A23 HQ003422R0003_Amend 0002.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 RFP HQ0034-22-R-0003 Amendment Number 0002, is to accomplish the follow ing:

1. Provide Revised Answ ers to Questions (Attachment 04, Questions 26 and 51);

2. Remove DFARS 252.204-7021.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Y 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 HQ003422R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jan-2022

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 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.

U0002

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Feb-2022

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-0002

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003422R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

252.204-7021 Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity

Model Certification Level Requirement

NOV 2020

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M - Evaluation Criteria and Award

52.212-2 EVALUATION –COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

The Government will award a single, hybrid contract that consist of Firm Fixed-Price and Time and Material resulting from this Request for Proposal to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be the best value and most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government may select for award the Offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and/or to request revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines the need.

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), as well as other

Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements. Proposals that take exception to any requirement, state assumptions or impose requirements not in or contrary to the solicitation or otherwise qualify the proposal shall not be considered and shall be deemed unacceptable for award.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1: Technical & Management Approach, and Capability

Factor 2: Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Price

Order of Important: In determining best value, Factor 1, Technical & Management Approach, and Capability; Factor

2, Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications; and Factor 3, Past Performance are of equal importance. Factors

1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 are each more important than Factor 4, Price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. 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).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

52.212-2 EVALUATION –COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) ADDENDUM

M.1 Pass/Fail Criteria

The Government will evaluate a proposal ONLY IF the proposal satisfies the following element, which will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis*:

1) The Offeror shall provide the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) requirements and substantiating documentation to demonstrate how they will meet these requirements in accordance with

Section M.2.1 below.

* Offerors will only be eligible for award after an evaluation is conducted in accordance with the criteria set forth in

FAR 52.212-2 of this solicitation. If the Offeror receives a “fail” in the element above, the proposal will not be evaluated further.

M.2. Small Business Participation Commitment Document

The Offeror submits a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCP) that meets the criteria listed below.

The Government shall evaluate the proposal to determine the extent:

M.2.1. Each firm as defined in FAR Part 19, Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-

Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business, Veteran-

Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), are specifically identified in the proposal.

M.2.2 The Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment with each firm (as defined in FAR Part 19) that the

Offeror has specifically identified in the proposal, such as, letters of commitment, joint ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

M.2.3 Identify the type and variety of the work each firm(s) as defined in FAR Part 19 are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

M.2.4 Identification of a minimum of 20% small business prime offerors and/or small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

M.3 Evaluation Factor 1 Technical & Management Approach, and Capability

A. Technical & Management Approach

1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed Technical Approach’s means and methods provide for successful performance of the PWS requirements.

2. The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s Management Approach for managing its team

(including retention) in order to ensure quality and timely performance.

3. The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s proposed approach to recruiting, onboarding, and retaining, and the extent to which the approach will allow for the rapid filling of vacancies.

B. Capability

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to each of the scenarios to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement, soundness and ingenuity of approach, and ability to satisfy the requirements of the respective PWS task.

Note: Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating under Evaluation Factor 1 will render the proposal ineligible for award.

M.4 Evaluation Factor 2 Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications

A. Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed labor mix (i.e., labor categories and hours) to determine the extent to which the proposed labor mix can satisfy the PWS requirements.

B. Key Personnel Qualifications

The Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine whether they each meet the applicable minimum personnel requirements listed at section 5.2 of the PWS, and to determine the extent to which the resumes possess additional qualifications (education, experience, etc.) relevant to the tasks to which the individual is assigned. If a resume fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements for its position listed at PWS section 4.6, the proposal will receive a deficiency, will be rated as “Unacceptable” under Factor 2, and will be ineligible for award. Where an Offeror fails to submit a resume for each of the five required Key Personnel, the proposal will receive a deficiency, will be rated as “Unacceptable” under Factor 2, and will be ineligible for award.

Note: Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for Evaluation Factor 2 will render the proposal ineligible for award.

M.5 Evaluation Factor 3 Past Performance

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror has performed on contracts that have been determined to be both recent and relevant to the PWS. The Government reserves the right to contact references provided on the Past

Performance Template to verify the Offeror’s past performance. There are three aspects to the Past Performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Step 1 – Recency: An assessment of the Past Performance will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, Past Performance projects must be on-going (no break in service) and/or were completed on or after March 1, 2017.

Past Performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Step 2 – Relevancy: The second step is to determine how relevant each of the Offeror’s projects are to the solicited work. Each project will be assigned a relevancy rating from Table 3. Projects which are rated “Not Relevant” will not be further considered and will not be factored into the Offeror’s overall Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating.

Step 3 – Quality of Service: The third step of the Past Performance evaluation is to establish the quality of the

Offeror’s performance on each project. The Government reserves the right to obtain recent past performance information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources – including sources other than those provided by the offeror, contacting customers, reviewing databases such as the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or reviewing other sources of information. The Government reserves the right to contact any reference to discuss past performance.

The Government’s evaluation documentation will discuss the Offeror’s quality of performance on each of the projects that are considered recent and relevant; however, it will not assign a quality of performance rating for each individual Past Performance project.

-The Government will evaluate if the project demonstrated knowledge and application experience especially within the Department of Defense.

-The Government will evaluate if the project demonstrated ability to deliver required services on time and of professional quality, Similarity of scope, magnitude, and complexities in relation to this requirement, based upon evaluations from CPARs, PPQs, and Past Performance Template.

Step 4 – Overall Confidence Assessment: After assessing the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance of the Offeror’s individual projects, the Government will assign one overall Confidence Assessment Rating to the

Offeror (Table 4, below). This rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance across the reviewed past projects.

M.6 Evaluation Factor 4 Price

In order to be eligible for award, an offeror's overall price must be determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404. The offeror’s price must be found to be fair and reasonable in order to be eligible for award. Price will not be scored or receive an adjectival rating. The evaluated price will include all Contract Line

Item Numbers (CLINs) and all option periods.

A. For evaluation purposes only, the total evaluated price is the sum of the prices submitted for (a) transition period

(b) the base period, c) all option periods, and (d) the six-month extension authorized by FAR clause 52.217-8. For purposes of determining the evaluated price for the six month 52.217-8 extension, the total price is calculated as one-half of the total price of the fourth option year. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). **

B. Time & Materials (T&M) CLINs: The Offeror is not required to propose prices for Time and Material CLINs.

The Government will provide a not-to-exceed price based on the Government’s estimates of material cost, lodging, shipping, travel location(s) and estimated days. The T&M cost of the contract will be added into the total evaluated price.

** Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. 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).

M.7 Evaluation Process and Ratings

Factors 1, Technical & Management Approach, and Capability, and Factor 2, Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

Qualifications, will be assigned a rating in accordance with the table below:

Table 1: Technical & Management Approach, and Capability AND Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications

Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contain multiple 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

Definitions – For evaluation purposes the following definitions apply:

Table 2: Technical & Management Approach, and Capability AND Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

Qualifications Definitions

Rating Definition

Strength is 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 means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency is a 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.

Technical Factor 3, Past Performance, will be assigned a rating in accordance with the table below:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present /Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope of effort 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 of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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 quality and 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.

Attachments

The following attachments constitute the complete RFP solicitation and are hereby incorporated by reference:

1. Attachment 01 Revised Staffing Plan Template

2. Attachment 02a Revised Past Performance Template

3. Attachment 02b Past Performance Questionnaire

4. Attachment 03 Revised Pricing Template

5. Attachment 04 Revised Questions and Answers

6. Attachment 05 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

7. Attachment 06 Subcontracting Plan

8. Attachment 07 Revised Workload Estimates

(End of Summary of Changes)