H9821019R0011_Amd_1.pdf

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

Y

PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-May-2019

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(Ifapplicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE H98210 7. ADMINISTERED BY (Ifother than item 6) CODE

DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE,

SUITE 06J25-01

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-4000

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

H9821019R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Apr-2019

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt ofthis amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one ofthe following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies ofthe amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt ofthis amendment on each copy ofthe offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegramwhich 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. Ifby virtue ofthis amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegramor letter, provided each telegramor 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.)

The purpose of this modification is to:

A. Provide the attached responses to questions received from industry.

B. Replace Attachment A Evaluation Factors, criteria, and Rating methods in its entirety.

C. Extend proposal due date and time from 10:00 AM May 15, 2019 to May 24, 2019 12:00 PM.

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

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

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

30-105-04 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

H9821019R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-May-2019 10:00 AM to 23-May-2019 12:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

1.0. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with the factors and criteria established in the evaluation criteria and in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The criteria provide the basis upon which each evaluation will be based, are established before receipt of the proposals, and are intended to ensure that the evaluation will be a structured process employing equitable measures. Proposals will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach, to the responsible Offeror whose offer is considered the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

1.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary.

1.3 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Technical.

2.1.1. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. There are many aspects which may affect an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements to include technical approach, risk, management approach, personnel qualifications, facilities, small business participation and others. The evaluation of risk is related to the technical assessment.

2.1.2. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed as one aspect of the technical factor rating.

2.1.3. Any proposal receiving a rating of “Marginal or “Unacceptable” is deemed to have a risk that is so high that award cannot be made against the proposal and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

Attachment A: Evaluation Factors, Criteria, and Rating Methods

2.2. Past Performance.

2.2.1. “Offerors are advised that the Government may use all data provided by the Offeror in this proposal and data obtained from other sources, including, but not limited to, other DHRA contracts and information from Government repositories (e.g., Contractor Performance and Reporting System (CPARS). The Past Performance Evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, based on past performance information. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is assessed as an overall factor after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical factors and cost or price.

2.2.2. Recency refers to the state or quality of being current. The more recent the contract, the greater the likelihood that the offeror has the capacity to perform in a like manner. Information regarding contract performance that is recent and has a logical connection with the matter under consideration indicates relevancy.

2.2.3 Relevancy to will be determined by examining the reference in the following manner: (1) Similarity of services, (2) Complexity, (3) Dollar Value, (4) Contract Type, and (5) Experience with translating the English language into a different language at the appropriate ILR levels.

The Government will evaluate the complexity in relation to managing the development of an online training product focusing on Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture (LREC) subject matter. The Government will focus on the ability to manage a project that relies heavily on information collection and analysis, but also has the capability to perform challenging tasks with language translation to the necessary Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) levels.

Per the solicitation the Government will not evaluate the past performance or price for any proposal receiving a technical rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable”

3.0. EVALUATION FACTOR CRITERIA

3.1. Criteria for Technical Factor

Element A: Technical Approach and Methodology

i. The Offeror must clearly demonstrate that they have the adequate capabilities to develop an online culture and language training product of this magnitude in accordance with the performance work statement. The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s capabilities based on depth and thoroughness of the proposal. The proposal must include a plan or methodology for meeting the requirements in accordance with the performance work statement, not just state that the Offeror is able to meet the requirements.

ii. PWS 4.1.1. The Government will evaluate the methodology the Offeror states in the proposal to meet the language requirement in accordance with the PWS. The Offeror must demonstrate its capability to translate the English language to the target language at the appropriate levels.

iii. PWS 4.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s stated ability and procedures to analyze scenarios and identify the competencies found in the Adaptive Readiness for Culture (ARC) model. The Government will ensure that the Offeror’s proposal issues a plan to map the competencies from the interactions to the ARC model.

Element B: Program and Project Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide complete program management support that fully integrates, manages, controls and documents all phases of contract requirements. The project management plan must demonstrate the Offerors support throughout the project development cycle. The project management plan must demonstrate the ability to collect, analyze, and identify phases described under PWS 4.2/4.2.1, and the translation phases of the project described under PWS 4.1.1./4.2.2. The Offeror must be able to document the development progress to include thorough feedback for interim project reviews as well as throughout product testing.

Element C: Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan with focus on the experience of the Scientist, the Senior Scientist, and the Target Language SME(s). The Government will evaluate management experience and the offerors proposed plan to oversee proper staffing. The Government will concentrate on the capabilities of the Scientists with regards to their experience and knowledge of the Adaptive Readiness for Culture model, and the DoD culture learning programs (PWS 4.2.1.). The Government will evaluate the staffing plan to ensure that the proposal identifies the Target Language SME(s) necessary to translate and develop the script and narration of the product into the necessary ILR levels (PWS 4.2.2./4.1.1.).

3.2. Criteria for Past Performance Factor Confidence Assessment. The Government will conduct a performance evaluation based upon the past performance of the offerors performing major or critical aspects of the requirement as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements.

3.2.1. The Government will consider each offeror’s demonstrated, current, relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirement. Contracts completed within the last 3 years from the date of solicitation issuance shall be considered recent.

3.2.2. In conducting the performance risk evaluation, the Government may use data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources it considers current and accurate, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

3.3. Criteria for Price Factor. This factor will be evaluated utilizing proposal analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1. The analysis will be conducted on the total price of the basic contract to include the base and option periods.

i) The Government anticipates adequate price competition will establish fair and reasonable price, however the Government may use one or more of the following price analysis techniques to determine price reasonableness:

• Comparison of prices to other price proposals.

• Comparison of proposed prices to the independent government cost estimate.

• Review of commercially published pricing for similar services to requirements in this RFP.

• Review of current or recent contract pricing arrived at through competitive procedures for services similar to those in this RFP.

ii) Price Evaluation Approach: The Government will evaluate price for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including the government ceiling travel amount for the base period and all options. The Offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation shall be calculated by adding the total price for the base period, 1st Option Period, 2nd Option Period, 3rd Option Period, 4th Option Period plus the six months option to extend services per FAR clause 52.217-8. The optional six month period shall be calculated by adding one-half of the fourth option period price.

iii) Proposed price will be reviewed to determine if the price is adequate, complete, and reasonable to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the Solicitation.

4.0. ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated based on best value to the Government using the trade-off approach. For this solicitation, factors are listed below in descending order of importance. Price will be evaluated separately and will not be scored.

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

4.2. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than price.

5.0. RATING METHODS

5.1. Technical Factor: One of the following ratings will be assigned:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated and adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Any proposal receiving this rating will not be further evaluated.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the RFQ, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Any proposal receiving this rating will not be further evaluated.

5.2. Past Performance Factor – Recency, Relevancy and Confidence Assessment:

5.2.1 Recency: an assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. Recency will receive a rating of either “RECENT” or “NOT RECENT” as shown in the table below.

One of the following Recency ratings will be assigned:

RECENCY ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

RECENT

Performance was provided within the past years 5 years (Based on the issue date of this RFP.)

NOT RECENT

Performance was provided outside of the past 5 years (Based on the issue date of this RFP.)

5.2.2. Relevancy: The Government will review attachment B and evaluate relevancy to the products/services performed under those contracts to determine if they relate to the Performance Work Statement and assign one of the following relevancy ratings. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offerors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance information will be deemed “very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant or not relevant.

One of the following Relevancy ratings will be assigned:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires as outlined in section 2.2.3 of the evaluation factors.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires as outlined in section 2.2.3 of the evaluation factors.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires as outlined in section 2.2.3 of the evaluation factors.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires as outlined in section 2.2.3.

5.2.2. The combination of relevancy and recency, and performance documented by the information collected by the Government, results in the selection of a performance confidence assessment as outlined below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

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

5.3. Price Factor: Price proposals will not be rated.

(End of Summary of Changes)