H9240819R0001-01_17Oct19.docx.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

Please see follow ing pages for amendments to this solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Oct-2019

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 H9240819R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Oct-2019

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, 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

17-Oct-2019

CODE

HQ USSOCOM

SOF AT&L-KF

7701 TAMPA POINT BLVD

TAMPA FL 33621-5323

H92408 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H9240819R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

252.225-7012 Preference For Certain Domestic Commodities DEC 2017

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A MEUAS IV CDRL

Portfolio

30 20-SEP-2019

Attachment 1 MEUAS IV PWS 55 01-OCT-2019

Attachment 2 MEUAS IV RESERVED 1 01-OCT-2019

Attachment 3 MEUAS IV CDP 9 28-AUG-2019

Attachment 4 MEUAS IV TO Guide 29 27-SEP-2019

Attachment I MEUAS IV Experience

Survey

1 01-OCT-2019

Attachment II MEUAS IV UCC 14 03-SEP-2019

Attachment III MEUAS IV WSMR Info 20 03-SEP-2019

Attachment IV MEUAS IV PP

Questionaire

5 18-JUL-2019

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A MEUAS IV CDRL

Portfolio

30 20-SEP-2019

Attachment 1 MEUAS IV PWS 55 15-OCT-2019

Attachment 2 MEUAS IV RESERVED 1 01-OCT-2019

Attachment 3 MEUAS IV UCC 14 03-SEP-2019

Attachment 4 MEUAS IV TO Guide 29 27-SEP-2019

Attachment I MEUAS IV Experience

Survey

1 01-OCT-2019

Attachment II MEUAS IV CDP 12 17-OCT-2019

Attachment III MEUAS IV WSMR Info 20 03-SEP-2019

Attachment IV MEUAS IV PP

Questionnaire

5 18-JUL-2019

Attachment V MEUAS IV QnAs 15 17-OCT-2019

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION L TEXT

L.1 Submission Requirements: Failure to comply with these instructions may result in an offeror’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award. The Government has attempted to identify and spell out acronyms and abbreviations throughout the solicitation at first use. An Abbreviation / Acronym List is also included in Section

J, Attachment 5.

L.1.1 Background: The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to establish one or more unpriced Indefinite-

Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for 24 hours per day, seven days per week (24/7) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) services at world-wide locations using Contractor-Owned, Contractor

Operated (COCO) Mid-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This solicitation supports Special Operations

Forces (SOF) requirements for runway independent, unmanned ISR solutions to gather and provide persistent, uninterrupted data. Operations at all sites are dependent on continuing mission requirements and subject to the availability of funds. The Government plans to operate at an estimated 13 sites.

L.1.2 Contracting Approach: This solicitation will utilize the Department of Defense (DoD) Class Deviation-

Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task- or Delivery-Order Contracts, DARS Tracking Number 2018-

O006, dated December 13, 2017. Therefore, prices will not be an evaluation factor; prices will be established for each contract line item number (CLIN) ordered at the task order level. The Government intends to award to each and all “Qualifying Offerors” as a result of this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contracts based upon the results of the proposal evaluations. The contract ordering period will be 60 months.

L.1.2.1 Multiple Platforms Proposed: Each successful offeror will have only one contract; however, the contract can have multiple approved platforms. Each offeror may submit one proposal that includes multiple platform solutions. Each multi-platform proposal shall consist of one Preliminary Qualifying Criteria Volume and separate stand-alone volumes for Factor 1. For example, if an offeror wants to submit a proposal with two different platforms, it would submit (1) one Preliminary Qualifying Criteria Volume and (2) two stand-alone Factor 1:

Technical Volumes. An Experience Survey must be included in each Factor 1: Technical Volume, even though the

Experience Surveys will be identical. Each volume will be evaluated individually and shall contain no cross referencing of any kind. In this example, if one Technical Volume (for Aircraft A) is found unacceptable, and one

Technical Volume (for Aircraft B) is found acceptable, then the evaluation will continue for Aircraft B only.

L.1.3. Solicitation Procedures: This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No hard copies will be mailed. Any amendments to the solicitation will be posted to www.fedbizopps.gov (FBO). It is the responsibility of each Offeror to review FBO for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection

27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. §§2191-2107) as implemented in the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and appropriate supplements. The proposal and corresponding program will be unclassified and treated as Source Selection Information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104). Classified information will not be accepted.

L.1.3.1 Responses: All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to all requirements of the solicitation. Each platform’s Technical Volume (including an Experience Survey) and the Past and Present

Performance Volume shall be stand-alone volumes self-sufficient for required information. Any commitments made in the proposal may be made a part of the resultant contract by reference thereto as though fully set forth therein.

Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding and/or ability to perform the contract. In no case shall words like “we will comply with the requirements of the contract”, or equivalent statements, be acceptable to meet the requirements of this RFP. However, the proposal shall include a declaration that acknowledges and accepts, without exceptions, all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. Offerors shall submit with their proposal(s) a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in an offeror’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award.

L.1.4 Proposal Submission Requirements: The complete proposal package will be due no later than October 31, 2019, 1500 Eastern. Failure to meet this due date will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to

Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions. Proposals must be valid for one calendar year from proposal due date.

L.1.4.1 Hand Carrying Instructions: Hand delivery is permitted by a person from an offeror’s staff. A messenger service delivering a package is not considered a hand delivery. All hand-carried proposal documents, to include CD-

ROMs/DVDs, shall be delivered to the address below. NOTE: Access to MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL is extremely limited and is highly discouraged. Military, retired military, or Government Identification Cards are required.

Offerors without independent access to military facilities shall provide a 24-hour notice to the Points of Contact

(POC) at the telephone numbers below to provide coordination of pending arrival. The KOs will meet the offeror at the visitor’s center at the main gate to MacDill AFB, FL at an arranged time and date.

USSOCOM – Directorate of Procurement (SOF AT&L-KF)

ATTN: Ms. Jennifer Metty, Contracting Officer

7701 Tampa Point Blvd, Building 306

MacDill AFB, FL 33621

Primary Telephone: (813) 826-7975

USSOCOM – Directorate of Procurement (SOF AT&L-KF)

ATTN: Ms. Tahnee Yon, Contracting Specialist

7701 Tampa Point Blvd, Building 306

MacDill AFB, FL 33621

Primary Telephone: (813) 826-3420

L.1.4.2 Traditional Mailing Instructions: Submit clearly marked proposals to:

USSOCOM – Directorate of Procurement (SORDAC-KF)

ATTN: Jennifer Metty and/or Tahnee Yon

Re: H92408-19-R-0001

7701 Tampa Point Boulevard

MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5323

L.1.4.3 Proposal Format: Format of the proposal volumes (and any resulting responses to Evaluations Notices

(ENs) shall be in accordance with Table L-1: Proposal Submission Format and the information in this section.

Volume Description Volume Electronic

Copies Electronic Page Limits

Preliminary Qualifying Criteria Volume 1 1 No page limit

Executive Summary Volume 2 1 Included in the page count for Volume 2A

Technical Volume 2A

(Subfactors 1-5) 1 45 pages + Resumes

Past and Present Performance

Volume 2B

(Subfactor 6)

20 pages + Exclusions noted below in L.2.2.8

Table L-1: Proposal Submission Format

a. Proposal Volumes shall be submitted in electronic format on one CD-ROM/DVD, read-only memory. Both a searchable Adobe PDF and a Microsoft Office 2013 compatible version of all proposal documents shall be submitted. Compatibility to Microsoft Office 2013 is the offeror’s responsibility. The

Government will perform a virus scan on all electronic files/CDs provided by the Offerors. Any submittal failing the virus scan will be immediately rejected and returned to the Offeror.

b. Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 12 point, uncompressed font.

c. Pages shall be 8-1/2” x 11” single sided, single spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides. Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume.

d. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

e. Elaborate format and color representations are not desirable.

f. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11” by 17” in size. Fold out pages shall count as two pages. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman or Arial, 10 point font size.

g. All sub-volumes (one for each subfactor) will be submitted as separate files. Each file shall include a cover page. The cover page will not be included in the page count.

h. Evaluation Notice (EN) Responses and Proposal Revisions: EN Responses and any pages that are changed as the result of proposal revision should be of a different color font (as specified by the KO) and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the left margin of the page and/or circling if changing data in a chart. The offeror shall indicate the new date on revised pages. EN responses and proposal revisions shall be responded to electronically. Responses can be submitted via the Safe Access

File Exchange (SAFE). The Getting Started Guide for SAFE can be accessed at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx. An alternate electronic submission method can be pre-approved by the KO.

L.1.5 Questions: All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Office. No direct discussion between the technical representative and a prospective offeror will be conducted unless it is deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Prime offerors should consolidate questions and input from its team members or partners and submit a consolidated set of questions. Offerors may submit questions to the KO at any time; however, questions received after the date specified in the www.fedbizopps.gov posting may not be answered prior to the RFP closing date referenced in Block

9 of the SF33.

Questions shall be sent to the following point of contact:

Jennifer Metty

Jennifer.metty@socom.mil

7701 Tampa Point Blvd

Tampa, FL 33621

L.1.6 Proposal Preparation Cost: The RFP does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the development or submission of any proposal or related to the offeror’s capability demonstration.

mailto:Jennifer.metty@socom.mil

L.2 Contents of Proposal

L.2.1 Volume 1 – Preliminary Qualifying Criteria: Volume 1 shall be organized and submitted IAW Section

L.1.4.

L.2.1.1 Facility Clearance & DD254: The Facility Clearance & DD254 will be addressed at the task order level.

L.2.1.2 Contract Forms and Certifications: Contract forms and certifications shall include the following data in the format indicated:

Section 1 – Proposal cover letter or proposal cover page shall reference the solicitation number and acknowledge that it transmits an offer in response to solicitation H92408-19-R-0001. The cover letter shall contain:

• Company/division’s street address, county and facility code

• Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number

• DUNS number

• Tax Identification Number (TIN)

• Size of business (large or small) as it pertains to NAICS 541330, and if applicable: socio-economic category and labor surplus area or HUB Zone designation

• Name, address and telephone number of the cognizant DCAA office

• Name, address and telephone number of the cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer

(ACO)

• Name, address and telephone number of Government Payment Office

• Names, telephone (office and cell) numbers, and email addresses of persons authorized to conduct negotiations

• Verification of current “active” registration with no active exclusions and properly registered for

NAICS code 541330 in the System for Award Management (SAM)

Section 2 – A conformed copy of this RFP with the original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33. The offeror shall complete the following sections within the RFP:

• Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 33), Blocks 12- 18

• All Section K, Representations, Certifications and Disclosures

• The demonstration plan attachments shall be completed per the instructions found in the demonstration plan.

• Any/all fill-ins requiring contractor input/information

L.2.2 Volume 2 – Factor 1: Technical: The offeror shall submit one complete and stand-alone Technical Volume for each platform proposed. Each volume shall be submitted and will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria in

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

L.2.2.1 Cross Referencing: Each subvolume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes/subvolumes of the proposal. When submitting multiple technical volumes (for multiple platforms), each proposal will stand on its own merit and not contain cross-reference materials to any other volume. The offeror shall complete and include the cross-reference matrix (Table L-2) indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to Section L and Section M. Place the Cross Reference

Matrix after the List of Table and Figures within the technical volume.

Volume 2 – Factor 1: Technical

PWS

Reference(s)

Section L

Reference(s)

Section M

Reference(s)

Proposal

Reference(s)

Subfactor 1, Experience Not applicable L.2.2.3 M.2.2.1

Volume 2 – Factor 1: Technical

PWS

Reference(s)

Section L

Reference(s)

Section M

Reference(s)

Proposal

Reference(s)

Subfactor 2, Unmanned Air Vehicle

Performance

3.2 - 3.3, 3.5 L.2.2.4 M.2.2.2

Subfactor 3, Payload Performance 3.4 - 3.6 L.2.2.5 M.2.2.3

Subfactor 4, Logistics 3.1, 3.7, 3.10 L.2.2.6 M.2.2.4

Subfactor 5, Program Management 3.1, 3.7-3.9, 3.11 L.2.2.7 M.2.2. 5

Appendix 1: Key Personnel PWS 3.1 L.2.2.7 M.2.2.5

Subfactor 6, Past and Present Performance Not applicable L.2.2.8 M.2.2.6

Table L-2: Cross Referencing

L.2.2.2 Volume 2 - Executive Summary: The executive summary section shall contain a concise summary of the offeror’s proposed approach to the MEUAS IV effort. The table of contents, title page, and acronym lists, are not included in the page count. The Executive Summary shall include a declaration statement that acknowledges how the proposed solution meets or exceeds the MEUAS IV Performance Work Specifications (PWS) requirements.

L.2.2.3 Volume 2 – Technical Subfactor 1, Experience: Sub-volume 1 will consist of a completed one-page

Experience Survey. See Section J, Attachment I. The Experience Survey is not included in the page count.

L.2.2.4 Volume 2A - Technical Subfactor 2, Unmanned Air Vehicle Performance: Each sub-volume 2 shall provide a comprehensive Air Vehicle (AV) capabilities description addressing how the proposed AV meets or exceeds requirements in PWS Paragraph 3. The offeror shall describe the proposed air vehicle (AV) hardware and software, identifying key design features associated with each subsystem (including the launch and recovery system), and any interfaces between them, and their technical maturity levels. The offeror shall substantiate predicted performance levels and include a description of any key assumptions used in the analysis and a basis for the assumptions.

L.2.2.5 Volume 2A - Technical Subfactor 3, Payload Performance: Each sub-volume 3 shall provide a comprehensive payload capabilities description addressing how the proposed payload/configuration meets or exceeds PWS requirements for simultaneous Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) and Electronic Warfare (EW) in PWS

3.4 - 3.6. The offeror shall expand on the payload hardware and software, identifying key design features, interfaces, and technical maturity levels. The offeror shall substantiate predicted performance levels and include a description of any key assumptions used in the analysis and a basis for the assumptions.

L.2.2.6 Volume 2A - Technical Subfactor 4, Logistics: Each sub-volume 4 shall provide a comprehensive

Logistics plan addressing how the proposal meets or exceeds requirements in PWS Paragraph 3. The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the logistical requirements associated with providing OCONUS continuous ISR services by providing a detailed explanation of the processes proposed to conduct pre-deployment, deployment, sustainment, and post-deployment actions for personnel and equipment. The offeror shall substantiate predicted performance levels and include a description of any key assumptions used in the analysis and a basis for the assumptions.

L.2.2.7 Volume 2A - Technical Subfactor 5, Program Management: Each sub-volume 5 shall provide 24/7 operations, UAS maintenance and spares, personnel management and pre- and post-deployment. The offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the Government’s requirements by providing its approach to meet all PWS service requirements in support of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), pre- and post-deployment, transition of sites, maintenance (to include spares and repairs), and personnel requirements. The offeror shall describe the proposed organizational structure, key personnel and management processes to be used to support operations. The offeror shall describe the experience requirements for each deployed position, how it will train personnel and maintain their proficiency. The offeror shall also describe how it will rotate personnel and what practices it will implement to motivate and retain personnel. Finally, the offeror shall highlight any proposed enhanced flexibilities and/or efficiencies in supporting mission requirements. The offeror shall provide resumes in

Volume 2, Appendix 1 for Key Personnel identified in SOFARS 5652.237-9001.

The offeror shall include its current/historical reliability metrics. For any proposed new systems/subsystems (less than 1,000 hours in same configuration), a designed-to number along with supporting engineering rational shall be provided in addition to actuals. For all systems, a maintenance model will be included along with any reliability metrics to show the offeror’s approach for incorporating logistical and sustainment considerations into the services model in order to determine if the proposal meets requirements.

L.2.2.8 Volume 2B – Technical Subfactor 6, Past and Present Performance: All requirements in this volume apply to both large and small businesses.

.Each sub-volume 6 shall provide:

• Table of Contents

• A list of all major* subcontractors, teaming partner, and joint venture partners. Cage Codes and

DUNs numbers, if assigned

• Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information

Sheets (PPIS) IAW paragraph L.2.2.7.1 below

• PPIS IAW paragraph L.2.2.7.1 below

• Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. These letters will be excluded from the page limit for Volume 2, Subfactor 6.

• Organization Structure Change History IAW paragraph L.2.2.8.4.1 below. This narrative will be excluded from the page limit for Volume 2, subfactor 6.

• Letters of Intent for proposed subcontractors/teaming partners/joint ventures. These letters will be excluded from the page limit for Volume 2, subfactor 6.

• The offeror shall provide either a copy of the results from the latest approved purchasing system review by the cognizant DCMA office or an explanation as to why the offeror does not have a recent approval (within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this RFP). This item will be excluded from the page limit for Volume 2, subfactor 6.

* “Major” is defined as those subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint ventures who are projected to perform 25% or more of the total contract effort

L.2.2.8.1 Past and Present Performance Information Sheets (PPIS): Submit information on contracts considered recent and relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) and a minimum of three (3) PPIS identifying active or completed contracts that may include task and delivery orders for each contract they are submitting for themselves, and a maximum of three (3) and a minimum of one (1) PPIS for each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use the information provided by each offeror in this volume and information obtained from other sources for the overall evaluation of past and present performance. The offeror shall provide references including current point of contacts (POCs) for each contract identified. Contact information for each POC and reference shall include both a current phone number and e-mail address.

The Government prefers submission of recent Government contracts that have performance information in the

Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) but will evaluate all efforts submitted.

Prime Offerors shall not submit past performance information sheets on a subcontractor/teaming partner/joint ventures that are not expected to perform on this contract. Prime Offerors shall include a Letter of Intent, in the

Offeror's format, for those subcontractor/teaming partners/joint ventures in which they are submitting past performance information sheets.

The PPIS shall include the following information:

• Company/division’s street address, county, and facility code

• Contract title

• Prime contract #

• Identify offeror’s role (e.g., prime, 1st tier subcontractor) under this contract

• Description of the overall effort and the nature of the work performed

• Award amount

• Total contract value

• Contract type

• Award date

• Government/industry contact points (i.e., contracting officers, Government program managers, administrative contracting officers, etc.)

• Phone number, FAX number, and e-mail address of contacts

• Delivery date/period of performance

• Place of performance

• Major subcontractors with associated business size/small business category

• Provide a narrative for each contract or subcontract listed. Explain the nature of the work involved and the extent the work involved was or is similar to the MEUAS IV effort in terms of operations, contract scope, schedule, and risk

• Provide a description of how the contract was managed internally and externally utilizing outside organization coordination to include but not limited to Security clearances, Travel to OCONUS, DBA Insurance, SOFA/DOCPERS, etc.

• Explain the recruitment, hiring, and retention plans, processes, successes, etc., to include the average washout rate the Offeror experienced (# of recruits / actual employees hired, retained, etc.)

• Narrative Statement why the contract is relevant to this solicitation

• Information on problems encountered and the offeror’s corrective actions

• Identify what organization the effort was in direct support of (i.e., SOF Communities, Department of Defense (DoD), Government Agencies, Conventional Forces, etc.)

• For Prime Offerors, discuss the percentage of subcontracted work and how it was managed to ensure continuity and completion of work

L.2.2.8.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ): The offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) PPQs to the points of contact for each contract identified under paragraph L.2.2.8.1 for completion. Preferred points of contact are, in order of descending preference, Program Manager, Procuring Contracting Officer, Technical or Engineering lead, and Administrative Contracting Officer. Points of contact may also include end users, Government agency and or commercial customers, and Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The completed questionnaire shall submitted directly via e-mail from the points of contact to Mrs. Jennifer Metty at jennifer.metty@socom.mil and

Tahnee Yon at tahnee.yon@socom.mil as specified in the document.

The offeror is responsible for distributing the questionnaires. Once PPQ’s are completed by the identified points of contact, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection information and shall not be released.

L.2.2.8.3 Recency: In determining “recency,” the Government defines “recency” as contracts performed, all or in part, during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

L.2.2.8.4 Relevancy: Relevancy will be evaluated IAW Section M.2.2.6.2.

L.2.2.8.4.1 Organizational Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. In order to facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company to include changes in CAGE code and DUNS.

As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts identified for the past performance evaluation and performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror, the "roadmap" shall be both specifically applicable to the efforts submitted in this volume and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

(end)

SECTION L TEXT

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION M TEXT

M.1 Basis of Contract Award: This section outlines the criteria and methodology the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for this effort. This is a competitive source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215 and Special Operations Command Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (SOFARS) Part 5615. DoD Deviation 2018-O0006 will be utilized and as such, this source selection evaluation will be considered “Unpriced Technically Acceptable” (UTA) with all Qualifying Offerors receiving an award.

M.1.1 IDIQ Minimum Guarantee: The minimum guarantee for each IDIQ awarded is $1,500.00. The Government intends to issue a task order concurrent with each base contract for the purpose of “Kick-Off Meeting Attendance.”

M.1.2 General Information

M.1.2.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government will award contracts to all Qualifying Offerors.

M.1.2.2 Rejection of Unacceptable Offers: The Government may determine any proposal unacceptable that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments or contract terms and conditions such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. When a proposal is rejected, it will not be evaluated any further and the offeror will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.1.2.3 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any ambiguity that would affect an evaluation rating. If any aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range and its proposal not evaluated any further. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being determined non-responsive to the RFP and eliminated without further evaluation.

M.1.3 Overall Evaluation Process: This evaluation process will be multi-step, but there is no one-to-one correspondence between each step and a particular volume in a proposal. Step One will be an evaluation, on an responsive/non-responsive basis, of the Preliminary Qualifying Criteria in Volume 1 and the Experience Survey in

Volume 2. All offerors receiving a “Responsive” rating will move to the next step in the evaluation process. Step

Two will be the MEUAS IV Capabilities Demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. All offerors receiving an “Acceptable” rating will move to the next step in the evaluation process. Step Three will be the evaluation of Volume 2: Technical. All offerors receiving an “Acceptable” rating will move to the next step in the evaluation process. Lastly, Step Four will be a determination of which offerors meet the criteria of “Qualifying

Offerors.”

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c), the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range after each

“Step” including only the proposals that met the criteria of that step.

The Government intends to make an award to each and all Qualifying Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contracts depending on the results of the evaluation. Additionally, while the evaluation process is organized in steps, the Government reserves the right to concurrently evaluate Step Two and Step Three after Step One is completed and conduct the Responsibility Determination throughout in order to maximize schedule efficiency. However, final decision(s) regarding any written technical volumes will not be rendered until Step Three is active and the Responsibility Determination will not be decided until Step 4 is active.

M.1.3.1 Qualifying Offeror: As stated in B.1, above, a Qualifying Offeror is defined as an offeror that: (i) is determined to be a responsible source under FAR subpart 9.1; (ii) submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (iii) and would not be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing during fair opportunity competitions for task orders. The contracting officer will consult the System for

Award Management to determine whether an offeror has a history of defective pricing and no approved accounting system. Offerors with no history of defective pricing and an approved accounting system will be deemed not to be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing during fair opportunity competitions for task orders.

M.1.3.2 Step One: This step will be an evaluation of the Preliminary Qualifying Criteria, including the Experience

Survey(s) of each proposal to determine responsiveness to the solicitation with respect to the Preliminary Qualifying

Criteria and acceptability with respect to the Experience subfactor. A responsive offeror with an acceptable level of experience shall meet all the submission requirements of Sections L.2.1 and L.2.2.3, including affirmative answers

(“Yes”) for all questions, as well as the name of the Offeror and supporting contract(s) inserted on the Experience

Survey.

M.1.3.3 Step Two: This step will be an evaluation of platform capabilities demonstrated during the MEUAS IV

Capabilities Demonstration at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico. Each platform participating the Capabilities Demonstration will earn an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating. In order to be evaluated as

“Acceptable” the Offeror must be able to successfully demonstrate all criteria found within the Mid-Endurance

Unmanned Aircraft System (MEUAS) IV Capabilities Demonstration Plan provided as Section J, Attachment II.

The platform demonstrated during Step Two must be the same platform and configuration as proposed in Volume 2:

Technical.

M.1.3.4 Step Three: With the exception of sub-volume 1, Experience Survey, this step will be the evaluation of

Volume 2 of the proposal in accordance with the criteria established in Section M.2, Evaluation Criteria.

M.1.3.4.1 Discussions: Discussions may be conducted; however, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The scope and extent of discussions are a solely matter of Government judgment.

M.1.3.5 Step Four: Step Four will include contracting officer conducting a responsibility determination IAW FAR

9.1. The Source Selection Authority will make a determination of which offerors meet the criteria of a Qualifying

Offeror in accordance with this RFP.

M.1.4 Award: The Government intends to award a task order to all awardees in conjunction with the base contract and will satisfy the minimum guaranteed purchase amount. This task order will subsidize travel to Tampa, Florida for a “Kick-Off Meeting”. See clause H.1 of the RFP.

M.1.5 Debriefings: The PCO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or otherwise eliminate them from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. An offeror desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

M.2 Evaluation Criteria

VOLUME DESCRIPTION VOLUME FACTOR RATING

Preliminary Qualifying Criteria Volume 1 Responsive/Non-Responsive

Capabilities Demonstration Acceptable/Unacceptable

Technical Volume 2 Factor 1

Experience Sub-Volume 1 Subfactor 1 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Unmanned Air Vehicle Performance Sub-Volume 2 Subfactor 2 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Payload Performance Sub-Volume 3 Subfactor 3 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Logistics Sub-Volume 4 Subfactor 4 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Program Management Sub-Volume 5 Subfactor 5 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Past and Present Performance Sub-Volume 6 Subfactor 6 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Table M-1: Volume Rating Criteria

M.2.1 Volume 1 – Preliminary Qualifying Criteria: Preliminary Qualifying Criteria will be determined

“Responsive” or “Nonresponsive”. If all the Preliminary Qualifying Criteria are met, the offeror will be determined as “Responsive” and invited to the MEUAS IV Capabilities Demonstration. The offeror shall indicate that it is eligible for a Government contract based on the offeror’s proposal regarding all the submission requirements of

Section L.2.1.

M.2.1.1 Facility Clearance & DD254: The Facility Clearance & DD254 will be addressed at the task order level.

M.2.1.2 Contract Forms and Certifications:

M.2.1.2.1 System for Award Management (SAM) Compliance: SAM must reveal the following: an “active” registration status, have no active exclusions and be properly registered for North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) code 541330, Engineering Services.

M.2.1.2.2 Format Requirements: The offeror has complied with the proposal format submission requirements in

L.1.4.3.

M.2.1.2.3 Representations, Certifications, Forms, and Other Statements: All documents required by the Request for Proposal (RFP) are completed as required.

M.2.2 Volume 2 – Technical: The Technical Factor will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The

Technical Factor is divided into six subfactors which will be evaluated using the criteria below. Table M-2 below provides cross references between the PWS, Section L Instructions to Offerors and Section M Evaluation Factors for

Award. To be considered technically acceptable each subfactor submission must earn an “Acceptable” rating.

Technical Performance PWS References (includes all sub-paragraphs)

Section L

Reference

Section M

Reference

Subfactor 1: Experience Not Applicable L.2.2.3 M.2.2.1

Subfactor 2: Unmanned Air Vehicle

Performance

PWS 3.2 – 3.3, 3.5 L.2.2.4 M.2.2.2

Subfactor 3: Payload Performance PWS 3.4 – 3.6 L.2.2.5 M.2.2.3

Subfactor 4: Logistics PWS 3.1, 3.7, 3.10 L.2.2.6 M.2.2.4

Subfactor 5: Program Management PWS 3.1, 3.7 - 3.9, 3.11 L.2.2.7 M.2.2.5

Appendix 1: Key Personnel PWS 3.1 L.2.2.7 M.2.2.5

Subfactor 6: Past and Present

Performance Not Applicable L.2.2.8 M.2.2.6

Table M-2: Volume 2 – Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix

M.2.2.1 Technical Subfactor 1: Experience: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror has the requisite experience necessary to successfully complete task orders with acceptable risk on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by observing “Yes” to both questions and reviewing the contract(s) listed as support for the answers. A “No” answer to either question or failure to list the required contract(s) will result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive, and the proposal will not be evaluated beyond Step One.

M.2.2.2 Technical Subfactor 2: Air Vehicle Performance: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposed solution meets the applicable PWS requirements. All references to previous iterations or versions of the proposed platform are restricted to the Past and Present Performance Subfactor submission. The Technical subvolume for Subfactor 2, shall only include information and data directly related to the platform proposed to clearly indicate the capabilities of the MEUAS IV version of the solution.

M.2.2.3 Technical Subfactor 3: Payload Performance: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposed solution meets the applicable PWS requirements. All references to other past or present contracts utilizing the proposed payload(s), as well as, previous iterations or versions of the proposed payload(s) are restricted to the Past and Present Performance Subfactor submission. The Technical Volume, Subfactor 3 submission shall only include information and data directly related to the payload(s) proposed to clearly indicate the capabilities of the MEUAS IV version of the solution.

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal demonstrates understanding of and meets the performance Standard (STD) and Acquisition Quality Level (AQL) for all

Threshold requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Air Vehicle and

Payload subfactors under Volume 2 – Technical Factor.

To be considered Acceptable, the proposal shall demonstrate a complete understanding of each

Threshold requirement by clearly stating the capabilities of the platform relative to the Threshold requirements, as well as, providing a detailed technical explanation of the personnel, equipment, and method proposed to meet each requirement. The proposal shall identify any combination of factors that would limit performance, such as geography, density altitude, weather, minimum storage and operating space, frequency/bandwidth authority, and payload considerations.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal does not demonstrate a complete acceptable understanding of and/or does not meet the performance Standard (STD) and

Acquisition Quality Level (AQL) for all Threshold requirements listed in the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) for air vehicle and payload subfactors under Volume 2, Factor 1 Technical.

The proposal does not demonstrate a complete understanding of each Threshold requirement. The proposal does not provide a detailed technical explanation of the personnel, equipment, and method needed to meet each Threshold requirement.

The proposal does not clearly identify any factors that would limit performance.

Table M-3: Volume 2A - Technical Subfactors 2 and 3 Rating Definitions

M.2.2.4 Technical Subfactor 4: Logistics: Under this subfactor the Government will evaluate the offeror’s

Technical Volume 2, Subfactor 4 and assess if the proposal meets PWS requirements and whether the proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements (Table M-4).

M.2.2.5 Technical Subfactor 5: Program Management: Under this subfactor the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Volume 2, Subfactor 5 for ISR Services and assess if the proposal meets PWS requirements and whether the proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements (Table M-4).

Volume 2, Appendix 1 shall include resumes for Key Personnel identified in SOFARS 5652.237-9001.

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal demonstrates an understanding of and meets the performance Standard (STD) and Acquisition Quality Level

(AQL) for all requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Logistics and

Program Management subfactors under Volume 2 – Technical Factor.

To be considered Acceptable, the proposal must demonstrate a full understanding of each requirement by providing a detailed explanation of the personnel and processes needed:

A detailed explanation of personnel shall include but is not limited to the number of personnel needed to meet each requirement, personnel position descriptions utilized, personnel experience, training and certifications, and security clearances needed.

A detailed explanation of process needs shall include but is not limited to descriptions and schedules of personnel training and qualification (including site lead and mission coordinator position descriptions), pre- deployment site survey (PDSS) procedures and reports, timelines/milestones and procedures for OCONUS equipment and personnel transportation, a site standard operating procedure template, a monthly status report template, telemetry report template, and mishap report templates.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal does not demonstrate a complete understanding of and/or does not meet the performance Standard (STD) and

Acquisition Quality Level (AQL) for all requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) for Logistics and Program Management subfactors under Volume 2, Factor 1 Technical.

The proposal does not demonstrate a complete understanding of each requirement. The proposal does not provide a detailed explanation of the personnel and processes needed.

Table M-4: Volume 2A- Technical Subfactors 4 and 5 Rating Definitions

M.2.2.6 Technical Subfactor 6: Past and Present Performance

M.2.2.6.1 Ratings: The past performance evaluation will be an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. The performance assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the information obtained from the offeror and quality assessments obtained from all other sources.

This assessment is based on the record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The team will evaluate each proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable as defined in table M-5 below.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table M-5: Volume 2B – Technical Subfactor 6 Rating Definitions

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.

M.2.2.6.2 Relevancy: For prime offerors “Relevancy” is defined as contracts and or subcontracts performed that are most similar to this overall effort in terms of the general scope of work and magnitude of effort. For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners/joint ventures, “relevancy” is defined by that which reflects the area of expertise the subcontractor has performed/is performing and is projected to actually perform under this contract, (i.e. specific areas in the SOW/labor categories). A relevant magnitude of effort would be a contract value averaging at least $50 million per year. A relevant scope of work may include but is not limited to efforts such as Department of Defense

COCO ISR services and/or GOCO ISR Services requiring integration and management of Government payloads, and overseas logistics support network experience. Please note that Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts that meet the examples above with no operational task orders awarded are not considered favorably for relevance. The Government will perform an independent analysis in determining the relevancy of a contract (task order) based on the data provided and/or obtained. Table M-6 outlines the criteria that will be used for evaluating contract relevance.

Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this…