AMENDMENT_002.docx

HQ051618R0013

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:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

AMENDMENT 002

Version 1 June 14

HQ051618R0013 DIGITIZATION

QUESTION #5 How do you want the contractor to return digitized materials (into Wazee/AWS buckets, HDD, Aspera, etc.).

ANSWER#5: All digitized media is to be returned on hard drive of suitable capacity. No network based transfer will be accepted due to additional security and curation measures that will be taken by the government.

QUESTION #6 Regarding transition in, is there an existing provider we need to transition from? Is that why the Wazee document was included?

ANSWER#6: This transition document is not relevant to this procurement and has been deleted. (See below Administrative item A.

QUESTION #7 Can you clarify the PPE requirements?

a. We already have 3 PPE’s we did through D&B in 2017. Can those be submitted or do we need to get new ones done?

b. If the customer is to send those in on their own, what goes in the past performance section of our response?

c. Do those also have to be submitted by deadline of June 28th?

ANSWER#7:

a. Yes, these can be submitted if they meet the requirements in the RFP Page 62, Paragraph 5.2

b. Yes, These must be included in the response

c. Packages must be submitted fully completed by the deadlines. See

ADMINISTRATIVE #C

QUESTION #8 In “Other Costs”, is the shipping the cost of the boxes? And the cost of the transport to go under “Courier”?

ANSWER#8: Shipping of boxes will include courier or other shipment method required based on both distance from the DIMOC facility in Riverside, CA and the preference of the vendor. The media bill be provides in boxes as specified in the RFP, page 6, Paragraph 4.5

***************ADMINISTRATIVE***********************

A. Pages 90 Transition Plan thru page 101 is removed in its entirety from the solicitation.

B. Date of last RFI to be accepted will be on 27 June 2018.

C. Submission date of hard copies proposals has changed to 6 July 2018 close of business.

D. AMENDMENT 001, QUESTION #4 SEE ATTACHED TABLE BELOW: In lieu of an “INDUSTRY DAY” pictures of the media are furnished. The intent is to familarize you with the media’s transitions.

E. All amendments shall be acknowledge along with final submission.

AMENDMENT 002 TABLE ATTACHMENT 01

19. VIDEO – ALL FORMATS

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address:

https://farsite.hill.af.mil

1. AWARD BASED ON BEST VALUE TRADEOFF TO THE GOVERNMENT

The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is the best value in terms of Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the Solicitation. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements within the Statement of Objectives (SOO). In addition, the offeror should provide context to demonstrate their understanding of the overall project requirements; and a description of their approach to provide integrated support across the entire breadth of the proposal to meet all the requirements.

0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. In determining the best overall proposal, Technical and Past Performance factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical factor, subfactors technical capability and management capability are approximately equal in importance. The Government intends to make an award to one or more offerors whose proposals provide the best overall value to the government.

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the evaluation criteria, as well as all other RFQ requirements.

Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposal based on the detailed factors listed below.

1. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES.

1. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the offerors’ technical proposal (including proposed PWS) utilizing the Combined Rating Method (Table 1).

1. The offeror’s proposal and proposed PWS shall address each of the subfactors comprising the Technical Factor. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions in 52.212-1 Addendum of the solicitation. Each subfactor will be given an adjectival rating which correlates to a color rating. (Table 1).

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

C. The Government will apply the terms listed Table 2 Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process.

Table 2. Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process

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

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal/quotation for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal/quotation or inconsistencies in the proposal/quotation indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal/quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals shall be evaluated using the following factors and subfactors.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Subfactor 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – Statement of Objectives The Offeror’s technical proposal to the Government must demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the Project. The proposal should demonstrate the company’s understanding and capability in a concise, logical manner and should not contain superfluous material not directly related to the solicitation. All information must be presented in sufficient depth to allow the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the project and the Offeror’s capability for successful performance to meet these requirements. The Technical Proposal – PWS should also include the Offeror’s experience in providing similar services for the Government and/or commercial interests. This description should include key accomplishments, results, problems encountered and overcome, and the scope of various projects.

The Technical Elements for the section shall include each of the following:

Element 1. Demonstration of an understanding of the needs of the project. Demonstration of an understanding of DoD communications professional requirements. Demonstrated in depth understanding of the differences between public affairs and visual information archiving along with the methods and approach for accomplishing the specific training tasks outlined in the Task Orders.

Element 2. Describe and demonstrate a clear and comprehensive methodology for providing the technical and management needs of the SOO. Describe and demonstrate a clear and comprehensive methodology for providing the Government quality VI records.

Element 3. Demonstrated understanding of Quality Assurance (QA) methods, goals and objectives. Describe how quality will be determined and measured. Specific descriptions and designs (e.g. diagrams) of how the work performed will meet or exceed Quality Assurance goals shall be included. Demonstration of approach in the development of a QA plan, evaluation of activities covered in the QA plan, and method used to update the QA plan.

Element 4. Demonstrate a plan to optimize quality, timeliness of projects and tasks, and operational efficiencies illustrating capabilities in the area of the appropriate discipline(s) being solicited and ensuring that contractor can perform at satisfactory level commensurate with DIMOC standards. Include provisions of a quality assurance plan to demonstrate overall project efficiency, productivity and cost-effectiveness.

Element 5. Demonstration of a management plan which will provide DMA/DIMOC Project Officers up-to-date financial, project/subproject status, and personnel information. The plan should include methods to demonstrate cost of ownership and earned value management utilizing an enterprise unified process approach.

Element 6. Provide a transition plan that demonstrates a timely and smooth transition between contractors. The plan shall clearly demonstrate the contractor’s ability to assume full responsibility for all areas of operation in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract. The transition plan shall clearly demonstrate the contractor’s grasp of phase-in problems and present reasonable solutions and rationale to these problems. The transition plan shall clearly demonstrate how the contractor will transition out by having personnel assigned to this contract present or available on or before expiration of the phase out period.

Subfactor 2 – MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES

Offeror must describe the project management capabilities, organization and methodologies that will be used to meet the solicitation requirements as described in the SOO. At a minimum, the submission should include plan to maintain and enhance the contractor’s capability during life of the contract, subcontractor management plans, and project planning, monitoring, control, and execution plan.

FACTOR 2. PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors will be evaluated on performance under existing contracts and performance on prior contracts. It is important to note the difference between past performance and past experience. Past performance relates to quality and how well a Contractor performed, while past experience is about the type and amount of work previously performed by a Contractor.

In evaluating past performance information the following elements shall be considered: The currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, the Context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance IAW FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(i).

A. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past FiveYears: Evaluators will assess past performance information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type work. In addition, evaluators will consider offeror’s explanation of corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems if it finds any in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

B. The Offeror’s relevant past performance information: The Offeror will be evaluated to assess the demonstrated quality of performance on similar work, to include the ability to control the quality and cost of work, timeliness of performance, and effectiveness at accomplishing the goals of previous work. Offerors are required to provide the evidences and corporate resume of three (3) contracts performed during the past five years or currently in process for the relevant services to what is being solicited under this solicitation. Relevant contracts are those contracts that are of similar scope, magnitude, nature, and work. The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, the Past Performance Information retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). All past performance surveys must be submitted and received by the closing date of the RFP. If partnering, must identify the prime on the survey. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

1. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, offerors will provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

1. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Offerors will provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for discussions or proposal revisions.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or for ongoing efforts, must have been in place at least twelve (12) months before the proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for similarity in scope to the current requirements, magnitude of effort (based on dollar value, contract length, and geographic scope), complexity, and contract type. In determining relevancy for a past performance effort, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming/joint venture partner, or significant subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Greater relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that subcontractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. A relevancy determination for each of the offeror’s past performance references will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance information forms submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy (Table 3) when assessing recent contracts:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Quality Assessment 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 Defense Contract Management Agency officials or other sources known to the Government.

The Government will use the following quality ratings (Table 4) when assessing quality of recent, relevant contracts:

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings

Exceptional (E)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded most 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment 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. 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 "Unknown Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Also, the past performance references of a prime offeror will have greater weight than the examples provided for the prime’s significant subcontractors and/or teaming/joint venture partners. However, the Government may consider past performance regarding predecessor companies, or subcontractors/partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Lastly, in order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have been performed by the same division or corporate business unit that is proposing to perform the requirement.

Confidentiality of Sources: Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection Contracting Officer only.

After an integrated assessment of the Relevance and Quality of all past performance references and information reviewed, the Offeror will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments at the Past Performance Factor level (Table 5):

Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments

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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

FACTOR 3- COST/PRICE

Cost/Price while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation. Cost/Price is not scored; rather, each offeror's cost will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness of the proposed contract cost.

Sub-Factor 1: Realism Sub-Factor 2: Reasonableness

Cost Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed cost/price by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost/price with proposal scope and effort. For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. Cost realism evaluation includes a review of the overall costs in the offeror's proposal to determine:

· If costs are realistic for the work proposed;

· If costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and If costs are consistent with the various other elements of the offeror's proposal.

Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost/price for the base award and for the option to extend IAW 52.217-8 by assessing the acceptability of the offeror's methodology used in developing the cost/price estimates. For the cost to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including:

· Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the offeror's business or of the contract performance;

· Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.; and

· Any significant deviations from the offeror's established practices.

BEST VALUE TRADEOFF Award will be made to the proposal that contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government utilizing a tradeoff process. This will be determined by comparing differences in the merit for Technical and Past Performance Factors with the differences in Cost/Price to the Government. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining a superior evaluated proposal. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to the Government to achieve a slightly superior Technical and Past Performance proposal. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offer or to the offer with the highest rating if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

PRICING

Offerors shall provide price data by unit price, discounts by volume and extended price for each of these cost elements for a three year ordering period and a 6 month option period if the contract needs to be extended IAW 52.217-8:

MOTION MEDIA

Cost Each

Quantity Discount

Quantity Discount

Total Cost

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999)

The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 30

(End of clause)

52.232-19 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR (APR 1984)

Funds are not presently available for performance under this contract beyond task one of this requirement. The Government's obligation for performance of this contract beyond that date is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under this contract beyond ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF CONTRACT, until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for performance and until the Contractor receives notice of availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes) image4.jpeg image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image8.jpeg image9.jpeg image10.jpeg image11.jpeg image12.jpeg image13.jpeg image14.jpeg image15.jpeg image16.jpeg image17.jpeg image18.jpeg image19.jpeg image20.jpeg image1.wmf image2.jpeg image3.jpeg