Solicitation FA877322R0005 Amendment 0005 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

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

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Date 19 Dec 2022 06 Jan 2023

Section J - List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

Section L_Amendment 05 06.REVISED Work Sample Cover Sheet

The following attachments were deleted:

Section L Amendment 04 AMENDED

06. REVISED Work Sample Cover Sheet

FA877323R00010005

Industry Comments/Questions Government Answers After reviewing all documents released yesterday with Amend 0004, we realized the Q&A was not posted.

Also, the section L & M compare files does not match the section L and M that was released in Amendment 4. The compare document has a ton of changes.

We must submit in compliance with the section L and M in amendment 4 and it appears to be wrong.

This is in the M compare file: Two Work Samples cannot be provided from the same contract/TO for the same Specialty Area and receive the full 10 points. To receive 10 points for a Specialty Area Offeror must provide 2 different Work Samples. Is this statement correct?

Although the formatting appears to be different, the content as edited is consistent and matches. Offerors are reminded to focus on Sections L and M as amended.

All – I see you released an updated Work Sample Cover Form that now includes a Part IV Deviation Explanation. If none of our work samples have a Deviation Explanation, can we use the Work Sample Cover Forms already filled out? With only a 3-day extension it would be extremely tight and burdensome to retype everything since there would be zero changes.

The requirement remains as written.

Part 2 Deviations Explanation - It is unclear what is required in this section. Can the government provide additional guidance or examples of what information is required in this Section? Refer to revised L.8.7.2. provided in Amendment 0005.

In Paragraph L.8.7.2.3 the Government states "Within each Work Sample, each page will be sequentially numbered 1-10. For example, Work Sample 5, page 4, would be annotated as WS5-4." Since the Work Sample Cover Pages are included in the 10 page limitation according to Amendment 4 Q&A, does the Government want the offeror to add the Work Sample Number and Page format to the Government provided template?

Yes.

In Part IV: Deviation Explaination of the Work Sample Cover Page the Government states "Offerors shall provide a brief explanation for any deviation to PPI Sheet instructions IAW L.8.7.2" The refernce to Para L.8.7.2 covers the Work Sample Cover Page not Attachment 9 (PPI). Does the Governement intend for offerors to explain deviations from a Volume 4 document in Volume 3 or should the PPI reference be replaced with Work Sample Cover Page Instructions IAW L.8.7.2?

Attachment 6, Work Sample Cover Sheet, Part IV Deviation Instruction had an error and has been corrected. "Offerors shall provide a brief explanation for any deviation to Work Sample Cover Sheet instructions IAW L.8.7.2." No, the Government does not intend for offerors to explain deviations from Vol IV in Vol III.

Proposal Instructions direct offerors to insert a Table of Contents and Work Sample Table of Contents in Volume III Previous Experience. The Government futher stated in numerous Questions and Answers that the Table of Contents discussed in L.8.2 is designed to delineate each component included in the Past Experience Proposal Vol. III. The Work Sample Table of Contents discussed in L.8.3 itemizes the Offeror's list of Work Samples. The offeror should use it's own discretion as far as format. The Proposal Table L.5 Proposal Organization shows the Work Sample Cover Sheets with Work Sample Documentation are to be placed after the Self-Scoring Matrix L.8.4 and Cross Reference Matrix L.8.5, which means they do no align dierctly under the Work Sample Table of Contents L.8.3. Microsoft Word does not allow users to delineate separate Table of Contents within one document unless they insert a Table of Figures or Table as separate Table of Contents, which the Work Samples are not. Will the Government rearrange the order of the Past Experience Volume to align the Work Sample Cover Sheets and Work Sample Documentation to be inserted directly after the Work Sample Table of Contents?

The requirement remains as written.

L.8.6 was updated to state "Pages referred to in the page number column should reference the proposal page number" but Column G on the 08. NO CHANGE Cross-Reference Matrix still lists pages 1-2, 4 as an example. Should this be updated to be WSX-1-2, WSX-4? Also, does this change refer to the Column H "Paragraph(s)" requirement meaning that the Paragraph(s) referenced should be the proposal paragraph and NOT the paragraph number from the government document being provided?

Can you update the 08. NO CHANGE Cross-Reference Matrix's example (Row 2) to show a corrected example?

(1) No, the Work Sample Reference is in Column B. (2) The page number reflected in the offeror's Cross-Reference Matrix in Column G should be Volume III's respective proposal page number IAW L.8.6. Pages referred to in the page number column should reference the proposal page number. (3) Anything after Column G is not required and may be filled in with an N/A. (4) Attachment 8, Cross-Reference Matrix will not be changed.

Regarding "The Government cautions Offerors to provide authentic, complete, signed documentation in accordance with the solicitation." We still aren't clear if a screen capture of individual full pages of the authentic document is acceptable or if the intent is for the PDF pages of the contract documents to be integrated into the proposal files and then WS and proposal page numbering added to the original PDF pages. Can the Government please clarify?

Refer to L.8.7.2. provided in Amendment 0005.

Regarding the recently released answers to industry questions -- Page 42, Questions 12 and 13 on that page both ask the same question regarding using documentation at the IDIQ level to verify work at the TO level. However, the answers to these questions are in conflict with each other, with question 12 indicating this is not allowed and question 13 indicating that it is allowed. Please clarify this discrepancy as the revised Section L does not.

Per L.8.6. IDIQ contracts are not an acceptable proof of Past Experience (or Past Performance) and shall not be provided as a Work Sample. However, individual TOs, performed under an IDIQ contract, can be used as a Work Sample. Yes, you may utilize IDIQ documentation, in addition to the task order documentation, to support work actually performed as part of the Task Order.

The last sentence in this paragraph appears to be incomplete. It currently reads, "In Attachment 6. Work Sample Cover Sheet, spelling out critical acronyms and providing "lay person" explanations." Please clarify. Refer to Revised L.8.7.2.2. provided in Amendment 0005.

Section L (Amendment 4) specifies that offerors are only allowed to provide the following annotation to Volume 3 work samples: (L.8.7.2 – “The signed contract/TO cover page and the work sample official contract documentation shall be unedited original documents (except for highlighting, new pagination, work sample reference number)”). Is it the intent of the government to not allow offerors to add comment boxes to the work sample that provide explanation on highlighted section applicability? Additionally, several Question and Answer responses suggest that comment boxes added to the work samples are acceptable. Please confirm that comment boxes on work samples are still acceptable.

Comment boxes on work samples are acceptable.

Assuming Organizational Change History remains in VOL IV L.9.5, would the Government confirm that it is only required for those companies submitting work samples in VOL III and VOL IV, be they prime or sub; and excludes those subs who are NOT submitting work samples in VOL III and VOL IV?

(1) The Organizational Change History narrative was moved from L.9.5. to L.7.5.3. (2) IAW L.7.5.3.1. . The offeror shall provide an Organizational Structure Change History that demonstrates any organizational changes to the offeror and its entities as necessary. The organization history shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company or entity, as necessary, particularly dating to any prior work that may be submitted in this proposal. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may also be used to describe the changes. As part of this explanation, describe how these changes have relevance to the past experience and/or past performance evaluations.

"Question: In Section M.4.1, the government refers to evaluating past experience that is similar work ""actually performed."" When evaluating past experience, does a PWS alone represent ""actually performed"" work, since it defines performance requirements?

Government Answer: Yes, so long as there is an accompanying contract that the PWS was associated with or another official document proving the work was performed.

Comment to Government: Given that the Government may or may not exercise the requirements of the PWS (e.g., optional CLINs, unfilled positions, change of scope, etc.) we recommend the burden of proof includes evidence the work was actually performed by documenting that staff were assigned to the referenced section of the PWS for the required minimum of 6 months."

The requirement remains as written.

Section L: Can the government confirm there is no naming convention requirement for Attachment 10 – Past Performance Questionnaire? Confirmed.

We also note that not all questions were answered that were submitted by DVS. Our questions were related to compliance and important to answer. Is the government considering another round of Q&A prior to proposal submission? We have Amendment 004 specific questions. With the changes to the PPQ form does the government require the Offerors the PPQs to be re-sent to Work Sample Officials to have the latest form signed by the government?

No. The previous version of the PPQ form is acceptable. Offerors are not required to have customer's re-submit revised form.

Amendment 0005 Questions and Answers

Regarding the recently released answers to industry questions -- Page 42, Question 9 (on that page), Page 43, Question 15 (on that page), and page 44, Question 2 (on that page) indicates that CPARS at the IDIQ level are unacceptable and Offerors are now required to submit a PPQ. However, this requirement was not updated in the amended Section L. This new requirement requires Offerors to coordinate PPQs with their customers with last minute notice, over the holiday season when many people are on leave. Will the Government consider extending the proposal due date three weeks so that Offerors can accommodate this new requirement without placing undue burden on their Government customers?

The proposal response date is extended to 6 Jan 2023 in Amendment 0005.

The government has included an updated Past Performance Questionnaire in Amendment 0004. If we have provided this Questionnaire to our Past Performance References and they have submitted as required in the instructions, should we have them update their submission with the new PPQ?

No, the previous PPQ Version is acceptable.

The proposal Organization Table Volume IV Past Performance depicts L.9.5 Organizational Structure Change History as part of the submission requirement. However Section L.9.5 Organizational Structure Change History on page 17 is deleted? Which is correct. Do we submit this informaiton or has it been deleted as a requirement.

Refer to Revised L.5. Table 1 and L.7.5.3. provided in Amendment 0005.

1. Amendment 4 moved the Organizational Structure Change History from L.9.5 (VOLUME IV - PAST PERFORMANCE) to L.7.5.3. (VOLUME II -- Executive Summary). However, L.5. TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION (pages 5-6) still refers to L.9.5 as the Organizational Structure Change History, and still shows that this section is required in Volume IV. Would the Government please clarify whether the Organizational Structure Change History is to be submitted in Volume II or Volume IV (including updated page counts for Volume II)?

Volume II.

In reference to L.9.4.4, if the most recent CPAR is an Interim CPAR is that acceptable? No. If CPAR is not available, the offeror may request the customer to complete a PPQ.

This section has a new requirement, “Offerors shall include an organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between each the entities.” Can the Government please clarify what it means by “entities?” Refer to L.7.3., L.7.4., and L.7.5. and sub paragraphs.

This section indicates, “Past Performance Submissions cannot be disclosed to non-Government parties without the information owner’s consent.” and “Consent letters (Attachment 5) shall be submitted for the prime offeror's team, as identified in Attachment 04.” Please clarify whether Offerors are required to submit consent letters for all companies identified in Attachment 4 or only for those companies that will be providing past performance information.

Refer to L.7.6.

"Amend 0004 Instructions L.5 TABLE 1 calls for an ""Executive Summary"" (L.7.3) up to 10 pages and a separate ""Offeror Company Information and Team Structures"" (Attachment 4) (L.7.4) up to 15 pages.

However, also in Amend 0004 the language for ""Executive Summary"" has been replaced with Instructions for Attachment 4:

""In Attachment 4, ""Offeror (Prime) Company Information & EC2 Team Structure,” the offeror will identify itself and its team structure that will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract (e.g., EC2 categories). Provide a brief summary of the offeror and its team, capabilities of each, how (and to what extent) they will support future EC2 requirements. Offerors shall include an organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between each the entities.""

While L.7.4 ""Offeror Company Information and Team Structure"" calls for completion of Attachment 4.

Furthermore, in SF30 AMENDMENT 0004 Q&A MATRIX - FINAL (Q 309 pp 30):

Question: With regard to the 15-page limit for L.7.4 (Offeror Company Information and Team Structure), please confirm that Offerors are only required to complete RFP Attachment 4.

Answer: Confirmed.

It is now unclear whether or not an Executive Summary is required and where to put it::

a) as a separate section per L.5 TABLE 1 followed by Attachment 4 that only includes the matrix; or

b) inserted into Attachment 4 after the matrix; and if so, then what is the page limit 10 or 15?

Would the Government please clarify?"

L.7.3. Executive Summary. In Attachment 4, "Offeror (Prime) Company Information & EC2 Team Structure,” the offeror will identify itself and its team structure that will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract (e.g., EC2 categories). Provide a brief summary of the offeror and its team, capabilities of each, how (and to what extent) they will support future EC2 requirements. Offerors shall include an organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between each of the entities. In L.5. Table 1, L.7.3. refer to 10 page limit

Would the Government confirm the following language should be in L.9.5 and not L.7.5.3:

"The offeror shall provide an Organizational Structure Change History that demonstrates any organizational changes to the offeror and its entities as necessary. The organization history shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company or entity, as necessary, particularly dating to any prior work that may be submitted in this proposal. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may also be used to describe the changes.

As part of this explanation, describe how these changes have relevance to the past experience and/or past performance evaluations. Information must be clear and complete. The offeror should not assume that the government will interpret or extrapolate information that was not presented.

and that L.7.5.3 should only say:

"L.7.5.3. The offeror's team structure may also include related entities (wholly owned subsidiaries, acquired companies, or affiliates), which must be listed (Attachment 04) and the legal relationship demonstrated (submitted in Volume II, under L.7.5).

It is incumbent upon the offeror to fully explain organizational changes (including acquisition, merger, reorganizations) and the organization structure of affiliated companies.

The requirement remains as written.

Section L: Can the government confirm that Attachment 5 and Evidence of Commitment are only required for teammates providing work samples and/or past performance? Refer to L.7.5.

BLDG 4004 CP 405 734 7645

4004 HILLTOP RD

TINKER AFB, OK 73145-2713

UNITED STATES

SARA RYAN, Email: sara.ryan.2@us.af.mil