Amendment_0001_to_RFP_HDTRA1-16-R-0039.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 to clarify that this requirement is a Total Small Business Set Aside IAW FAR 52.219-6 -- Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside, IBR in Section I of this Solicitation.

Thus, it will be competed among all Small Businesses as identified under the NAICS code of this requirement. Section M, Paragraph M.3.4 has been updated to state: "The Government anticipates awarding one contract under this Total Small Business Set-Aside competition."

Finally, FAR Clause 52.219-6 - Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside, is now included by full text instead of by reference in Section I of the Solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Nov-2016

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 HDTRA1-16-R-0039

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Nov-2016

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

23-Nov-2016

CODE

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY/J4COO

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN RD

FT. BELVOIR VA 22060

HDTRA1 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HDTRA1-16-R-0039

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following were previously included by reference and are now included by full text:

52.219-6 NOTICE OF TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE (NOV 2011)

(a) Definition.

"Small business concern," as used in this clause, means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the size standards in this solicitation.

(b) Applicability. This clause applies only to--

(1) Contracts that have been totally set aside or reserved for small business concerns; and

(2) Orders set aside for small business concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F).

(c) General. (1) Offers are solicited only from small business concerns. Offers received from concerns that are not small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected.

(2) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made to a small business concern.

(d) Agreement. A small business concern submitting an offer in its own name shall furnish, in performing the contract, only end items manufactured or produced by small business concerns in the United States or its outlying areas. If this procurement is processed under simplified acquisition procedures and the total amount of this contract does not exceed $25,000, a small business concern may furnish the product of any domestic firm. This paragraph does not apply to construction or service contracts.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.1.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate fully, carefully and impartially, all responsive proposals received in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors outlined in Section M.2.0. This is a negotiated acquisition using the trade-off process and will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

M.1.2 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Each offeror should submit its best proposal as the opportunity to submit a revised proposal is not anticipated.

M.1.3 DISCUSSIONS/COMPETITIVE RANGE

While the Government intends to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions these discussions will be held with only those Offerors determined by the Contracting Officer, with approval of the source selection authority, to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted and may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In addition, the Contracting Officer may also eliminate from the competitive range offerors originally determined to be in competitive range based on results of written or oral discussions if those offerors no longer have reasonable chances of being selected for award.

M.1.4 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including 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.

M.1.5 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal 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.

M.1.6 PREAWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of the source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government may also perform a Financial Capability Analysis to verify that the offeror has the necessary financial resources to perform the effort through the life of the contract.

M.1.7 DD254 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

A contractor is eligible for award only if it is compliant with the requirements of the DD Form 254 by the day of award. DTRA personnel will check to ensure the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) system reflects the required information the day before expected award.

M.1.8 TEAMS

For evaluation purposes, the Government will consider the Offeror and first-tier subcontractors as a whole when a signed Teaming Arrangement or Letter(s) of Commitment, unconditionally binding both parties to performance under this contract should it be awarded to the Offeror, is submitted with the proposal. In the absence of one or the other of these documents, the Offeror and its first-tier subcontractors are not considered a “Team” and will not be evaluated as such.

M.2.0 EVALUATION OF FACTORS

Three factors will be used in this evaluation:

FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

Subfactor A: IDIQ Contract Management Approach Subfactor B: Task Order 0001 Technical Approach

FACTOR 2: RELEVANT PRESENT & PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: COST

M.2.0.1 FACTOR AND SUBFACTOR EVALUATION

The Mission Capability will be evaluated based on each sub-factor under Factor 1 as described in paragraphs M2.1,M 2.1.1 and M2.1.2. Specific elements to be considered within each sub-factor are provided. Each sub-factor will be assigned a color rating based on the evaluation of the individual elements. The color ratings depict how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the elements of the sub-factor and the solicitation requirements and also reflect evaluation of the associated proposal risk. Sub-factor ratings will NOT be rolled up to an overall Mission Capability color rating. The Mission Capability sub-factors are described in paragraph M.2.1.

The Relevant Present and Past Performance Factor will be evaluated based on a Performance Confidence Assessment. Performance Confidence represents the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed and is based on an assessment of the Offeror’s present and past work record. The Relevant Present and Past Performance factor is further described in paragraph M.2.2.

Cost will be evaluated as described in paragraph M.2.3.

When the integrated assessment of all aspects of the evaluation is complete, the Mission Capability rating, relevant past performance rating, and evaluated cost will be considered in the order of importance listed in paragraph M.3.3. Any of these considerations can influence the Source Selection Authority’s decision.

M.2.1 FACTOR 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of the proposal relative to the identified sub-factors. Each subfactor within the mission capability factor will receive a technical rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following rating table:

COLOR

RATING

RATING DEFINITION

BLUE OUTSTANDING Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE GOOD Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

The following definitions will be used in the assessment of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies:

Significant strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has substantial merit or substantially exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Deficiency: Material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

NOTE: In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will evaluate not only the strength or weakness itself, but also the benefit of the strength to the Government or the impact of the weakness on performance.

Subfactor ratings are not rolled-up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor.

Each subfactor will individually contribute to the overall assessment of the Offeror’s understanding of the complexity and scope of the program and the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to satisfying the Government’s requirements.

M.2.1.1 Subfactor A: IDIQ Contract Management Approach.

This subfactor shall be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s Management Approach to successfully manage, perform, and execute the IDIQ PWS requirements. The following elements will be considered in arriving at a rating, but will not be separately rated.

Section 1 – Contract Management Plan - The Offeror defines, details, and demonstrates how the Offeror shall execute IDIQ PWS paragraph 1.3 Scope and possesses the Technical Performance Requirements, disciplines and skill sets identified in IDIQ PWS paragraph 2 Performance Requirements; specifically demonstrates how the Offeror shall integrate and utilize the full range of the Offeror’s expertise and personnel to execute the requirements as well as the Offeror’s plan to incorporate and apply lessons learned among and between mission set areas / taskings (as applicable); specifically defines, details, and demonstrates the Offeror’s plan and capability to execute and staff multiple tasks simultaneously as well as respond to short notice, urgent and emergent requirements. Specifically define and detail the following elements:

a) Organization structure;

b) Lines of communication with the Government and integration of effort(s);

c) Team composition (i.e. Prime and Subcontractor identification, roles and responsibilities;

d) Task and subcontract management process and procedures;

e) Rapid Response: Respond rapidly to changing requirements and circumstances.

Specifically, to respond to verbal requests during normal working hours in near real time, and to provide surge and reach-back capabilities as dictated by the urgency of the tasking.

f) Processes for identifying, communicating, coordinating, and resolving programmatic problems, and incorporating lessons learned; ability to identify and solve problems, integrate and incorporate lessons learned across organizational boundaries, and provide for a routine means of communicating issues, corrective actions, and standard reports to the Government

Section 2 – Contract Recruitment and Retention Plan – The Offeror’s plan shall demonstrate how they will recruit, hire, train, and retain a highly qualified workforce capable of accomplishing the requirements of the IDIQ PWS with the disciplines and skill sets to meet the requirements identified. The Offeror defines, details, and demonstrates their process, plan, and capability to provide and staff urgent surge requirements for additional personnel during performance under this contract with a turnaround time of 90 days or less.

Section 3 – Contract Transition Plan - The Offeror shall provide a 30 day Transition Plan that details all aspects of ramp-up including transition risks with mitigations strategies and staffing schedules, training and data capture for all prime and subcontracted efforts as necessary.

The Offeror details how the transition will not impact current schedules, and how and when the Offeror will have processes and procedures in place. The Offeror describes plans to operate in accordance with the DD254, accept and account for GFE, and complete staff DTRA badging.

M.2.1.2 Subfactor B: Task Order 0001 Technical Approach.

This subfactor shall be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s Task Order 0001 proposal of a Technical Approach that specifically defines, details, and demonstrates the Offeror’s technical understanding and corresponding Technical Approach to executing the Task Order 0001 PWS.

The following elements will be considered in arriving at a rating, but will not be separately rated.

Section 1 – Task Order 0001 Execution Plan - The Offeror provides a, detailed narrative that defines, details, and demonstrates the Offeror’s technical understanding of the PWS’s requirements and the Offeror’s corresponding Execution Plan for performing the PWS effort which provides in-depth specificity as to how the Offeror is going to execute the requirements and provide the required deliverables (as applicable). NOTE: Solely citing historical performance of same or similar efforts without specifically describing and detailing the Offeror’s proposed Execution Plan for performing the immediate PWS requirements does not constitute an Execution Plan and shall be rated accordingly.

Section 2 – Task Order 0001 Staffing Plan Matrix – Offerors provides a Staffing Plan

Matrix that corresponds with the Execution Plan specifying names, position title/labor categories, specific section of the Task Order 0001 PWS each individual will be supporting, who are key personnel and the number of hours they will be projected to work. The Offerors Staffing

Plan provides individuals and hours for Transition and Level of Effort for the entire task order period (transition period, base period and 4 one-year options).

Section 3 – Task Order 0001 Key Personnel & Resumes - The Offeror provides thorough and complete resumes for ALL Key Personnel identified in Task Order 0001 PWS 3.2 and 3.2.1 to support the Task Order PWS as described in paragraph L.3.3.3. Resumes will be evaluated for relevancy and experience (work and education) against the Task Order 0001 PWS Requirement(s) and responsibility identified in the Staffing Plan Matrix. Individuals being proposed who are not current employees of the Prime or Sub-contractor, must have a signed Letter of Commitment/Intent.

M.2.2 FACTOR 2 - RELEVANT PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s present and past work performance history to draw a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed. The Government will evaluate the quality of product or service, timeliness of performance, cost control, business practices, management of key personnel, and customer satisfaction based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record.

The first aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort performed by the Offeror is to the effort/performance required by this solicitation. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects similar to this solicitation’s requirements in terms of scope, complexity and magnitude.

Scope - each Form L-1 past performance referenced effort will be compared to the specific scope/effort proposed to be performed by the Offeror/Subcontractor in executing specific elements of the IDIQ PWS (i.e. Requirement is for nuclear weapons curriculum development and the L-1 reflects experience in chem/bio curriculum development; could be somewhat in scope or not in scope depending upon explanation.)

Complexity - each Form L-1 past performance effort will be compared to the complexity of the specific scope/effort proposed to be performed in executing specific elements of the IDIQ PWS (i.e. Were the activities of the task in the L-1 as intricate as the PWS requirement; a large subcontract management requirement; a diverse customer base).

Magnitude - each referenced Form L-1 past performance effort will be evaluated to assess its comparative magnitude based upon the period of performance and percentage of effort identified on the Offeror’s L-1 submittals as compared to the period of performance and percentage of effort for the relevant scope proposed to be performed in the IDIQ PWS.

The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation may also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

For the Prime contractor, the relevancy determination will be based upon the entire scope of the effort of the Prime’s past performance executing and managing contracts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity.

For Subcontractors/Teaming Partners the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past performance work history as it relates to the specific effort(s) the Subcontractor/ Teaming Partner will perform on the IDIQ PWS.

It is incumbent on the Prime contractor to ensure the entire scope of effort for this solicitation is addressed in the Form L-1 past performance references, regardless of whether scope is to be performed by the Prime or a Subcontractor/Teaming Partner, or a combination of both.

The definitions of relevancy are as follows:

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.

The Government will use the relevancy ratings of recent contracts, in combination with performance assessments, to determine an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment. This Performance Confidence Assessment is the final rating for this factor. Although the Relevant Present and Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant in scope to the Mission Capability subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

To arrive at an overall performance confidence assessment, the evaluation team will consider:

The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor is contributing to the effort The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide

Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on Relevant Present and Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown” confidence rating for the Relevant Present and Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, more recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive impact the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall performance confidence assessment.

In conducting the Performance Confidence Assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. In assigning a confidence rating, the Government will consider the context of present and past efforts (i.e., previous performance as a prime contractor, subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role in this effort. The Government considers the present and past performance and relevancy of the prime contractor more important than proposed subcontractors.

Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below:

RATING DEFINITION

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL/UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

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

M.2.3 FACTOR 3 – COST

For award of the IDIQ base contract the Offeror’s proposal will only be evaluated on the cost of the IDIQ Contract using all labor categories, associated indirect rates and fixed fee for the base year and four (4) one-year options (5 years total) proposed for the IDIQ contract.

The Offerors cost will be evaluated at the IDIQ level utilizing the Government provided labor categories and hours (See Attachment 4 – Proposal Sheet).

The Government will not rate or score cost but will evaluate each Offeror’s cost proposal for realism, reasonableness, and completeness.

The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed cost/price by assessing whether the proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical approach.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed cost/price using one or more of the cost/price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404. In evaluating reasonableness, the Government will determine if the Offeror’s proposed costs and fee, in nature and amount, do not exceed those which would be incurred by a prudent company in the conduct of competitive business.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s subcontractor costs and evaluation methods to establish how the Offeror finds these costs to be fair and reasonable and to provide adequate documentation to the Government in support of this assertion.

The Government will evaluate the completeness of each Offeror’s cost proposal by assessing whether the Offeror provides the required cost data in sufficient detail to fully support the offer and permit the Government to evaluate the proposal thoroughly. To be considered for award the Offeror shall complete their cost proposal on the Government provided Excel Spreadsheet – Attachment 4.

For evaluation purposes, the Government will determine the most probable cost by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost and fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The most probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The most probable cost will be used to determine best value to the Government.

M.3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.3.1 BEST VALUE DECISION

The Government will select the best overall offer based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. The IDIQ proposal will form the basis of the award for this contract. This is a negotiated acquisition that will employ the trade-off process in accordance with FAR part 15 and DFARS 215.

The IDIQ contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (including 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 sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government, considering both cost and non-cost factors. The Government plans to award the Task Order as Task Order 0001 of the IDIQ concurrently with the award of the IDIQ contract.

The Best Value Trade-off process may result in an award to a higher-priced offeror when the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the proposal represents the best value to the Government. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.3.2 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

In making the best value decision, the source selection authority will consider the following order of importance:

In compliance with FAR 15.304(d), Factor 1 (Mission Capability) is more important than Factor 2 (Relevant Present and Past Performance). Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3 (Cost).

In compliance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, all other evaluations factors, Factors 1 and 2, are significantly more important than Factor 3. However, Factor 3 (Cost) will be carefully considered in the final selection decision.

Subfactors A (IDIQ Contract Management Approach) and B (Task Order 0001 Technical Approach) under Factor 1 (Mission Capability) are of equal importance.

M.3.3 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the evaluation of the specific factors identified in M.2.1, the Government will consider compliance with the solicitation terms and conditions and the status of contractor and teaming members estimating, purchasing and accounting systems. These general considerations do not receive a color rating, but may be considered by the source selection authority in making the best value decision.

M.3.4 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government anticipates awarding one contract under this Total Small Business Set-Aside competition. The Government reserves the right to award one or no contract. The Government may award Task Order 0001 concurrent with or subsequent to the contract award.

(End of Section M)

(End of Summary of Changes)