FOUO) attachment. RFP changes: Section B, CLINs 0004 and 0006 quantities have changed from 12 months to 11 months, and Section M, 2.0

Evaluation Factors, 2.2.2 Relevancy Assessment, Focus Area 1, softw are applications changed from Oracle 11G to Oracle 10G.

Acknow ledge receipt of this amendment in accordance w ith Item 11(b) above.

The closing date is hereby changed FROM: 4:00 PM Central, 25 Jan 11 TO: 4:00 PM Central, 27 Jan 11.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Jan-2011

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 FA8773-10-R-0088

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Dec-2010

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 X is extended, 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

18-Jan-2011

CODE

38 CEG/PK - FA8773

CATHY PLANTE

4064 HILLTOP RD

TINKER AFB OK 73145-2713

FA8773 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA8773-10-R-0088

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 1.00 from 12.00 to 11.00.

CLIN 0006

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 1.00 from 12.00 to 11.00.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

POP 01-AUG-2011 TO

30-JUN-2012

N/A 38 CEG/TS - F3YCFF

JENNY HILL

4012 HILLTOP ROAD

TINKER AFB OK 73145-3713

FOB: Destination

F3YCFF

To:

N/A 38 CEG/TS - F3YCFF

JENNY HILL

4012 HILLTOP ROAD

TINKER AFB OK 73145-3713

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0006 has been changed from:

N/A 38 CEG/TS - F3YCFF

JENNY HILL

4012 HILLTOP ROAD

TINKER AFB OK 73145-3713

To:

N/A 38 CEG/TS - F3YCFF

JENNY HILL

4012 HILLTOP ROAD

TINKER AFB OK 73145-3713

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-1 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This source selection is a performance price tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR

Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 and the Air Force Mandatory

Procedure (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors Mission Capabilities (Technical), Present/Past Performance, and Price.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented;

meet all requirements of the RFP; conform to all required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who provides an acceptable technical proposal and represents the best value of present/past performance, and price in meeting the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines present/past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective

Offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

a. In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government.

To arrive at a decision, the SSA will assess each offer in accordance with the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1: CMMI-Dev Maturity Level

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

Subfactor 3: Phase-In Plan

Factor 2: Present/Past performance

Focus Area 1: System Administration and Development

Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design

Focus Area 3: Customer Service

Factor 3: Price

b. Relative Importance or Weighting of the Factors. The relative importance or weighting of each factor is as follows: To be considered for award, Factor 1 (technical proposal) must meet minimum standards on an http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ acceptable/unacceptable basis. Factor 2 (Present/Past Performance) is approximately of equal importance to Factor

3 (Price).

2.1 Factor 1—Mission Capabilities (Technical). Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers.

The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding and capability to meet the Government’s requirements and will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis at the subfactor level. A failure in any technical subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for the technical factor. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI)-Dev Maturity Level. This sub-factor is met when the

Prime Offeror demonstrates a CMMI-Dev maturity level rating of 2 or higher with an appraisal that meets all of the following criteria:

a. Conforms to the Appraisal Requirements for CMMI (ARC) document

b. Defined as a Class A appraisal

c. Performed by an approved Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI)

Lead Appraiser

d. Occurred within the last three years; Government will not consider an ongoing assessment as a valid rating.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror presents an effective staffing and personnel management approach for the CIPS effort that meets the following criteria:

a. An organizational structure that provides qualified personnel resources, to include any subcontracting and teaming arrangements, in an organizational structure and labor categories with the experience, security clearance and minimum acceptable qualifications necessary.

b. A sound methodology for replacing personnel, or hiring additional personnel, on short notice

c. A sound methodology for training new personnel in processes, procedures, software tools, and system design parameters associated with this effort and providing continued training for existing staff.

Subfactor 3: Phase-In of Contractor Operations. Provide a phase-in plan to include timelines with detailed steps in each phase. Address new employee hiring, retention of current personnel, training/orientation activities and any security clearance issues prior to contract start. Include how Offeror will transition without placing current day-to-day operations at risk. Provide a phase-in plan not to exceed 30 days with phase-in beginning at contract award and assumption of responsibility for all contractual obligations beginning on30 days after award. Include how you would use the phase-in period to mobilize, train, observe, and otherwise prepare to become fully operational and assume complete contract responsibility. This subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates a comprehensive and sound approach for managing transition activities ensuring no disruption of services during the transition or phase-in period. This includes the ability to meet the following criteria:

a. Effectively and efficiently transition/phase-in resources and personnel

b. Obtain proper security clearances

c. Establish viable management processes and structures

d. Retain or provide critical knowledge, skill sets and expertise

e. Ensure mission continuity on the required contract performance start date

2.2 Factor 2 - Present/Past Performance. The Present/Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform the required services to meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. An overall assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the RFP requirements while meeting price, performance and schedule constraints will be made. The performance confidence assessment will be rated at an overall factor level. The Government intends to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including any combination of present/past performance information available. This may include data gathered from Offeror-provided references, and through the use of interviews. Furthermore, the Government may use data independently obtained from other governmental and commercial sources; other customers known to the Government; contractor performance evaluations (e.g.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) information, Present/past performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, etc.); interviews with Government customers, and, if applicable, commercial clients; and any other source that may have relevant and useful information. Proposals shall be evaluated against the Focus areas as defined in the relevancy definitions below.

2.2.1 Recency Assessment. Only recent past performance information (PPI) will be evaluated. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Present/Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated for relevancy and quality.

2.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent PPI obtained to determine relevancy in identified Focus Areas supporting operation, maintenance and support of an enterprise system relevant in scope to the CIPS system. Past performance includes that of the prime, joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for Focus Areas presented on individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract that is proposed to perform that portion. However, the quality of performance on contracts which are recent and relevant in more than one Focus Area may be considered more important in the final confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

FOCUS AREA 1: SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

DEGREE DESCRIPTION

RELEVANT (R) To be considered Relevant the offeror will have to provide experience in all the following areas:

1) Experience with at least 7 of the following software applications:

JRE/JTE 1.6 Oracle 10G

MS visual Basic/C# Oracle Spatial

PKI Oracle Label Security

MS Team Foundation Server Oracle Geoserver

MS Visual Studio 2010

2) Experience with Oracle based, PKI enabled enterprise system accessible over a WAN via a web interface

3) System support to at least 1,000 users

4) Experience in identifying the software and hardware required to sustain, maintain and develop an enterprise system.

5) Experience in developing, testing and documenting at least two software releases each year

6) System shall have included a GIS data capture and visualization capability, and shall have been PKI enabled.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) To be considered Somewhat Relevant the offeror will have to provide experience in all the following areas:

1). Experience with at least 5 of the following software applications:

MS visual Basic/C# Oracle Spatial

PKI Oracle Label Security

MS Team Foundation Server Oracle Geoserver

MS Visual Studio 2010

2) Experience with some form of user authentication

3) System support to at least 500 users

4) Experience in identifying the software and hardware required to sustain, maintain and develop an enterprise system.

5) Experience in developing, testing and documenting at least one software release each year

NOT RELEVANT (NR) A contracted effort will be considered not relevant when Past/present contract effort involved little of the following

1). Experience with less than 5 of the following software applications:

MS visual Basic/C# Oracle Spatial

PKI Oracle Label Security

MS Team Foundation Server Oracle Geoserver

MS Visual Studio 2010

2) Experience with some form of user authentication

3) System support to less than 500 users

4) Experience in identifying the software and hardware required to sustain, maintain and develop an enterprise system.

5) Experience in developing, testing and documenting a software release each year

FOCUS AREA 2: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN

RELEVANT (R) To be considered Relevant the offeror will have to provide experience in all the following

1) A contracted effort will be considered relevant if it involved the integration of applications, databases, and hardware to provide a secure, stable system and a seamless interface to the user.

2) The past/present contract shall have involved an enterprise system that is accessible via web browser over a

WAN, provided user authentication via PKI, and is secured via common security protocols such as Secure Socket

Layer.

1) A contracted effort will be considered somewhat relevant if it involved the integration of either the applications, databases, or hardware to provide a secure, stable system and a seamless interface to the user.

2) The past/present contract shall have involved a system that provides some form of user authentication, and is secured via common security protocols such as Secure Socket Layer.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present contract effort provided little integration and authentication related to a system similar to CIPS.

FOCUS AREA 3: CUSTOMER SERVICE

RELEVANT (R) To be considered Relevant the offeror will have to provide experience in all the following

1) A contracted effort will be considered relevant if it involved providing system user help desk services for a system with an active user base of at least 1,000 users.

2) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user training, to include the creation and maintenance of training materials. The effort shall have required the

Offeror to coordinate and conduct all training and to maintain trainer proficiency in system functionality.

(3) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user account adminstration and management for an enterprise system with an active user base of at least 1,000 users.

1) A contracted effort will be considered relevant if it involved providing system user help desk services for a system with an active user base of at least 500 users.

2) Experience in providing personnel in support of system user training

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

1) A contracted effort will be considered relevant if it involved providing system user help desk services for a system with an active user base of less than 500 users.

2) Did not provide personnel in support of system user training

2.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts for each contract citation. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the PPIRS information, CPARS, past performance surverys, interviews with Government customers and if applicable, commercial clients, . The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as present/past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources for which the offeror has not had the opportunity to respond. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will assign one of the following performance quality ratings to each recent and relevant referenced contracts provided as PPI:

EXCEPTIONAL (E) Performance meets contract requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with few minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG) Performance meets contract requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Performance reflects a serious problem, for which the contractor has not identified corrective actions or corrective actions were marginally effective or not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Performance contains serious problems, for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE (NA) Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.

2.2.4 Performance Confidence Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated for each of the Focus Areas, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom PPI is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent and relevant PPI will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant PPI may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

"Unknown Confidence" rating. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating terms are defined as follows:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

2.3 Price Evaluation. The total evaluated price includes all CLINs except X007 (Special Projects). Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine fair and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, completeness, balance and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price as follows:

a. Reasonableness. Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal.

Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price.

b. Completeness. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all pricing information required by the solicitation has been submitted and correlates to the operations, maintenance, management, and logistics efforts described in the corresponding sections of the technical proposal.

c. Balance. In addition, prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Offers that do not meet these criteria may be rejected.

d. Affordability. The Government will evaluate the affordability of each Offeror’s price proposal by comparing the total proposed price as to the budget of $12,168,000 million which excludes CLINs for Special Projects X007).

e. Apparent Mathematical Errors. If a discrepancy exits between the information contained on the disk and the printed copy, the printed copy will prevail.

(End of Summary of Changes)