HC1047-12-R-4031-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is the follow ing:

1.) Section M.2.3, Subfactor 1 the follow ing statement is changed from, " Offeror's proposal shall be evaluated in terms of completeness of, quality of, and risks inherent in offeror's stated approach to accomplishing the tasks as called out in paragraphs 6.10 through 6.50 including all subparagraphs of the PWS," to "Offeror's proposal shall be evaluated in terms of completeness of, quality of, and risks inherent in offeror's stated approach to accomplishing the tasks as called out in paragraphs 6.1 through 6.50 including all subparagraphs of the PWS."

2.) Section L, 1.2.1.1 (b) the follow ing statement is changed from, "For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than

14 point," to " For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than ten (10) point Times New Roman or nine (9) point Verdana."

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Aug-2012

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 HC1047-12-R-4031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Aug-2012

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Aug-2012

CODE

DISA/CONTRACTS-NCR

P.O. BOX 549

FT. MEADE MD 20755

HC1047 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC1047-12-R-4031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

L-I - INFORMATION TO OFFERORS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL

PREPARATION

1.0 General Instructions

(a) This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and all applicable attachments.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Information to Offerors MAY result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The proposal acceptance period is 120 days. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

1.1 General Information

1.1.1. Point of Contact

The contracting officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this procurement. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO. Written requests for clarification must be sent to the CO at the address located in Section

A of the model contract/solicitation.

1.1.2. Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to receive a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.1.3. Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

1.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business

Opportunities website: http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to monitor this website to be aware when information has been posted for this solicitation.

1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.2. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the table below.

Table 1.2 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME RFP Paragraph

Number

VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I Executive Summary 1 electronic copy

II Technical/Management 1 electronic copy

30 excluding resumes

III Relevant Past Performance 1 electronic copy

5 pages per past performance report

IV Cost/Price 1 electronic copy

No limit

V Contract Documentation 1 electronic copy

No limit

1.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following:

cover page, Volume Table of Contents, List of Tables and Drawings, Glossary of Terms and Acronyms, Resumes and Cross-reference Matrix.

http://www.fedbizopps.gov/

1.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts.

Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point.

Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than ten (10) point Times New Roman or nine (9) point Verdana.

1.2.2 Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation

Volumes. Cost trade-off information, work-hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and trade-off decisions. Actual cost/price figures should only be provided in the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Please ensure that cost/price proposals are separated by tasks as listed in Section B of the Schedule of the RFP and the

PWS. Offeror’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) should contain the specific labor categories and labor hours for each category, mapped directly to each specific task, as well as the offeror’s estimated materials, and other direct costs described in units and applicable parameters such that the Government may thoroughly evaluate the offeror’s methodology and Basis of Estimate (BOE). Cost and/or price information shall be omitted from both the WBS and

BOE.

1.2.3 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

The offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix indicating by RFP, PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

1.2.4 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

1.2.5 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

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

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.2.6 Labeling

Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.3 Electronic Offers

For electronic copies, indicate on each document the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office

Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007, as applicable.

1.4 Distribution

Proposals shall be emailed to the Michael D. Jackson, Contracting Officer, michael.d.jackson119.civ@mail.mil, with a courtesy copy to Anke C. Taylor, Contract Specialist, anke.c.taylor.civ@mail.mil.

2.0 Volume I - Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

2.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

2.2 Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

3.0 Volume II – Technical/Management Volume

3.1 General

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Technical/Management

In the Technical/Management volume, address your proposed approach to accomplishing each of the tasks as called out in paragraphs 6.10 through 6.50 and all subparagraphs there under of the PWS and for meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule, and the specific mitigating factors you will employ. Failure to address any of the above may be considered a weakness or deficiency and may result in offeror’s proposal being determined ineligible for award.

mailto:%20michael.d.jackson119.civ@mail.mil mailto:anke.c.taylor.civ@mail.mil

3.2.1.1 Technical/Management Risk

Address technical/management risk by identifying those aspects of your proposal which you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with the Section M, paragraph M 2.3.1.2. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (e.g., PWS or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work-around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

3.2.2 Volume Organization

The Technical/Management volume shall be organized according to the following general outline Table of Contents

(1) List of Table and Drawings

(2) Glossary

(3) Cross Reference Matrix

(4) Subfactor 1a: Technical Approach

(5) Subfactor 2b: Management Approach

(6) Risk, addressed for each subfactor

(7) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Provide a WBS to level 3 for each Subfactor

Be sure to address in your approach how you will accomplish each task area. Omission of an approach to accomplishing any requirement shall be evaluated as a weakness and may rise to the level of deficiency.

4.0 Volume III - Past Performance

4.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in this RFP. This information is required of the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 20 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price/cost or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

4.2 Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Section M. Past Performance Information on five (5) recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. A contract is considered recent if performed within the last three (3) years of issuance of this solicitation (must have completed a minimum of six (6) months of performance). Also include information on five (5) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M, Evaluation Factors, Factor

2-Past Performance Factor.

4.2.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror may demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical/management subfactors and cost/price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

4.2.2 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 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 procurement.

To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offerors, your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the

Government receives information from other sources.

5.0 Volume IV - Cost/Price

5.1 General Instructions

5.1.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness and Realism

This section is to assist you in submitting information other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of your proposed cost/price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

5.1.2 Estimating Techniques and Methods

When responding to the Cost/Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the offeror and associated subcontractors may use any generally accepted estimating technique, including contemporary estimating methods

(such as Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships, commercially available parametric cost models, in-house developed parametric cost models, etc.), to develop their estimates.

5.1.3 Cost/Price Information

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume.

Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

5.1.4 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

Cost Proposal Submission: Offeror shall provide a Cost Narrative detailing the methodology employed in developing the cost estimates for each element of offeror’s Cost Proposal Submission to include, but not be limited to: Direct Labor, Indirect Rates, Material, Travel, Subcontracted and Interdivisional Efforts, ODCs, FCCoM and

Fee. Ensure the cost proposal includes detailed cost/price amounts of all resources required to accomplish the task, (i.e. labor categories, labor hours, number of employees for each labor category, rates, travel, incidental equipment, etc.). Labor and overhead rates should include sufficient detail to sustain a DCAA audit (e.g. Direct Labor Rates, Overhead, Fringe Benefits, G&A, and Fee, etc.). All travel must show the specific detail, if known (i.e. Number of days, locations, number of personnel, etc.). All Materials and ODC’s shall annotate the specific detail (qty, part number, manufacturer, etc.) to include supporting documentation to justify the cost (i.e. current invoice, current vendor quotes, price history, etc.) Offeror shall provide a Basis of Estimate (BOE) and a Bill of Materials (BOM).

If a subcontractor relationship exists, the subcontractor must break out their costs, in accordance with the above requirements. If needed, the subcontractor may submit their cost breakout directly to the Contracting Officer. If applicable, travel, shall be authorized by the Task Monitor (TM), in writing, prior to performance and will be paid

IAW FAR 31.205-46. ODCs will be paid IAW FAR 31.205. The contractor will be authorized to invoice monthly for all approved travel and ODC costs incurred and approved by the COR.

Cost/Price Proposal Templates: See Attachment 3 of the RFP. Templates are provided as guidance for use when preparing and submitting your data other than certified cost or pricing data. Offeror may use their own format;

however, offeror must provide the information as outlined in “Cost Proposal Submission” above, sufficient to allow the Government to evaluate offeror’s proposal and determine a probable cost of completing the contract in accordance with offeror’s proposed approach. All templates submitted shall include formulas, and NOT be hard-numbered.

Sanitized Cost Proposal. This shall take the same format as described in the Cost Proposal Submission (above) and include the Cost/Price Proposal Templates; however, the Sanitized Cost Proposal shall be scrubbed (sanitized) of all numerical cost and price entries.

Note: Mandatory items to be included with your Cost Proposal. A negative reply is required for any element not submitted with your proposal.

Forward Pricing Rate Agreement from, Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation from, or Forward Pricing

Rate Proposal to, the offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency office. Otherwise provide a List of current Direct and Indirect Rates along with the cost pools and allocation bases from which the

Indirect Rates were calculated;

Name, phone, mailing address, email address, and title of both your cognizant DCAA and DCMA points of contact; and

Statement of DCAA Accounting System approval – (Letter of Approval)

5.2. Volume Organization

The Cost/Price volume shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION 1 - Table of Contents; summary descriptions of estimating; changes to estimating.

SECTION 2 - Cost or pricing information and supporting data, to include estimating methodology.

SECTION 3 - Other information such as Government Furnished Property/Government Furnished

Equipment (GFP/GFE), long lead costs, termination costs, inflation rate summary and explanation, and life cycle cost. List each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the Cost/Price volume, if any. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions.

5.3. Other Information

5.3.1 Commonality with Other Programs

Any price reductions made in your proposal that is attributed to commonality with other programs, company-funded efforts, or capitalization of equipment must be supported.

5.3.2 Schedule of Hours by Labor Skill Mix

Submit a schedule showing total proposed hours summarized by labor category and skill mix. This schedule is to include (but separately identify) subcontractor(s) and inter-divisional transfer(s) hours. In addition, provide labor classification statements for each category of labor proposed (prime, subcontracts, and inter-divisional) describing position qualifications (education, years of experience, etc).

5.3.3. Probable Subcontractors

Submit a list of the proposed probable subcontractors and inter-divisional transfers showing (a) the supplier, (b) description of effort, (c) type of contract, (d) price and hours proposed by each, (e) price and hours included in prime’s proposal to the Government, and (f) commercial item/service determination support, if applicable.

6.0 Volume V - Contract Documentation

6.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, and Sections A through K.

6.1.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

Completion of blocks 12, 14, 15A, 15B, 15C, and 16 and signature and date for blocks 17 and 18 of the SF33.

Signature by the offeror on the SF33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

6.1.2 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

6.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Prior to award, offerors are encouraged to clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 6.2. This information shall be provided by the Question and Answer Due Date.

Table 6.2 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation

Document

Page/

Paragraph

Requirement/

Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW, SPEC, Model

Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable

Page and Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

6.3 Other Information Required

6.3.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

6.3.2 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business

(large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other locations. List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

6.3.3 Associate Contractor Agreements

Include Associate Contractor Agreements, if applicable.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the

DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of technical/management, past performance, and cost/price. Contracts may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to make a best value award to the offeror who gives DISA the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements taking into account the proposed cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher rated and/or higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.,as long as the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher ranked technical/management, overall business approach, and/or greater past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or weakness.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an 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.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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 described below.

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. Within the technical/management factor, the subfactors are of equal importance. The Technical Management Factor and the Past Performance Factor are of equal importance.

2.3 Technical/Management Factor

Sub-Factor 1: Technical Approach:

- Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated in terms of completeness of, quality of, and risks inherent in offeror’s stated approach to accomplishing the tasks as called out in paragraphs 6.1 through 6.50 including all subparagraphs of the PWS. As part of the offeror’s Technical Approach, the offeror shall address the following:

- The contractor shall demonstrate and describe an understanding and working knowledge of Oracle 11g database maintenance activities and configuration control management best practices, and shall have designed and implemented embedded database test services and have experience importing different schemas and meta-data into an existing Oracle 11g database. The contractor shall describe and demonstrate how they implemented data updates in a web environment, implemented DoD information assurance policies and regulations, and deployed and maintained applications particularly in an Enterprise Service

Center (ESC).

- The contractor shall demonstrate a working knowledge of existing web technologies (e.g., semantic web) which will assist them in recommending an approach for designing and implementing a universal query prototype in the JSDR. The contractor shall describe and demonstrate how they will plan, design, and implement a bi-directional service interface that exchanges XML data with internal and external customers.

The contractor shall demonstrate a full knowledge of the technical requirements involved in executing a reliable and accurate Service Interface.

- The contractor shall demonstrate a working knowledge of existing DoD approved Attribute Based Access

Control (ABAC) initiatives that can be implemented in the JSDR. The contractor shall demonstrate an understanding of the functional and technical differences between RBAC and ABAC control requirements.

The contractor shall describe and demonstrate how they have implemented a cross domain solution interface capability that is capable of sending and receiving information to and from a Government furnished CDS.

- The contractor shall demonstrate an understanding of the various formats of spectrum supportability data obtained from Federal sources and be able to map selected data into the JSDR database structure. The contractor shall demonstrate proficiency in performing similar data maps on previous contracts. The contractor shall demonstrate a complete understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements involved in operational testing and fielding of DoD applications, particularly to an Enterprise Service

Center (ESC).

Subfactor 2: Management Approach:

- The contractor shall provide a comprehensive management approach that provides Program Management support in the areas of planning and scheduling, monitor and report detailed technical progress, interpret overall technical direction of the Program, ensuring adequate staffing and resources allocations, and responding to miscellaneous PM requests in a timely manner. The contractor shall demonstrate the ability to provide qualified personnel with working experience with Cross Domain Solution Office in the design and implementation of a CDS interface.

- The contractor shall describe how they will plan, design, and successfully implement a data quality framework for complex databases. The contractor shall demonstrate a working knowledge of collaboration tools such as SoftwareForge. The contractor shall demonstrate and provide an example of how they implemented a strategy for federating multiple external data sources. The contractor shall describe and demonstrate how the will document and evaluate different approaches and limitations (including

Information Assurance limitations) to successfully implement a federated data source strategy.

2.3.1 Technical/Management Evaluation

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

2.3.1.1 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

Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.1, and depicted below in Table 2.3.1.1

They focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical/management subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the technical/management factor.

Table 2.3.1.1 - Technical Ratings Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.3.1.2 Technical/Management Risk Rating

The Technical/Management Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical/management subfactor will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.2, and depicted below in Table 2.3.1.2. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical/management subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. Subfactor risk rating shall not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the technical/management factor.

Table 2.3.1.2 - Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.3.2 Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. If a minimum of six (6) months of the performance fall within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical/management factor and cost/price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1 and depicted below in Table 2.3.2.2):

Table 2.3.2.2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment (How well the contractor performed on the contract.)

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical/management factor and cost/price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the

Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-

25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to

DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality ratings when assessing quality of relevant contracts. (DISA

Supplemental Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1 (S-90), depicted in Table 2.3.2.3):

Table 2.3.2.3 - Past Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

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

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

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 appear or were 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 appear or were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE…