HQ003417R0127_Amendment_02.docx

HQ003417R0127

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Aug-2017 03:00 PM to 22-Aug-2017 03:00 PM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

252.227-7013

252.227-7014

252.227-7015

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

L.1 Solicitation Points of Contact This request for proposal (RFP) defines the overall requirements in which vendors are to propose. The only authorized points of contact are Contracting Officer Earl Anderson and Contract Specialist Elaina Barker. Address any questions or concerns to both using the following contact information. All questions must be in writing and are due by 20 July 2017 at 11AM EST.

Earl Anderson, Contracting Officer

(703) 545-1953 Earl.e.anderson51.civ@mail.mil

Elaina Barker, Contract Specialist

(703) 545-8999 Elaina.l.barker.civ@mail.mil

L.2 Examination/Audit of Records The Contracting Officer or an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, to include Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), shall have the right to examine and audit all records necessary to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed cost. A pre-award survey or similar survey may be accomplished to support a determination regarding any or all of the contractor responsibility factors identified in FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented. The survey may be conducted with the assistance of DCMA and DCAA, and may include if necessary, the examination and audit of all records to permit an adequate evaluation of contractor responsibility. Refusal to participate in the survey or failure to provide all requested information may be cause for rejection of the offer.

L.3 Proposal Information Instructions L.3.1 This RFP is not authorization to begin performance, and in no way obligates the Government for any costs incurred by the Contractor for this requirement or associated proposal preparation costs. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract in response to this RFP. Prior to commencement of any activities associated with performance of this requirement, the Government will issue a written directive, or contractual document signed by the Contracting Officer, with appropriate consideration established.

L.3.2 Each proposal must be in compliance with the requirements as stated in the RFP, exhibits, and attachments. All proposed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unacceptable evaluation rating.

L.3.3 Offerors are required to meet solicitation requirements to be eligible for consideration (i.e. terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements). Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

L.3.4 If an offeror believes that the requirements, or instructions, contain a discrepancy, error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror must immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

L.3.5 The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the proposal, as received, without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

L.3.6 In accordance with FAR 4.8 ‘Government Contract Files’ the Government will retain electronic copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of the unsuccessful proposals.

L.3.7 The proposal shall be clear, concise, coherent, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

L.3.8 Offerors shall submit supporting documentation to support the evaluation factors in Section M. Each volume should be specific and complete. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory.

L.3.9 Proposal Organization/Format: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in this paragraph and the table below. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, as a Word or Excel Document, single-spaced, and compatible with MS Office Word 2010. Font size shall be no less than 11 point Times New Roman or Arial. Use 1 inch top and bottom margins and 1-inch left and right margins. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point. If graphics are included that contain screen shots of computer screens, the 8 point font limitation does not apply. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by section. Page limitations are maximums and font limitations are minimums. If page limitations are exceeded, the Government will not read or consider the excess pages in evaluating the proposal. The cover page and table of contents for each volume do not count against the proposal page count for that volume. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the following table.

(Subcontractor Consent to Release is not included in the page limitation) No more than 3 pages for each reference (Word Format)

L.3.10 [Reserved]

L.3.11 Electronic Copies: The Offeror shall submit two complete copies of the proposal in electronic format using non-rewriteable compact disks (CD-R). The content and page size of electronic copies shall be identical to the hard copies. If there is a variance, the electronic document will take precedence. All files must be uncompressed. The Offeror shall submit any final cost/price revisions resulting from any discussions and updates in hard copy and on CD-Rs. Ensure the electronic documents stored on the CD-R disks can be opened. Electronic copies of spreadsheets shall be provided in Microsoft Excel with all formulas and data intact, editable, and unlocked to allow Government evaluation and review of equations. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) ‘Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data’ and FAR 3.104-4 ‘Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information’.

L.3.12 The offeror’s proposal must be valid for a minimum of 120 days.

L.3.13 All options and extensions will be evaluated and priced prior to contract award.

L.3.14 All Information provided by the offeror, consistent with the constraints of the RFP; is subject to evaluation as described in the RFP, Sections L and M.

L.3.15 The original proposal shall be delivered to the address found below by the due date and time found in Block 9 of the solicitation.

Crystal Gateway II 1225 S. Clarke Street Suite 1210 Arlington VA, 22202

L.4 Volume Information and Content

L.4.1 Execute Summary Volume 1: The Offeror must submit a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal and highlight any key or unique features, excluding price. Any summary material presented here will not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal, and therefore will not be evaluated. The cover letter shall provide the following information:

1. Company’s Small Business Status as appropriate

1. Primary and alternate points of contact including name, telephone number, and email address for individuals responsible for their proposal

1. Name, telephone number, and email address of the individual authorized to bind the company

1. CAGE Code

1. DUNS number

1. A statement that your company understands the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein

1. Acknowledgment of all amendments either by completing the individual SF30s or acknowledging receipt of all amendments

1. Proposal response matrix – the matrix shall consist of at least three columns 1) the solicitation section being addressed, 2) the title or description of the requirement being addressed, and 3) the section of the proposal where the proposal response can be found.

L.4.2 Small Business Participation and Small Business Participation Volume 2:

1. Small Business Participation - All Offerors will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis against the elements found in Section M. All Offerors will be required to submit a commitment letter(s) for each small business identified in the proposal. A commitment letter is not required if the offeror is a qualified small business.

1. Small Business Subcontracting Plans - The Large Business Offeror shall provide its Small Business Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the contracting officer prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a)(1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan or a Comprehensive Small Business Subcontraction Plan acceptable to the contracting officer. The successful Offeror’s approved subcontracting plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

L.4.3 Technical Volume 3: Offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the elements defined in Section M ‘Evaluation Factors’. The evaluation provides for a combined technical and risk rating. The technical proposal shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to address the offeror’s response to the Technical Factor and elements described in Section M.

L.4.4 Past Performance Volume 4: The Offeror must submit relevant and recent contract information regarding past performance, as described in ‘Section M: Evaluation Factors’. The offeror may provide no more than three (3) relevant and recent past performance references.

1. The offeror shall submit a narrative on past performance for prime or subcontractors that relates to the PWS work requirements. This includes contract information, points of contact, and for the offeror to provide a narrative detailing key performance accomplishments related to the requirements. If necessary, the Government will only discuss past performance information directly with the prime or subcontractor’s past performance is identified, the prime contractor will be notified of the discrepancy but no details will be discussed with the prime contractor without the subcontractor’s permission.

1. If any subcontractor’s past performance that is submitted, the subcontractor’s Consent to Release the past performance information to the prime must be submitted in the prime’s proposal. If a subcontractor does not wish to release its past performance information to the prime for inclusion in Volume 3, the subcontractor’s past performance may be delivered separately by the subcontractor directly to the Contracting Officer; however, any such delivery must identify the prime contractor and meet the solicitation’s page limits and closing time/date deadline.

1. Past Performance Questionnaires (RFP Attachment 03) shall be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer. The questionnaire will be prepared by the customer who issued the contract and submitted no later than the closing date of the RFP. Each past performance contract referenced shall include a contracting and technical point of contact along with email address, phone number, and title.

1. Offerors or subcontractors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall submit a statement to that effect.

L.4.5 Price Volume 5:

1. All pricing information and supporting data shall be addressed only in the price proposal, as a separate volume. The price volume should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the reasonableness and balance of the proposal. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

0. For a price to be reasonable, it must present a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

0. Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be reason to reject an offeror’s proposal

1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

1. The total evaluated price is the price of all contract line item numbers (CLINs) for base periods and all option periods including the extension of services as identified in the CLIN structure below.

1. The offeror must submit a proposed price for the PWS requirements consistent with these instructions:

3. The offeror is to provide pricing broken out by base and option period for each identified CLIN.

3. The offeror shall propose the Government established amounts for travel identified below. Fee is not allowed on the travel items.

3. Prices are to be rounded to the nearest penny (e.g. $3,571.87)

3. The offeror must provide a narrative basis of estimate to ensure that the proposed price adequately reflects the proposed approach provided in the Technical Volume. The narrative should explain how the offeror estimated each major cost element. Include significant pricing considerations and all assumptions made.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION AND RATING METHODS

M.1 INTRODUCTION.

M.1.1 The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with the factors and criteria established in this Request For Proposal (RFP). The criteria provide the basis upon which each evaluation will be based, are established before receipt of the proposals, and are intended to ensure that the evaluation will be a structured process employing equitable measures. Proposals will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value – Trade-Off, to the responsible PPML offeror whose offer is considered the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M.1.2 The Government intends to evaluate PPML proposals and make award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary.

M.1.3 Offerors are to be cautioned that “parroting” of the PPML PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.2 Technical.

M.2.3.2 Recency refers to the state or quality of being current. The more recent the contract, the greater the likelihood that the PPML offeror has the capacity to perform in a like manner. Information regarding contract performance that is recent and has a logical connection with the matter under consideration indicates relevancy.

M.2.4 Price

M.2.4.1 Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Prices which are too high may be considered unreasonable and may receive no further consideration. Price evaluation is inclusive of all option periods. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options.

M.2.4.2 The total evaluated price will be assessed, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTOR CRITERIA

M.3.1 Criteria for Technical Factor The Technical Factor will consist of three sub factors; Element A: Technical Approach and Methodology; Element B: Project Management Plan; and Element C: Quality Assurance Plan. Each sub factor will be assigned an adjectival rating. Based on these sub factor ratings, an overall adjectival rating will be assigned for the Technical Factor. Element A is significantly more important than either Element B and Element C, which are of equal importance.

Element A: Technical Approach and Methodology Each portion of the PPML PWS must be addressed. Proposals shall describe the PPML offeror's understanding of the requirement, assessment of the objectives to be accomplished, and methodology for accomplishing the requirement. Offerors who DEMONSTRATE experience with using best industry practices for the use of open source standards and components in their software development methodology shall receive more weight. Offerors who PROPOSE in their technical solution the use of open source standards and components with minimal licensing of operations and maintenance use shall receive more weight. Open source interoperability and maintenance of a competitive profile for maintenance is a key consideration. The goal is to select a successful offeror who will provide a solution that enables future development and operation without being limited to proprietary products, formats, or code.

Element B: Project Management Plan The proposal shall describe the PPML offeror’s approach for providing complete program management support that will fully integrate, manage, control, and document all phases of the contract requirements. Proposals shall describe the project management and staffing plans and demonstrate the offeror’s approach for providing the corporate resources necessary to ensure and maintain service quality levels, staffing levels, training and risk management. Project Management Plans that ensure minimal licensing requirements for operations and maintenance shall receive more weight. The Project Management Plan must address how communications with the user community will be employed through the steps of the design process to balance requirements, desired features, cost, and schedule. Offerors shall provide an active list of customers utilizing the proposed technology. Offerors who have established a community of practice or user group where their customers can discuss lessons learned and efficiencies gained from utilizing the proposed technology shall receive more weight.

Element C: Quality Control Plan The proposal shall describe the PPML offeror's approach for instituting and maintaining a capability to ensure the quality and integrity of software development services, including at least: (1) management and task controls to assure work will be completed as required; (2) contingency plans for identifying and correcting problems; (3) and steps that would be taken to assure timely delivery of quality software. Offerors who demonstrate familiarity with the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) articulated in DoD Instruction 8510.01, “Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT),” March 12, 2014, Incorporating Change 1, Effective May 24, 2016, and have incorporated compliance with RMF or an equivalent risk management process in their planning and technology implementation shall receive more weight.

M.3.2.2 In conducting the performance risk evaluation, the Government may use data provided by the PPML offeror and data obtained from other sources it considers current and accurate, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

M.3.3 Criteria for Price Factor. The contract will have cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) and firm fixed price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINs). The Government anticipates that adequate price competition will establish a fair and reasonable price for the FFP CLINs 0001, 0004, 0005, 0006 and 0008. The Government will evaluate PPML price proposals for CPFF CLINs 0002 and 0003 to ensure price reasonableness of the software development services being provided to the Government, considering the specific terms and conditions and relevant commercial practices.

M.4 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.

M.4.2. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance, which is more important than cost or price. Small Business Participation is a pass/fail requirement; any Offeror who receives a “FAIL” rating under this factor will not be evaluated further and therefore will not be eligible for award.

M.5 RATING METHODS

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf