FIAR_Amen_03v1.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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Oct-2018

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

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Oct-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

HQ001318R0001

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to make changes to Section "M" and update the required response date/time has changed from 13-Nov-2018 12:00 AM to 13-Nov-2018 12:00 PM. See continuation page(s)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

NO. 0003

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

29-Oct-2018

CODE

DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY-CON

TIFFANY TANNER

201 12TH STREET S, SUITE 203

ARLINGTON VA 22202-5408

HQ0013 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ001318R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Nov-2018 12:00 AM to 13-Nov-2018 12:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1 General.

M.1.1.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Offerors are to propose to the evaluation factors included in this section ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire PWS. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2 Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Contracts will be awarded to Offerors who are 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, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to Offerors whose proposals present the greatest understanding of the requirements and will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This will be based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

M.1.1.3 Evaluation Process Technical proposals should include all information the Offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its ability to perform the Contract requirements and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

Per Section L, Volume I, the following documentation is required to be submitted. The Government will evaluate the response to determine the responsibility of the offeror. Missing or incomplete documentation will be cause to find the proposal non-responsive to this solicitation:

Reference Requirement L.3.2.1 TAB 1 Cover Page/Executive Summary L.3.2.2 Tab 2 Table of Contents L3.2.3 Tab 3 Glossary of Abbreviations & Acronyms

L.3.2.4 Tab 4 Solicitation/Contract Form L.3.2.5 Tab 5 Company Information L.3.2.6 Tab 6 Compliance Statement L.3.2.7 Tab 7 Solicitation L.3.2.8 Tab 8 EEO Pre-Award Information L.3.2.9 Tab 9 DD254 Security Classification L3.2.10 Tab 10 Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest Mitigation Plan L.3.2.11 Tab 11 Management Information L.3.2.11.1 Management L.3.2.11.2 Point of Contact L.3.2.11.3 Recruitment/Retention/Benefits L.3.2.11.4 Continuity Plan L.3.2.11.5 Total Compensation Plan L.3.2.11.6 Transition Plan L.3.2.12 Tab 12 Cross Reference Matrix

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award Contracts without discussions with Offerors.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed Contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, Offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for those “other than small business” Offerors deemed to be apparent awardees. If a subcontracting plan cannot be determined to be acceptable, the entire proposal will be rendered unawardable. Compliance and acceptability of Subcontracting Plans are a matter of responsibility and are separate from the evaluation of the Utilization of Small Business Factor.

M.2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1 Factors and Subfactors A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical Capability (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Technical and Management Approach

Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan and Personnel Approach

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Utilization of Small Business

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is the most important followed by past performance and then cost/price. Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than cost/price. Within Factor I, subfactors one and two are of equal importance.

Non-price factors are listed in order of descending importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

M.3.1 Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

M.3.1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

M.4.1 Volume II, Technical/Risk (Factor One)

M.4.1.2 General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated , based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks identified as the result of the proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file. The solicitation shall include a notice to inform offerors that performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract.

Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.4.1.3 Subfactor One: Technical and Management Approach

a) Technical Approach that clearly and concisely describes how the requirements of PWS Paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 will be fulfilled. The technical proposal shall cover the Offeror’s approach for achieving each individual task area of the PWS Paragraph 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 in sufficient detail for it to be evaluated. The narrative for Technical Approach within the Offeror’s proposal must be written in a clear, concise fashion describing precisely what the Offeror proposes to do to meet those requirements. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the RFP with a statement of intent to perform does not reveal the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements or capability for addressing them and may result in a weakness in the approach. The inclusion of filler material from previous proposals or commercial applications shall be avoided unless it has a direct application to the objective of this solicitation.

b) Management Approach shall indicate that the project manager assigned to this contract is employed by the prime and shall state how the contractor will provide project management to meet the requirements of the PWS.

c) Quality Assurance Approach (to be incorporated into any resultant contract) illustrating efforts that will ensure performance and deliverables are of the highest quality; additionally, all deliverables should be prepared with the expectation that they will be reviewed by internal and/or external auditors in compliance with OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A.

d) Approach to Risk. How does the company manage risk in the FIAR environment? How does the company determine the level of acceptable risk? How will the company mitigate the risk if the current audit strategy that builds on audit readiness momentum is not achieved and readiness timelines are not meet?

e) Certifications, Accreditations, Awards, Achievements. The Offeror shall:

•List and describe Awards and Achievements received that were awarded because of Audit Strategy and or Audit Readiness .

• List of published papers regarding Audit Strategy and or Audit Readiness and successful implementation of any innovative Audit Strategy and or Audit Readiness process and solutions.

• Any other related information regarding the company’s achievements related to Audit Strategy and or Audit Readiness.

• List Certifications and Accreditations that your company has that relate to FIAR, Audit Strategy and or Audit Readiness.

M.4.1.4 Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan and Personnel Approach The offeror shall be evaluated on the extent, depth, and quality of the Key Personnel’s relevant work experience, as well as the quality and applicability of their education, and technical experience in accordance with the requirements of PWS. Offeror shall be evaluated to the extent to which they demonstrate ability to provide non-key personnel as required.

This subfactor is met when the offeror sufficiently demonstrates the ability to recruit and hire best qualified and knowledgeable subject matter experts and personnel to accomplish PWS requirements. The offeror must address how they intend to meet the qualifications identified in the PWS, how it will monitor quality performance in those areas, and how it will maintain or exceed customer expectations, including identification and correction of problems. The offeror shall fully identify the qualifications of the proposed personnel it could employ on this contract effort to include access to and pool of qualified surge personnel.

The offeror must describe the contractor’s management processes for finding, identifying, recruiting, and selecting the best qualified personnel. A Staffing Plan is required for evaluation to determine how well proposed personnel meet qualifications outlined in the PWS.

M.4.2.1 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

M.4.2.2 Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates and exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.5.1 Volume III, Past Performance (Factor Two)

M.5.1.2 General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform more than 10% of the services under this contract.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M.5.2.1 Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

If an eSRS is available, it will be evaluated and considered here in relation to meeting established subcontracting goals.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

M.5.3.1 Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

M.5.3.2 Relevancy Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

M 5.4.1 Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of personnel management, etc.

When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

M 5.5.1 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. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

If an eSRS is available, it will be evaluated and considered here in relation to meeting established subcontracting goals.

The Government will use the following quality ratings when assessing quality of relevant Contracts.

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

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 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 (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M.5.6 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent Contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance. In the event that the Government is unable to obtain performance quality information for a reference, resulting in a "Not Applicable" Quality Assessment Rating, the relevance of that reference will not be considered in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3.

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M.6.1 Volume III, Small Business Concern Utilization Plan (Factor Three)

M.6.1.1 Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan:

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition. The Government’s assessment of small business participation and commitment will be measured to determine if small business participation is maximized where applicable.

M.6.1.2 Evaluation:

The Government will consider each Offeror's commitment to use small businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal and whether documented commitments are demonstrated in their proposal. Offers will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected benefits of proposed new, contract specific small business initiatives and the extent to which Offerors have in place effective procedures to ensure proper flow-down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at lower tiers.

Offerors shall demonstrate in their proposal how they will meet all stated small business participation requirements as measured against the Total Acquisition Value (TAV).

Offerors shall meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of 10% of total contract dollars. Offerors with a total history of demonstrated success in exceeding 10% MQR shall propose an alternate MQR equivalent to or greater than the sustained demonstrated performance for similar work/contracts.

M.6.1.2 Small Business Utilization Rating:

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for achieving small business utilization. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization Factor:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach to utilize small business and meets or exceeds MQR Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

M.7.0 Volume V Price Proposal (Factor Four)

M.7.1.1 Price Reasonableness The Offerors are expected to establish a reasonable price relationship between all price and non-price elements. Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(l) based on the total proposed price for the base period of performance and all option periods together. The determination that the total price is reasonable will be made by a comparison of other offers received. If only one offer is received, the determination may be based on a comparison to the IGCE or by any other reasonable basis.

ONLY the total proposed price will be used for tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. The total proposed price will consist of the proposed prices for the base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period in accordance with FAR 52.217- 8.

M.7.1.2. Evaluation of Options The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-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 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). The offeror shall propose unit prices for the base period, the four 1-year options, and the six months for the extension of services available via FAR clause 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”. All unit prices will be entered into the provided pricing spreadsheet. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional six-month period.

M.7.1.3. Unbalanced Pricing Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable proposal, the price of one or more items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Source Selection Process Responsibility and Compliance Review. The Government will review proposals for responsibility and compliancy. Any offeror determined to be non-responsive or non-compliance may be removed from further consideration.

Technical Evaluation: Individual Technical Evaluation Boards (TEB) will evaluate the factors individually.

These boards will consist of the following: Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) , the Past Performance Evaluation Board (PPEB), the Small Business Evaluation Board (SBEB) and the Price Evaluation Board

(PEB).

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB will review all prepared reports and prices/costs.

The SSEB will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Boards evaluations of the proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements.

The SSEB will not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) with information to make informed and reasoned selections. The SSEB will therefore prepare summary reports containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale, including the costs/prices for each Offeror and brief the SSAC. The SSAC will prepare a comparative analysis and brief the SSA and prepare any items for discussions.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). The primary role of the SSAC is to provide a written comparative analysis of offers and recommendations to the SSA for use in making the best value source selection decision. The SSAC also reviews the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied.

Source Selection Authority. After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors and will independently exercise prudent business judgment to determine which Offerors provide the best value to the Government. This may include conducting best-value trade-offs.

The results of the SSA’s decisions shall be documented in the Source Selection Decision Document.

Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that awards will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. The Government reserves the right to limit the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4). As pools will be evaluated separately, the determination of whether or not to enter into discussions in each pool is a separate decision and does not affect the other pool. This means that if one pool needs to enter into discussions, it does not mean the other pool is required to.

Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with Offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award Contracts to the Offerors with the most advantageous proposals to the Government.

Exceptions to the Contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

M.4.0 BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARDS

Non-Price Factors

Factor 1 Technical/Risk

Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 3 Utilization of Small Business

Cost/Price

Factors Factor 4 Cost/Price When combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

All non-price factors are in descending order of importance.

Therefore, Factor 1 is more important than Factor 3, which is more important than 2.

Trade-off Analysis: After evaluations of all proposals are completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors submitted proposals that represent the “best value” to the Government for this FIAR. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offerors.

(End of Summary of Changes)