H9223923R0005 RFP Amend 4.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provi ded herei n, all t erms and condit ions of t he document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remai ns unchanged and in ful l force and effect .

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescr ibed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This Amendment revises section M paragraphs 2.5.4 and 2.5.5.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE P AGE OF P AGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DAT E SIGNED

BY 12-Sep-2023

16B. UNITED ST AT ES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contract ing Officer)(Signature of person author ized t o sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, Count y, Stat e and Zip Code) X H9223923R0005

X 9B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 11)

17-Aug-2023

10B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITAT ION NO.

11. THIS IT EM ONLY APPLIES T O AMENDMENT S OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered soli cit ati on i s amended as set forth in It em 14. The hour and date specified for rece ipt of Offer is ext ended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowl edge rece ipt of t his amendment pri or to the hour and date specified in the sol ici tat ion or as amended by one of t he fol lowing methods:

(a) By compl eti ng Items 8 and 15, and returning copi es of the amendment ; (b) By acknowledgi ng recei pt of thi s amendment on each copy of t he offer submit ted;

or (c) By s epara te let ter or t elegram whi ch i ncludes a refe rence t o t he s olic ita tion and amendment numbers . FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE P LACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS P RIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of thi s amendment you desire t o change an offer already submit ted, s uch change may be made by t elegram or let ter, provided each t elegram or l ett er makes re ference to the sol ici tat ion and this amendment , and is received prior to the openi ng hour and dat e speci fi ed.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DAT A (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 FORT H IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED T O REFLECT THE ADMINIST RATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORT H IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modification and authorit y)

E. IMPORTANT: Contract or is not, is required to sign this document and return copies t o the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/cont ract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/ MODIFICATION NO. 5. P ROJECT NO.(If appli cable )

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Sep-2023

CODE

HQ USASOC CONTRACTING

ATTN AOCO

E2929 DESERT STORM DRIVE

FORT LIBERTY NC 28310- 5200

H92239 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other t han item 6)

4. REQUISITION/P URCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See I tem 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H9223923R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Award. This is a competitive, best value trade-off selection that will be conducted in accordance with

(IAW) with FAR 15 and as supplemented by the DFARS and SOFARS. The procedures in FAR Part 15- Contracting by Negotiation, apply to this acquisition. Therefore, evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and supplements thereto. It is the Government’s intent is to award without discussions. To arrive at a selection decision, the Contracting Officer will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in this solicitation. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the Source Selection Team's (SST) input, and then assess each offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in Section M. This may result in an award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s) where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

1.1. The Government contemplates a single award; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award if no proposals meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against the Qualifying Criteria, Technical Factors (Factors 1 & 2), Past and Present Performance (Factor 3), and Price (Factor 4). All Qualifying Criteria are evaluated on a pass or fail basis. A color/adjectival rating technique will be used to evaluate the technical Factors (Factors 1 & 2). Past and Present Performance will receive an overall confidence level rating. The Price Factor will not be given a color rating or scored.

Qualifying Criteria

Pass / Fail

Factor 1-Technical Knowledge of Operational Medical Training

Color / Risk

Factor 2-Staffing, Retention, and Management of Personnel

Color / Risk

Factor 3-Past and Present Performance

Confidence Rating, as depicted in Table M2 M3

Factor 4-Price/Schedule Total Overall Evaluated Price (All Years and FAR 52.217-8) Reasonableness, Realism, and Balance

The order of importance amongst the Factors are listed below:

Technical Factors 1 and 2 are equal in importance.

Technical Factors (Factors 1 & 2) are more important than and Past and Present Performance (Factors 3) and Price (Factor 4).

Technical Factors (Factors 1 & 2) and Past and Present Performance (Factors 3), when combined are more important than Price (Factor 4).

2.1. Qualifying Criteria. Information submitted for the qualifying criteria will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the definitions below in order to “pass.” If the offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, they will “fail” to qualify (i.e. be determined ineligible for award as a deficiency). The offerors will be assessed as passed if the minimum requirements definitions below have been met.

2.1.1. Fully Executed Quote/Contract Forms. The offeror indicated that it is eligible for a Government contract based on the offeror’s responses to the representations, certifications, all contract forms, and other statements required by the RFP.

2.1.2. Facility Clearance. The prime offeror has adequately demonstrated that it possesses a SECRET Facility Clearance as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS) at the time of its submission. For Teaming arrangements, the Prime Offeror has adequately demonstrated that it possesses a SECRET facility Clearance as accredited by the DSS at the time of proposal submission. For Joint Ventures, both offerors have adequately demonstrated that it possesses a SECRET facility Clearance as accredited by the DSS at the time of proposal submission.

A SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL) is required. An Offeror without the requisite clearance will not be permitted as the prime contractor due to the required security classification. Offerors shall possess or acquire a facility clearance equal to the requirement on the DD254 (Technical Exhibit E) without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID)) by the proposal due date. If an Offeror does not have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award.

The SECRET work will take place at a Government facility. However, a SECRET facility clearance is not required for the Joint Venture (JV) itself if the Offeror is an unpopulated JV and all members of the JV possess a SECRET facility security clearance.

A JV without its own FCL will not have access to classified information and all access will solely be through the cleared JV members. Therefore, a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following:

1. Identification of the JV member that will be responsible for implementing and managing all security program requirements.

2. A description of the JV and JV members’ roles and responsibilities to ensure compliance with 32 CFR Part 117, the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).

3. A copy of the joint venture agreement(s) relating to the establishment of the JV and any subcontracts awarded to the individual JV members as they relate to this solicitation and all security responsibilities.

4. A completed Standard Form 328, "Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests" for the JV

5. Execute a formal exclusion resolution stating that the JV will not require and will not have access to classified information.

6. The two joint venture members and all subcontractors shall execute similar resolutions excluding the JV from access to classified information.

2.1.3. Cyber Security. The Offeror, AND its subcontractors, demonstrates a minimum Basic Confidence Level score of 80 in the Supply Risk Performance System (SPRS) NIST SP 800-171 Assessment.

a. The Offeror demonstrates a system security plan and any associated plan of actions to satisfy requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012 and in accordance with NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171

b. The Offeror demonstrated a current assessment within 3 years of RFP release for both prime and subcontractors for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to their offer. No award can be made to an offeror with an expired SPRS score.

2.2. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF OPERATIONAL MEDICAL TRAINING. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and significant weaknesses of the proposal. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal for this factor is inherent in the evaluation.

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. When evaluating this factor, the Government will consider the following standards and will assign a rating and color as indicated in Table M1 below. The burden of providing sufficient data rests with the offerors.

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical knowledge and understanding demonstrates sound and feasible approach to train and produce qualified U.S. Army Special Forces Medical Sergeants (18Ds), Special Operations Independent Duty Corpsman (SOIDC), and Special Operations Combat Medics (SOCM) with enhanced trauma, surgical, and medical skills. The Government will evaluate the extent to which each Offeror's organizational experience and technical knowledge of operational medical training based on its depth and its relevance to the work for this requirement. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the offer demonstrates an understanding of each of the main task areas of the PWS (Section 5), and conveys the methodologies, techniques, and a detailed technical approach for the core JSOMTC missions such as: Program Management (PWS 5.2), Instruction Management (PWS 5.3), Instruction Support (PWS 5.4), and Program of Instruction Support (PWS 5.5).

2.3. FACTOR 2: STAFFING, RETENTION, AND MANAGEMENT OF PERSONNEL. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and significant weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal for this factor is inherent in the evaluation. 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. When evaluating this factor, the Government will consider the following standards and will assign a rating and color as indicated in Table M1 below. The burden of providing sufficient data rests with the offeror.

2.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s approach successfully demonstrated its ability to staff, implement, and provide instructor support to JSOMTC. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed staffing approach demonstrates an understanding of the requirement for sufficient personnel with the proper roles, autonomy, lines of authority, and responsibilities and have the required knowledge, skills, and qualifications to fulfill PWS requirements. This includes the ability/capability of the personnel to support the designated position and the ability to designate personnel for assignment to the specific functional areas IAW the PWS. The Offeror’s capability to support phase-in operations shall also clearly demonstrate the proposed staffing methodology and capability to perform the program requirements from the first day of performance. The approach will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is able to recruit, compensate and retain a workforce sufficient to satisfy RFP requirements while minimizing instructor turnover and service degradation.

Table M.1. Combined Technical / Risk Rating Method Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and / or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table M2 Rating Definition Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2.4. FACTOR 3. PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE.

2.4.1. The Past and Present Performance evaluation considers the offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meets the users' need in past performance. Past and Present Performance evaluation shall focus on the recency and relevancy as defined in the Section L, Instructions to Offerors, regarding how well the contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other contracts, other Government actions, and commercial actions.

2.4.2. The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement. The performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, questionnaires, interviews, and the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports. The Government is not limited to these resources but will apply the same criteria to all offerors.

2.4.3. The Government will evaluate the present and past performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria 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.

2.4.4. The Confidence Ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table M3 as follows:

Table M3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

Neutral Confidence

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table M4. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant

Contractor Management experience and how it relates to this effort

Required extensive program management experience

Required some program management experience

Required minimal program management experience

Required no program management experience

Key Personnel management experience and how it relates to this effort

Required extensive Key Personnel Management experience

Required some Key Personnel Management experience

Required minimal Key Personnel Management experience

Required no Key Personnel management

Management of sub-contractors

Required to manage at least 1 Sub-contractor for a similar service requirement on a SOF or DoD contract

Required to manage at least 1 sub-contrator for a service requirement on a SOF or DoD contract

Required to manage at least 1 Sub-contractor for an other Federal Government contract

Required to manage no Sub-contractors

Performance in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining highly skilled personnel in similar environments for both short and long durations

Extensive experience in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining personnel for short and long durations

Some experience in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining personnel for short and long durations

Minimal experience in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining personnel for short and long durations

No experience in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining personnel for short and long durations

Contract Type Contract type was performance-based, FFP or more complex contract structure

Contract type was performance-based and FFP

Contract type was not performance based.

Provided support via Government Purchase Card or other non – contract means

Magnitude of Awarded Contract

$15M+ or 20+ FTEs

$10-15M+ or 15+ FTEs

$5-10M+ or 10+ FTEs

Less than $5M or less than 10 FTEs

Assessment of training performance and ability to meet objectives

Required substantial experience in assessing training and met objectives

Required some experience in assessing training and met objectives

Required minimal experience in assessing training and met objectives

No experience in training and did not meet objectives

Performance on SOF, DoD, other Federal Government requirements

Substantial SOF and / or DoD Support

Some SOF and / or DoD Support

Other Federal Government Support

Commercial Support Only

2.5. FACTOR 4. PRICE. Price will be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable utilizing the price analysis techniques found at FAR 15.404(b) and realistic. Price proposal evaluations will consider the basic price and all option year prices (including FAR 52.217-8 for the maximum potential extension period of 6 months) for a total overall evaluated Price.

The Government will roll-up CLIN/SubCLIN prices into an overall total price for the overall evaluated price. Price will not receive a color rating or score. The Government price team will evaluate Offeror’s price submission based on the following:

2.5.1. Reasonableness: Reasonableness will be determined by comparing the Offeror’s total price proposed to the total price proposed by the other Offerors. Comparisons will focus on the price of base period and all options combined.

Additionally, total proposed prices may be compared to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) to determine the reasonableness of price. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

2.5.2. Balance: The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced as defined under FAR 15.404-1 (g).

2.5.3. Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of the offerors labor rates/salary and fringe benefits to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep the highly qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must consider differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated based on of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent highly skilled service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.5.4. Options. As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the offeror’s final option period price to the offeror’s total price.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Twenty percent (20%) of the 6-month price will be added to the 6-month extention total for surge support. Travel is also included in the 6-month extension price.

2.5.5 Surge: Other than submitting hourly rates for surge support, offers shall not provide a surge total for each period of performance (PoP). The surge total for each PoP will be calculated by using 20% of the total for CLINs 0002, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 and the FAR 52.217-8 extension as reflected on Attachment 2 (Pricing Spreadsheet). The 20% surge total for each PoP will be calculated into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.5.6 Travel: The Government will provide a plug figure for travel to obtain the TEP. Please note that travel will be on a cost reimbursement basis only. G&A expenses are allowed, but not required. Offerors including G&A expenses shall input their the G&A rate that will be applied against the travel CLIN on the pricing spreadsheet (Attachment 2). The plug figure will be increased according to the G&A rate input into the spreadsheet and added included in the TEP. Offerors electing not to include their G&A rate on the travel CLINs shall not apply G&A expenses on travel invoices, if the offeror becomes the awardee. The Contractor will be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), FAR 31.205-46, and the limitation of funds specified in the contract.

2.5.7. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer provided to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Summary of Changes)