H92222-14-R-0021_Amendment_0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to

1) Delete 52.215-1 Alt 1, Add 52.215-1

2) Revise: Section J List of Attachments, Section M Paragraph M2.5.1, Attachment 7 ITO Paragraph 2.b., Attachment 8 ITO (Removes ST2 and ST3 CPFF References, and Attachment 14. Changes are identif ied by change bars in the left margin or red text (Attachment 14).

The due date and time remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Dec-2014

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 H92222-14-R-0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Oct-2014

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

16-Dec-2014

CODE

HQ USSOCOM SORDAC-K

ATTN: KAREN STEVENS

7701 TAMPA POINT BLVD

MACDILL AFB FL 33621

H92222 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92222-14-R-0021

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

SECTION J ATTACHMENTS

Attachment No. Description

Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Attachment 1 SWMS Group B SOW; Amendment 0001 Revision 1

Attachment 2 SWMS Group B DD Form 254

Attachment 3 Contractor Provided Quality Control Plan (submitted as part of Sub-factor 1)

Attachment 4 LREC SOW; Amendment 0003 Revision 3

Attachment 5 MARSOC Exercise Support SOW; Amendment 0003 Revision 3

Attachment 6 FMD Lessons Learned ITO & SOW; Amendment 0004 Revision 3

Attachment 7 FMD Manpower Augmentation Support ITO & SOW; Amendment 0005 Revision 3

Attachment 8 MSOS Individual Training Course ITO & SOW; Amendment 0005 Revision 5

Attachment 9 Past Performance Information Sheet; Amendment 0002 Revision 1

Attachment 10 Past Performance Questionnaire; Amendment 0001 Revision 1

Attachment 11 Subcontractor Consent

Attachment 12 Client Authorization

Attachment 13 SWMS Modified SF 1408

Attachment 14 Group B Pricing Template; Amendment 0005 Revision 3

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by reference:

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2004

The following have been deleted:

52.215-1 Alt I Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004) -

Alternate I

OCT 1997

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.1 Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals for the SWMS Group B contracts. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection using a tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215. The Government intends to make multiple prime contract awards under this solicitation.

M1.2 Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical, Past Performance, and

Price/Cost in accordance with Table M.1. Order of Importance: Factors 1 through 4 are in descending order of importance. Sub-factors within Factor 1 are in descending order of importance. Sub-factors within Factor 2 are of equal importance. When combined all non-price/cost factors are significantly more important than price/cost.

Table M.1

FACTOR TITLE Evaluation Rating

Factor 1 Program Management/IDIQ Technical Capability Rollup Color/Risk

Sub-factor 1.1 Program Management Color/Risk

Sub-factor 1.2 IDIQ Technical Capability Color/Risk

Factor 2 Task Order Proposal Rollup Color/Risk

Sub-factor 2.1 FMD Lessons Learned SOW Color/Risk

Sub-factor 2.2 FMD Manpower Augmentation SOW Color/Risk

Sub-factor 2.3 MSOS Individual Training Course SOW Color/Risk

Factor 3 Past Performance Proposal Confidence Rating

Factor 4 Price/Cost Proposal Total Evaluated Price/Cost

M1.3 Eligibility. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation; and the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

M-2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M2.1 The Government’s evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s proposal and apply a combined Technical

(Color) and Risk rating to each Factor 1 and 2 Sub-factor IAW Section M Table M.2. Evaluation of proposals will focus on strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The sub-factor ratings for Factors 1 and 2 will be rolled up to an overall rating for Factors 1 and 2. Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated unacceptable.

Table M.2

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

M2.2 Factor 1 – Program Management/IDIQ Technical Capability. The assessment will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed approach and methodology to manage and execute the full range of Group B SWMS requirements.

Sub-factors are in descending order of importance.

M2.2.1 Sub-factor 1.1 Program Management. The assessment will evaluate how well the offeror’s management plan describes an approach to ensure all resources are available to successfully execute SWMS Group B requirements.

M2.2.2 Sub-factor 1.2 IDIQ Technical Capability. The assessment will evaluate how well the offeror’s proposal for LREC and MARSOC G7 describes an adequate management and technical approach that demonstrates a capability to execute future requirements of this nature and ensures successful execution of future requirements.

M2.3 Factor 2 – Task Order Proposal. The assessment will evaluate how well the offeror’s proposal for each TO describes a complete approach and provides insight into how it will manage and execute each task order. Sub-factors

2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are of equal importance.

The Government will combine individual task order (sub-factor) color ratings to form an aggregate color rating for

Factor 2, Task Order Proposal for the Prime Contract Award evaluation. Individual TO color ratings will be used to determine the technical rating for TO awards.

M2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in the Group B SOW and specific TO requirements. The performance rating is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the SWMS Group B requirements. The

Government will not evaluate personal references.

M2.4.1 The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, questionnaires, interviews, and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System reports as available through the Past

Performance Retrieval System. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M2.4.2 The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy in

Section L in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort described in Section M Table M.3. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant and/or recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror shall receive a Past Performance rating of “Unknown Confidence,” which equates to a neutral rating having neither positive nor negative evaluation significance.

Table M.3

Rating Description

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

M2.5 Factor 4 – Price/Cost: The Government will evaluate Volume III for completeness, compliance with the instructions, price reasonableness, and IDIQ Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The IDIQ TEP will be calculated for each offeror and presented to the SSA for consideration in the best value determination. Volume III will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques, in order to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of

Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable price.

M2.5.1 The total price for the for each TO will be calculated as follows:

Lessons Learned: Fully Burdened Labor Rates per labor category, including profit multiplied by the total number of hours per labor category plus the proposed ODCs to arrive at the FFP CLIN Total (for the base and all options). The

Government travel plug amount plus proposed G&A; as applicable, and the OCONUS Travel Scenario proposed total will then be added to the FFP to arrive at the TO Price.

FMD Manpower Augmentation: Fully Burdened Labor Rates per labor category, including profit multiplied by the total number of hours per labor category plus the proposed ODCs to arrive at the FFP CLIN Total (for the base and all options). The Government travel plug amount plus proposed G&A; as applicable, will then be added to the FFP to arrive at the TO Price.

MSOS ITC: Fully Burdened Labor Rates per labor category, including profit multiplied by the total number of hours per labor category plus the amount proposed ODCs to arrive at the FFP CLIN Total (for the base and all options). The

Government travel plug amount plus proposed G&A; as applicable, will then be added to the FFP to arrive at the TO

Price.

M2.5.2 The IDIQ TEP will be calculated by adding the Total TO Price for Lessons Learned, FMD Manpower

Augmentation, and MSOS ITC.

M-3 BASIS FOR AWARD

M3.1 General. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in Section M. This may result in awards being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offerors where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

M3.2 IDIQ Prime Contracts: The Government will select for prime contract awards; the proposals that represent the best value to the Government, based on the evaluation factors. Within the best value continuum, the

Government will employ a tradeoff analysis among the following factors: Program Management/IDIQ Technical

Capability, Task Order Proposal, Past Performance, and Price/Cost. The Source Selection Authority will determine which proposals are most advantageous to the Government.

M3.3 Task Orders. Following selection of prime contract awardees and prime contract source selection; the

Government intends to award the TO’s identified under Factor 2 to the prime contract awardee whose task order proposal represents the best value to the Government, based on the evaluation factors. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis among the following factors: Task Order Proposal and

Price/Cost. The Source Selection Authority will determine which task order proposal is most advantageous to the

Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)