HQ0034-17-R-0083-0001.pdf

HQ00597031DSAC70458000

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 make the follow ing changes:

1) Provide Questions and Answ ers received.

2) Revise Instructions to Offerors, Factor 5 - Price, Para (a) verbiage by deleting "in addition to proposed labor categories, and proposed labor rates".

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-May-2017

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 HQ003417R0083

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Apr-2017

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

01-May-2017

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

1225 SOUTH CLARK ST, SUITE 910

ARLINGTON VA 22202-3909

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003417R0083

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

HQ0034-17-R-0083 Amendment 0001 Questions and Answers (Q&A) Question 1: While the Government has provided a Schedule B, the only space provided on that form is to insert firm-fixed prices. The Government has not provided a standard format for Offerors that includes spaces for providing labor categories and proposed labor rates. Without a standard format, the Government will be forced to review and evaluate offers in many different forms and formats. The variance in formats may increase the amount of time it will take the Government to evaluate offers, as well as the risk of protest. Will the Government provide a format or Microsoft Excel file for Offerors to use to provide this required pricing information?

Question 1 Reference: Reference: Instructions to Offerors, 4 Submission Requirements, (7) Factor 5 – Price (p 56); “a. The Offeror shall submit its price proposal as a separate volume. The Offeror shall submit a firm-fixed price for Labor (CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001) to include unit prices and total prices as included in the solicitation, in addition to proposed labor categories, and proposed labor rates.”

Answer 1: No, the Government will not provide a format or Microsoft Excel file. The verbiage “in addition to proposed labor categories, and proposed labor rates” has been deleted.

Question 2: The scenario requirements are very specific and require in-depth, comprehensive knowledge of the previous assessment. This includes the data, analysis methodologies/tools, models, and resulting recommendations – all of which we believe to be covered by Non-Disclosure Agreements and Classified. In our opinion, only those offerors with incumbent staff can provide credible proposal responses. Furthermore, there are only two ways non-incumbent offerors can obtain this knowledge: (1) by using personal connections to induce incumbent staff to provide information covered by the NDA; or (2) by hiring staff who have previously worked on the project. Both options are unethical and open offerors to legal issues. The first option is unethical on a personal level. The second option would be unethical because the hired staff’s information would still be covered under the NDA, and the hiring offeror would be unable to use that information in their bid. As a result, the RFP requirements limit competition by being so restrictive as to make the incumbent contractor the only qualified contractor. We respectfully submit that these requirements defeat the purpose of the solicitation and violate the FAR. Will the Government reconsider its scenario requirements so that well-qualified offerors can submit compliant proposals?

Question 2 Reference: Instructions to Offerors, 4 Submission Requirements, (5) Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response (p 56); “The Offeror must demonstrate a clear in-depth knowledge of the model workings, its strengths and limitations, and applicability to the analytics tasks at hand. Additionally, the Offeror must demonstrate a strong understanding of the mission profiles and operating concepts for the systems represented in the models (airlift, sealift, aerial refueling).”

Answer 2: No. The Government has determined there is no need to have data or previous analysis to answer these questions. #1 and #2, as stated in in the Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response, requires knowledge of the models only and a general understanding of flexible basing while #3 requires an understanding of DoD’s strategic logistics networks meaning broad, big picture, open sources logistics information.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

Instructions to Offerors

Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) is releasing this solicitation electronically only. This electronic version of the Request for Proposal (RFP) is the official version for this acquisition. No hard copy of this solicitation will be issued.

1 Questions:

Questions/clarifications regarding this RFP shall be submitted by email to John Haberlach;

john.m.haberlach.civ@mail.mil and Anthony Weedin, anthony.j.weedin.civ@mail.mil, no later than 2:00PM EDT on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.

2 Proposal Submission:

Offerors shall submit the following by email to John Haberlach; john.m.haberlach.civ@mail.mil and Anthony Weedin, anthony.j.weedin.civ@mail.mil, no later than 2:00PM EDT on Thursday, 11 May 2017.

Volume I - Technical

Title Maximum Page Limits

Electronic Copies (Email)

(1) Cover Section 1 Page One (1)

(2) CAPE Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

2 Pages per proposed contractor employee

One (1) complete and signed NDA per proposed contractor employee

(3) Factor 1 – Technical Approach

16 Pages One (1)

(4) Factor 2 – Personnel Resumes 3 Pages per proposed contractor employee

One (1) per proposed contractor employee

(5) Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response

10 pages One (1)

(6) Factor 4 – Past Performance 10 pages One (1)

Volume II - Price

Title Max. page Limit Electronic Copies (Email)

(7) Factor 5 – Price Unlimited One (1)

3 Format:

- Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper, with a minimum of one-inch margin all around.

- Pages shall be numbered consecutively.

- A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two (2) pages.

- Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations stated throughout this document will be removed and not evaluated.

- Print shall be of minimum 12-point font size spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

- No pricing data shall be included in Volume I – Technical.

- Any information requested as a clarification shall not count toward the page limitation.

4 Submission Requirements:

(1) Cover Section.

mailto:john.m.haberlach.civ@mail.mil mailto:anthony.j.weedin.civ@mail.mil mailto:john.m.haberlach.civ@mail.mil mailto:anthony.j.weedin.civ@mail.mil

a. The first page of the Cover Section shall include the RFP number and title, name and address of vendor, vendor points of contact for technical and price related questions, date of submission, Cage Code & DUNS numbers, acknowledgement of all material amendments (if applicable), and a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the RFP.

(2) CAPE Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

a. The Offeror shall provide one (1) complete and signed NDA for each proposed contractor employee.

(3) Factor 1 - Technical Approach.

a. The Offeror shall describe its technical approach to the PWS, including its proposed sequencing of tasks. The Offeror shall describe its capability to provide the full range of technical expertise and specialized analytic support to support the Mobility Analyses requirement in support of the Projection Forces Division (PFD) of OSD/CAPE. The Offeror shall also address how its technical approach is innovative; flexible to support a changing environment; ensures that qualified and capable staff remain available should the need to “backfill” arise; maintains continuity and efficiency of current operations.

b. The Offeror shall describe its proposed staffing approach.

(4) Factor 2 – Personnel Resumes.

a. The Offeror shall demonstrate through the submission of resumes that the Key Personnel listed in PWS Section 4.1 meet or exceed the education and experience requirements listed in PWS Section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Resumes shall be submitted for the Key Personnel to include the Program Manager / Lead Senior Analyst and three (3) Senior Analysts. Individual resumes are limited to three (3) pages per proposed individual contractor employee.

b. The Offeror shall provide resumes that contain the following information to demonstrate the proposed individuals meet or exceed the qualifications specified in the PWS.

- Heading Section o Proposed Position the candidate will support (i.e. Team Lead) o Full Name o Security Clearance Level and Date of Expiration o Location Status o Employment Status - specify whether the proposed individual is currently employed by the prime or a subcontractor

- Education Section o Degrees and Training obtained from colleges, universities, or military programs.

- Experience Section o Relevance of the individual’s experience to the requirements in the PWS o Current Employer, Job Title, and Dates Employed o Company Name and Dates for Experience with other firms, specifically positions that demonstrate experience fulfilling requirements similar to those listed in the PWS.

(5) Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response.

Scenarios 1-3

(Page limit NTE 10 page response for all three scenarios)

OSD CAPE recently completed an assessment of the logistical challenges associated with dynamic basing. Additional analysis of associated CONOPs is expected to continue over the next year to include a comprehensive mobility study to identify future requirements for airlift, sealift and aerial refueling. OSD CAPE will need model and analytic support leveraging the Analysis of Mobility Platform (AMP) and Air Refueling Model (ARM) models to effectively complete the analytic tasks required.

The Offeror is responsible for assisting in developing study plans to include identifying metrics and measures of performance and instantiating the requirements into the models to support the desired analytic process. The Offeror must demonstrate a clear in-depth knowledge of the model workings, its strengths and limitations, and applicability to the analytics tasks at hand. Additionally, the Offeror must demonstrate a strong understanding of the mission profiles and operating concepts for the systems represented in the models (airlift, sealift, aerial refueling). The Offeror is expected to employ general practices of operations research analysis in developing the task and the logical flow of the outline. The offeror is expected to:

1. Identify the capability of the current models as it pertains to deploying to and sustaining flexible basing and develop a study plan outline to assess and evaluate the logistical challenges therein.

2. Identify potential work arounds using the existing models that would enhance the analysts understanding of the effects of flexible basing on the logistics network.

3. Develop alternatives for assessing DoD’s strategic logistics networks ranging in scope from support to Civil Authorities for disaster relief to full scale execution of the Defense Strategy.

The alternatives should explain the utility if the models in use (AMP and ARM) and identify where such models may require enhancements to refine the analysis.

(6) Factor 4 – Past Performance.

a. The Offeror shall submit a list of up to three (3) relevant projects/contracts that are either ongoing or completed by the Offeror as either a prime contractor or subcontractor within the last five (5) years. The Offeror shall provide project title, dollar value, contract number or reference number, period of performance, and customer name that the service was provided for.

(7) Factor 5 – Price.

a. The Offeror shall submit its price proposal as a separate volume. The Offeror shall submit a firm-fixed price for Labor (CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001) to include unit prices and total prices as included in in the solicitation.

b. Travel (CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 and 4002) will be awarded as Cost Reimbursable per PWS Para 2.7. The contractor will be reimbursed for actual, allowable, and allocable travel in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 – Travel Costs, not to exceed the provided not to exceed dollar amount per CLIN. The Offeror shall not propose on these CLINs.

Evaluation Factors for Award

This RFP is issued in accordance with FAR 12 and FAR 13.5. The Government intends to award a single contract award that represents the best value to the Government; price and all factors considered.

1. Basis of Award:

(1) The Government will evaluate the proposal provided to ensure:

a. The Offeror submitted all required information specified in the RFP by the closing date/time.

(2) The Government may award a contract after determination that the proposal represents the best value.

2. Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Personnel Resumes Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Price

Order of Precedence: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3.

Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5.

In addition, Factors 1-4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 - Price.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach. The Technical Approach will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to provide the full range of technical expertise and specialized analytic support to support the Mobility Analyses requirement in support of the Projection Forces Division (PFD) of OSD/CAPE. The Government will specifically evaluate the extent to which the Offeror presents the following:

a. The degree to which the technical approach is innovative; flexible to support a changing environment; ensures that qualified and capable personnel remain available should the need to “backfill” arise; and maintains continuity and efficiency of current operations.

b. Demonstrated quality of the proposed staffing approach.

Factor 2 – Personnel Resumes.

a. Offerors will be evaluated on how well the Offeror demonstrated through the submission of resumes that the Key Personnel in PWS Section 4.1 meet or exceed the education and experience requirements in PWS Section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

b. Offerors will be evaluated on if they provided the required information as listed below.

- Heading Section o Proposed Position the candidate will support (i.e. Team Lead) o Full Name o Security Clearance Level o Location Status o Employment Status - specify whether the proposed individual is currently employed by the prime or a subcontractor

- Education Section o Degrees and Training obtained from colleges, universities, or military programs.

- Experience Section o Relevance of the individual’s experience to the requirements in the PWS o Current Employer, Job Title, and Dates Employed o Company Name and Dates for Experience with other firms, specifically positions that demonstrate experience fulfilling requirements similar to those listed in the PWS.

Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response.

a. Offerors will be evaluated on how well the Offeror explained the analysis, on the feasibility and efficiency of the technical approach, and on the level of demonstrated expert knowledge of the AMP and ARM models.

Factor 4 – Past Performance.

a. Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of their past performance for the contracts they have identified. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past performance in “recent” and “relevant” contract efforts. “Recent” means contracts that are on-going or have been completed within five (5) years from the closing date of this RFQ. “Relevant” means performance of work similar in size and scope under similar conditions. Relevant experience is described as contractor performing work related to similar to those listed in the PWS.

b. In the conduct of its past performance evaluation, the Government may use a variety of information sources. These sources may include, but are not limited to, technical reports, commercial or any available published information, Government past performance databases and information derived from present and past Government or commercial customers of the Offeror.

c. Offerors without a record of recent or relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated neutral on Past Performance.

(2) Factor 5 – Price.

a. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable, accurate, and complete based on a comprehensive review of the information submitted in the Offeror’s proposal. Price will not be scored or receive an adjectival rating.

b. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will calculate and evaluate the Option to Extend Services (FAR 52.217-8) by utilizing the Offeror’s evaluated price for the 4th Option Period, to calculate the optional six-month extension of services price, and adding it to the Offeror’s total evaluated price. Thus, for the purpose of evaluation under this RFP, the Offeror’s total evaluated price will include the base period, four (4) one-year option periods, and one (1) six-month optional extension of services period. The Offeror shall not price this period in its proposal. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the options.

3. Rating Methodology

Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Factor 2 – Personnel Resumes and Factor 3 – Scenario(s) Response: The following ratings will be used to rate Factors 1, 2 and 3. The proposal must be rated “Marginal” or higher overall to be considered for award. A determination of “Unacceptable” renders the entire proposal unacceptable and therefore will NOT be considered for award.

Rating Description

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

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.

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

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

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.

Factor 4 – Past Performance: The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on past performance information submitted by the Offeror and other past performance information contained in various Government databases and other sources.

a. Relevancy: The following definitions will be used for the relevancy ratings for each project/contract:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

b. Quality: The following definitions will be used for the quality rating:

Past Performance Quality Rating Method

Exceptional Quality meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Quality meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Quality meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective action was acceptable.

Marginal Quality does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified or taken satisfactory corrective action.

Unsatisfactory Quality does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur or is not likely to occur in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective action appears or was ineffective.

c. Confidence: The following definitions will be used for the confidence ratings for the overall Past Performance:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)