HC1028-14-R-0019-0002.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

AMD 0002 CONTINUATION PAGE

a. The purpose of this amendment (AMD) is to update section 1 and sub-section 1.1.1 of FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation---commercial items; to attach a revised appendix B, performance specifications; to attach a revised attachment 1, bid format sheet; to respond to remaining contractor questions; and to cut-off the timeframe for questions.

b. FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation---Commercial items, sections 1 and 1.1.1 are updated as a result of additional RFP review. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for offeror reference.

c. Appendix B, performance specifications, is attached to the RFP. The version attached by AMD 0001 was not the full version and this AMD (AMD 0002) is attaching the correct version in full.

d. Attachment 1, bid format sheet, has been updated to include additional product. The most recent attachment 1 must be submitted with the offerors proposal.

e. Responses to remaining offeror questions are released.

f. No additional offeror questions will be entertained by the government upon execution of this AMD.

g. All other terms and conditions of this RFP remain unchanged.

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) 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. This evaluation will be completed using the best-value- trade-off methodology and the following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1 Evaluation Process

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will strictly adhere to FAR 15.3, Source Selection (SS) procedures, DFARS 215.3, DoD SS Procedures, Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS) 15.3, DISA Supplemental SS Procedures and the evaluation process and criteria stated in the solicitation during evaluation of proposals.

Evaluation of proposals will begin after proposals have been received, logged, and validated. Proposal evaluation may be performed in a single facility, or evaluators may be housed at other Government facilities at any time during the evaluation period. The Government will exercise the utmost care to protect the integrity of the SS process.

This requirement will be evaluated based on the offeror’s technical/management approach, past performance, business size, and cost/price and will be supported by narrative findings. The technical/management approach ratings will reflect the degree to which the proposed technical/management approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance/capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal for the technical/management approach subfactors. The past performance factor narrative will describe the relevance, recent history, quality, size, and contract value of the offeror’s past work. The business size factor will evaluate small business (SB) participation through verification of business size based on the SBA-published size standards for North American industry classification system code 337215, if the offeror is a SB – OR – the percentage of SB participation outlined in the SB subcontracting plan, if the offeror is a large business (LB). The cost/price factor will require a narrative summary that addresses all aspects of the offeror’s cost/price proposal.

A contract will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represents the “best value” to the Government, as discussed in this section. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors outlined below:

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

Subfactor 1: Personnel Qualifications

Subfactor 2: Technical/Management Approach to Task Scenarios

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Business Size Factor 4: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

· technical management approach and past performance are equal in value and more important than business size. When combined the non- cost factors are significantly more important than cost/price.

· Within the technical/management approach factor, the subfactors are of equal importance and will be evaluated independently by subfactor; elements under each subfactor will not be evaluated independently of the subfactor and will not be assigned their own rating.

1.1 Technical/Management Approach Factor

Technical Management Rating. The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the technical/management rating and the technical/management risk rating.

Technical/Management factors will include the offeror’s ability to perform the work in both the CONUS and OCONUS. The offeror’s technical/management approach shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirement, and the proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to provide prompt, initial, phased, and continued staffing with skilled, technically qualified personnel, possessing the required security clearances and certifications. The SSEB will not roll up the subfactor evaluations to the factor level. The technical/management factor reflects the degree to which the proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the technical/management factor or subfactor minimum performance or capability requirements as identified in the PWS and factor/subfactor descriptions below. The technical/management rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. This evaluation will cover the offeror’s compliance with the evaluation factors/subfactors identified below as they relate to the PWS. Each technical/management factor or subfactor will receive one of the color ratings defined in the DoD SS Procedures based on the assessed strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the proposal.

Basis for Award – The technical/management approach will focus on the offeror’s ability to provide the related services as outlined in section 6.0 of the PWS.

Subfactor 1: Personnel Qualifications

Provide generic key personnel resumes for review, as noted in section 5.1.5 of the PWS. Resumes should reflect the offeror’s staff abilities in relation to the scope of the contract. Include narrative on the staffing plan for the key personnel and their anticipated role for each of the PWS tasks, as outlined in section 6.0 of the PWS. Offeror may submit additional key personnel positions that provide an innovative approach to the contract scope and aide in the efficiency of the overall contract. Resumes should reflect relevant qualifications and experience as they relate to the project scope.

Subfactor 2: Technical/ Management Approach to Task Scenarios

A series of task scenarios have been provided below to outline the type of work expected to be awarded under this IDIQ. These scenarios are not anticipated delivery/task orders and have been provided for evaluation purposes only. If noted in the task scenario, the offeror will be required to provide pricing for evaluation purposes. The task scenarios will outline locations to narrow down the amount of information requested. Offerors should provide specific details on the approach to the work as well as any innovations in process that will benefit the Government. In order to evaluate the technical approach to the scope as outlined in the PWS, the following task scenarios have been developed:

A. Prepare a proposal for the following procurement:

· 20 – 56 SF cubicles (See Appendix B and C for specification)

· 4 – 140 SF private offices (See Appendix B and C for specification)

· 1 – 8-person conference table (See Appendix B for specification)

· 8 – high back conference chairs (See Appendix B for specification)

· 1 – wood credenza (See Appendix B for specification)

The existing furniture will be removed and excessed through coordination with the Government. Electrical/data requirements are not included in this evaluation.

The following documents shall be included in the offeror’s response:

1. Project plan

2. Schedule identifying milestones

3. Price proposal for procurement and installation

Offeror responses will be evaluated in regard to PWS sections 6.1.1, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Procurement; 6.1.2, Comprehensive Project Management Services; 6.1.3, Comprehensive Interior Design Services; 6.1.6, Delivery/Installation; and 6.1.10, Asset and Inventory Management..

B. Asset Inventory. Provide or demonstrate a project approach to asset inventory based on the understanding that DISA currently leases a 4,400 SF warehouse near the FGGM HQS locations that contains existing attic stock. How will the offeror catalog the existing and future attic stock product? Explain steps that will be taken to ensure this product is considered for re-use when new product orders are placed, prior to ordering new furniture. Explain how the offeror will brief the Government on the condition of the furniture and assist the Government in gearing new FF&E requirements towards using existing attic stock.

The following documents shall be included in the offeror’s response:

1. Project plan

2. Warehouse plan

3. Warranty Management Plan

Offeror responses will be evaluated in regard to PWS sections 6.1.8, Warehouse Management and 6.1.10, Asset and Inventory Management.

C. Demonstrate how a help desk request for a furniture repair in Germany will be processed. The location is on a military base, so base security should be considered. Review the security requirements in the PWS and DD254 for cleared escorting. Outline the proposed help desk management plan, including the project approach from the call or email to the call center, process milestones, and proposed schedule for response, repair, ticket closeout, and final reporting.

The following documents shall be included in the offeror’s response:

1. Project plan

2. Help Desk Management Plan

3. Process Milestones

4. Schedule for response, repair, ticket closeout

5. Final Reporting

Offeror responses will be evaluated in regard to PWS sections 6.1.4, Help Desk Technician Services and 6.1.5, Call Center Management and Execution.

D. Provide a project plan to move computer equipment and documents for 200 personnel from DISA’s CONUS location to FGGM HQS. Assume the equipment and documents are classified. Discuss schedule, transport type, and security approach.

The following documents shall be included in the offeror’s response:

1. Project plan

2. Schedule

Offeror responses will be evaluated in regard to PWS sections 6.1.7, Transition Planning and Relocation Services.

1.1.1 Technical/Management Rating.

The technical/management rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD SS Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.1.

A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor to depict how well each offeror’s proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the technical/management subfactors. The technical/management factor will not receive a color or adjectivial rating; only the subfactors will be rated. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement, while the risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

Technical ratings will be assigned utilizing the criteria list in the following table:

1.1.2Technical/Management Risk Rating

The technical/management risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical/management factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each subfactor will receive one of the ratings defined in the DoD SS Procedures based on the assessed weaknesses of the proposed approach.

Risk ratings will be assigned in accordance with DOD SS Procedures, section 3.1.2.2.2 to assess the weaknesses associated with the offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. Evaluators will make an independent judgment of the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the acceptability of the offeror’s proposed risk mitigation solutions when assessing proposal risk. Ratings will be given based on the criteria outlined in the following table:

1.2 Past Performance Factor

Past performance will be rated in accordance with the DOD SS procedures, section 3.1.3. The offeror will be given a relevancy rating for each submitted past performance effort and an overall past performance confidence rating based on the results of the relevancy and performance reviews outlined below.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the contractor’s past performance to determine how relevant the effort is to the effort of this SS. Relevancy will be determined by the similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, and contract type. The following table will be used to evaluate the relevancy of past performance submitted:

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor has performed on its contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the contractor’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the contractor performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering the history of small business utilization are outline at FAR 15.304(c) (3) (ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

DISA will consider the performance quality of relevant recent efforts for the second aspect of the past performance evaluation using the following quality levels:

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many, to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some, to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were or appear to have been satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions were or appear to have been ineffective.

The past performance evaluation team will conduct a structured past performance evaluation that examines a contractor's recent, relevant, present, and past performance record to assess the government’s confidence in the contractor’s ability to perform as proposed. The past performance assessment will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the contractor’s overall performance record.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System may be used to assess the offeror’s past performance and ability to perform successfully in recent and relevant work on contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work described in the PWS. The Government reserves the right to consider information other than the references provided by the offeror. Potential sources of performance data are sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, questionnaires tailored to the requirements of the acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency records, and agency historical experience with the contractor, including any of its subcontractors, or other sources. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments will be used if the data is determined to be recent and relevant.

The contractor may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the contractor must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated projects and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date.

1.3 Business Size

This factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/not acceptable basis. All SB offerors will receive an acceptable rating while LB must meet the identified SB subcontracting plan participation goal of 40 percent to achieve an acceptable rating. LBs submitting a SB subcontracting plan that does not meet the 40 percent participation goal will receive an unacceptable rating and could potentially be excluded from the competitive range. Offerors shall clearly identify their relevant business size within their proposal. SB offerors must be classified as a SB IAW the SBA-published size standards for NAICS code 337215 in order to receive an acceptable rating on this factor. For purposes of this solicitation, the small business size standard is 500 employees.

Large businesses are required to submit a SB subcontracting plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 and Defense FAR Supplement 252.219-7003. The offeror’s SB subcontracting plan shall adequately demonstrate how the SB participation goal of 40 percent will be met. The subcontracting plan shall define the offeror’s approach (e.g. the offeror’s known SB teaming partners, technical roles of performance, focus areas, and/or type of work to be subcontracted to SB, etc.) that will be utilized in meeting the small business participation goals.

1.4 Cost or Price

Cost realism is not required; however, the Government reserves the right to perform a cost realism analysis if it is deemed necessary. It is anticipated that competition will establish price reasonableness and allow for an adequate and complete price analysis. This contract will be evaluated based on pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional 6-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. See FAR 52.217-8 which authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing quotation should include a separate line item for the additional 6-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the quoted pricing in the 6 months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s quoted price for the base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period. A spreadsheet identifying the commodities and proposed labor categories will be provided to the offerors along with the solicitation. Completion of this spreadsheet will be a requirement of the solicitation and will be used during evaluation to confirm price reasonableness and adequate understanding of the requirement. Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated based on methods outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b) (2). Cost/Price may be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and affordability.

Offerors shall propose hard labor rates for CONUS work as well as OCONUS work for each of the labor categories listed at attachment 1. Proposed rates will be verified as fair and reasonable and will be incorporated into the contract at time of award. Labor rates will be evaluated by adding together the hourly rates for CONUS and OCONUS work to come up with a total evaluation rate for each labor category. The individual labor category evaluation rates will then be added together to come up with a total evaluated services cost. This number will be added with the total cost of FF&E (line 361of attachment 1) to establish a total yearly evaluation rate. This process will be utilized for each of the option years to include the 6- month extenstion. Formulas are present in attachment 1 and should not be changed.

(a) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the base period and all option periods to include option pricing for an additional 6-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s quoted price for the base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished 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 or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)