HQ072718R0001_-_Amendment.pdf

IDENTIFIED PER TASK ORDER

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

SF30 changes for the Strategic and Technical Analyses of Microelectronics Supply and Trust (STAMSaT) are as follow s:

(1) Updated Section L, Instruction to Offerors, Factor 7, Step 1 to address pricing for 6 month extension of the contract, if exercised per 52.217-8, pricing to be equal to the labor rates provided for the period of performance 01 March 2022-28 February 2023 provided on Attachment 1, Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates.

(2) Revision to Attachment 1, Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates to provide for multi period offer rates.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Dec-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 HQ072718R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Dec-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 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

11-Dec-2017

CODE

DEFENSE MICROELECTRONICS ACTIVITY (HQ)

CONTRACTING DIVISION

4234 54TH STREET

MCCLELLAN CA 95652-2100

HQ0727 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ072718R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Schedule of Positions and

Labor Rates

5 29-NOV-2017

Attachment 2 Task Order 0001 - PWS 18-8B7

3 01-NOV-2017

Attachment 3 Task Order 0001 - DD 1423 CDRLs A001-A004

1 24-OCT-2017

Attachment 4 Task Order 0001 - Draft

DD 254

2 11-OCT-2017

Attachment 5 Task Order 0001 - Draft DD 254 Addendum

3 11-OCT-2017

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Schedule of Positions and

Labor Rates

5 11-DEC-2017

Attachment 2 Task Order 0001 - PWS 18-8B7

3 01-NOV-2017

Attachment 3 Task Order 0001 - DD 1423 CDRLs A001-A004

1 24-OCT-2017

Attachment 4 Task Order 0001 - Draft

DD 254

2 11-OCT-2017

Attachment 5 Task Order 0001 - Draft DD 254 Addendum

3 11-OCT-2017

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS:

1) These Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provide general guidance for preparing proposals as well as instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The proposal must contain all data and information requested in this solicitation and be submitted in accordance with the instructions herein. Failure to follow the instructions, prescribed format, or to submit the required information, may result in elimination from the competition.

2) The Government Contract Administrator (CA; noted on solicitation page1, block 7) is the sole point of contact for this solicitation; all correspondence must be addressed in writing to the CA. The CA will direct questions to the Contracting Officer (CO) or other personnel as needed for clarification, and will provide responses to Offerors.

3) Discrepancies: If an Offeror believes that these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the

Offeror shall immediately notify the CA in writing with supporting rationale. Notifications must be submitted to the CA not later than ten (10) calendar days after release of the solicitation to allow for timely resolution; late notifications may not allow for timely clarification or amendment to the solicitation, if required.

4) There will be no financial considerations made to Offerors for the development of their proposals in response to this solicitation.

5) Unless otherwise restricted or withdrawn by the Offeror, proposals shall remain valid for Government acceptance for sixty (60) days after the proposal submittal deadline.

6) Offers will be accepted in electronic format only; no paper hard copy offers will be accepted. Offerors may submit proposals by hand delivering or mailing their proposal files on one (1) compact disc (CD) to:

Defense Microelectronics Activity Attn: Zonel Laborde, MEEC Alt: Connie L Newell, MEEC 4234 54th Street McClellan, CA 95652-2100

7) File Format: Offerors should submit all proposal files in Microsoft Office product or Adobe PDF formats.

8) Proposal Marking: In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall –

a. Mark the title page with the following legend: “This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of -- or in connection with -- the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets].” and,

b. Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend: “Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

9) Proposal Organization: Proposals shall be separated into volumes and sections for each evaluation factor.

Separate coversheets or dividers are not required for each section; however, each section must be clearly titled for evaluation. Offerors should provide one electronic file for each volume.

10) Page Limits: Page limits shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, all pages beyond the stated maximum will be removed prior to proposal evaluation and will not be read or considered during evaluation. Page limits do not include title sheets, cover sheets, or tables of content.

11) Proposal Volumes shall include the following documents for evaluation, to which the stated maximum page limits shall apply:

Proposal Volume

Title Instructions Page Limit

I RFP Requirements (see below for each factor) (see below)

SF 1449, Solicitation / Contract / Order for Commercial Items

Offeror shall complete SF 1449, Page 1, blocks 17(a), 30(a), 30(b), and 30(c). Return only Page 1 of the solicitation.

Note: Code in block 17(a) is Offeror’s CAGE code; no Facility Code is needed.

Representations, Certifications Offeror shall complete SF 1449, solicitation Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors. Return only Section K of the solicitation.

II Technical Capability (see below for each factor) (see below) Factor 1

Project Management Experience

a. Each offeror is to provide at least five, but no more than seven, actual technical studies, strategic analyses and in-depth briefing requiring a minimum of two (2) each of the technical studies, two (2) each of the strategic analyses and at least one (1) of the in-depth briefing—delivered since 2014—that pertain to 1) assessment and recommendations of government and industry policy as it affects the evolution of the science and technologies related to the capabilities of advanced electronics for military use, 2) strategic and business planning involving setup, structuring, and facilitation of strategic and business planning initiatives to develop a vision, enterprise roadmap and long-term plan for an organization, or 3) analysis of risks and security vulnerabilities inherent in utilizing both commercial and foreign sources of microelectronics in military weapon systems. Sensitive information in any of these reports can be redacted.

b. For each of the studies and analyses provided, the offeror is to provide a one page abstract that summarizes the problem or issue with which the offeror was presented, the key recommendations or findings made in the provided study or analysis, the outcome that followed from the client’s use of the key recommendations or findings, and client contact information.

Unlimited

Factor 2 Key Personnel

Each offeror shall demonstrate the depth and breadth of the functional experience, training and qualifications (including current capacity to perform classified work) of their key personnel. Offerors shall submit résumés for proposed key personnel. The offeror shall demonstrate current capacity to perform classified work with appropriate personnel. The offeror shall demonstrate how key personnel will be identified and made available for projects.

Factor 3 Company Resources

a. Each offeror shall provide a narrative, including an organization chart, that describes their technical approach toward utilizing their current personnel to perform the work related to STAMSaT in relation to the company’s other work (current and anticipated). The offeror shall demonstrate current and future facilities that will provide capacity to perform classified work.

b. Offeror shall demonstrate that current and future facilities will provide capacity to perform classified work by providing a copy of their Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) Facility Accreditation Letter.

c. Each offeror shall provide their company’s latest annual financial information, including a balance sheet, and any additional narrative (one page, maximum) necessary to demonstrate the financial health and viability of the company for the anticipated performance period, which would be five years, 6 months.

d. Each offeror shall provide a subcontracting plan along with a proposed small business subcontracting participation commitment document. The assessment of the subcontracting plan IAW FAR 19.7 is different from the evaluation of small business participation. The extent of participation of small businesses shall also include the socio-economic categories (service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns) in performance of the contract.

III Task Order Proposal (See below for each factor) (see below)

Factor 4 Task Order 0001 – Task Order Proposal (TOP)

Offeror shall identify the technical approach with which they will perform the identified study. Offeror shall not simply restate information from the Government Task Order Performance Work Statement (TO-PWS) but will provide specific processes, key recommendations, and potential outcomes or goals of the Offeror’s study. Offeror must include the labor positions, labor hours, and any other required materials, travel, subcontractor performance, etc.

required for performance of the requirement. Offeror’s TOP must NOT contain pricing information.

Factor 5 Task Order 0001 – Key Personnel

Offeror shall demonstrate the depth and breadth of the functional experience, training and qualifications (including current capacity to perform classified work) of their key personnel. Offerors shall submit résumés for proposed key personnel. The offeror shall demonstrate current capacity to perform classified work with appropriate personnel. The offeror shall demonstrate how key personnel will be identified and made available for projects. Proposed personnel must meet the security requirements identified in the Draft DD 254.

Factor 6 Past Performance

a. Each offeror shall provide current contact information (name, telephone number, and email address for a point of contact) for at least five, but no more than seven, Government or commercial contracts that have been completed within the last three years and were for projects similar to the scope described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

b. Each offeror shall provide past performance information related to compliance with the requirements of clause 52.219-8 -- Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Examples of elements of compliance with FAR 52.219-8 includes:

1) Actual prior use of small businesses

2) Use of small businesses in the socioeconomic categories

3) Types of work performed by small businesses

4) Complexity of the work performed by small businesses

5) Reporting of small business performance in

CPARS

6) History of prompt payments to small businesses

c. Each offeror shall provide past performance information related to compliance with the requirements of clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2016-O0009). Examples of elements of compliance with FAR 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016- O0009) includes:

1) Performance against subcontracting goals

2) Compliance with the small business subcontracting plan in general

IV Price (See below for each factor) (see below)

Factor 7

Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates

Offerors shall complete Attachment 1 - Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates for use on task orders issued under this contract. Additionally, offerors shall provide their GSA negotiated rates or published price lists, if applicable.

Provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

Offers shall demonstrate the ability to provide commercial rates (e.g., GSA MOBIS rates) for contract use.

For the purpose of price evaluation, offerors shall use Attachment 1 – Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates and follow these steps:

Step1) Provide fully–burdened labor rates (include all indirect costs, overheads, general and administrative expenses, allocated other direct costs and profit) for 5 Years, 6 months (if 6 month option is exercised per 52.217-8, task order labor rates will equal those provided for period 01 March 2022-28 February 2023);

Step 2) Group each labor discipline into one of the following three categories: a) Technical (researcher/analyst/illustrator/editor/ professionals performing hands-on work); b) Managerial (executive director/senior manager/partners, program manager, project managers, etc.); and c) Administrative (clerical, accounting, procurement, etc.);

Step 3) Average all five years, 6 months for each labor discipline to arrive at one rate for each of the five years, 6 months;

Step 4) Use the averaged rate from Step 3 to calculate the average rate for each labor discipline within the three categories. (One labor rate for each category);

Step 5) Add the three consolidated rates to arrive at the total price.

Offerors shall provide documentation related to each step.

Offerors that submit only the total price (Step 5) may be determined to be unacceptable. If a firm has only one labor rate in any of the three categories, such offerors shall annotate that information in Step 2 and proceed with the other steps.

Factor 8 Task Order 0001 – Price Proposal

Offeror shall provide a Price Proposal that includes a break out of all proposed labor positions, rates, labor hours, and any other price-related information required for performance including subcontractor quotes or travel costs, if any.

Requests for contract financing must be included in the Offeror’s Price Proposal, if requested.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

(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.

(End of Provision)

EVALUATION FACTORS

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the terms of this solicitation, will be most advantageous and provide the best value to the Government based on an evaluation of price and other actors, as identified in FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items.

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance, as follows:

Factor 1 – Project Management Experience is of equal importance as Factor 2, Factor 3 and Factor 4 Factor 2 – Key Personnel is of equal importance as Factor 1, Factor 3 and Factor 4 Factor 3 – Company Resources is of equal importance as Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 4 Factor 4 – Task Order 0001 – Task Order Proposal (TOP) is of equal importance as Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 Factor 5 – Task Order 0001 Key Personnel is slightly less important than Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3 and Factor 4 Factor 6 – Past Performance is slightly less important than Factor 5

The Pricing Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 7 - Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates is slightly less important than Technical Evaluation Factors 1-6

Factor 8 - Task Order 0001 – Price Proposal is of equal importance to Factor 7

Evaluation of offers will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and DOD Source Selection Procedures.

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most accurate and favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposals.

The evaluation process will be conducted as follows:

VOLUME I: RFP REQUIREMENTS

The Government will review all proposals submitted to ensure Offerors have completed and signed the SF 1449, Solicitation / Contract / Order for Commercial Items, including solicitation Page 1 and Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

RFP Requirements will be reviewed and evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for Acceptable / Unacceptable ratings, as follows:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Acceptable proposals will be those whose SF 1449 is completed / signed on Page 1, blocks 17(a), 30(a), 30(b), and 30(c) and completed SF 1449, solicitation Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

The Government will also review proposals for adherence to other RFP requirements and will remove any proposal pages that exceed the maximum page limits specified in Section L, Instructions to Offerors, prior to conducting further evaluations.

VOLUME II: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Technical factors will be evaluated by how well the proposal meets the Government requirement and what level of quality is evaluated by the Offeror’s proposal and technical approach.

Technical factors 1 – 3 will be evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for combined technical acceptability and risk ratings, as follows:

Color Rating Description

Blue

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

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

Technical Factor 6 will be evaluated based on the criteria stated in the factor section below.

All technical factors will be evaluated in order of factor, per the criteria identified below.

Factor 1: Project Management Experience

The Government will evaluate the abstracts and work samples provided by Offerors to determine the content, usefulness, and completeness of technical studies, strategic analysis, and in-depth briefings, previously completed by the Offeror.

Offerors must provide at least five (5) (but no more than seven (7)) work samples completed since 2014. Offerors must provide the number of work samples, by type, specified in Section L. Offerors must provide the work samples for the topics specified in Section L. Offerors who fail to provide the required number, type, and topic of work samples will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for award.

Proposals demonstrating a higher caliber of performance through more thorough analysis and reporting, greater experience in the defense and microelectronics industry based on projects similar to the work described in the STAMSaT PWS, or overall content, usefulness, and completeness of past work samples, will receive higher ratings

Factor 2: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative to determine capability to perform classified work with appropriate personnel, and how potential personnel will be identified and made available for task order projects.

Proposals demonstrating the better ability to provide a depth and breadth of personnel experience, training, and qualifications to meet the needs of the STAMSaT PWS will receive higher ratings.

In connection with the services covered by this contract, any in-house personnel, subcontractors, and outside associates or consultants will be limited to the individuals or firms that were specifically identified in your proposal and accepted for award. The contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these designated in-house personnel, subcontractors, associates, or consultants at any time and to include any post-award changes.

Factor 3: Company Resources

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s company resources through a review of the narrative provided and assess for completeness and quality. Proposals demonstrating the better overview of current resources (including an overview of facilities and personnel) and their approach toward utilizing these resources to perform the contemplated STAMSaT effort in relation to the Offeror's other work (current and anticipated) will receive higher ratings.

VOLUME III: TASK ORDER PROPOSAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for Task Order 0001 (TO-0001) to determine capability to put together a task order proposal that is complete, accurate to the requirement, and proposes services and deliverables that will meet the need of the Government as identified in the task order performance work statement (TO-PWS). The Offeror’s proposal for TO-0001 will be evaluated and awarded as the first TO under the STAMSaT contract.

Factors 4 and 5 will be evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for combined technical acceptability and risk ratings, as follows:

Color Rating Description

Blue

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

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

All factors will be evaluated in order of factor, per the criteria identified below.

Factor 4, Task Order 0001 – Task Order Proposal (TOP)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Task Order Proposal (TOP) for the study identified for TO-0001. The Offeror shall not simply restate information from the Government TO-PWS. The Offeror’s (TOP) will provide a specific technical approach for the requirement, including processes, key recommendations, and potential outcomes or goals of the Offeror’s study.

The Offeror’s proposal must include an overview of facilities and personnel that will be used in performance of the work and break out all proposed labor positions, labor hours, and any other resources required for performance including materials, subcontractor quotes, or travel costs, if any. The Government will evaluate the noted positions which the Offeror proposes to use in performance of the TO-PWS to determine the degree to which the proposed positions will enable the Offeror to successfully perform the requirement as identified in the TO-PWS, and that the proposed labor hours are reasonable and realistic to meet the requirements of the TO-PWS.

Proposals providing a more thorough description of the labor and other resources required for performance of the requirement will receive higher ratings. Proposals demonstrating a higher caliber of technical approach, or more thorough content, usefulness, completeness, and conformity to the TO-PWS, will receive higher ratings.

Factor 5, Task Order 0001 – Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s resumes and/or narrative to determine if the Offeror has sufficient personnel that are qualified in terms of labor positions, security levels, education, and experience for each position identified, and to what degree the proposed personnel will enable the Offeror to successfully perform TO-0001 work. Proposed personnel will be evaluated based on demonstrated experience, developed skill level, security clearance, and likely capability to perform the required work outlined in the TO-PWS.

This factor is differentiated from Factor 2, (Technical Capability, Key Personnel) in that this section requires information for the specific individuals that will perform work under the TO.

Resumes or narratives may be submitted but documentation must demonstrate the depth and breadth of the individual’s experience, training, and qualifications to perform the task. Proposed personnel must meet the security requirements identified in the DD 254.

In connection with the services covered by this contract, any in-house personnel, subcontractors, and outside associates or consultants will be limited to the individuals or firms that were specifically identified in your proposal and accepted for award. The contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these designated in-house personnel, subcontractors, associates, or consultants at any time and to include any post-award changes.

Proposals clearly demonstrating personnel with the appropriate experience, training, qualifications, and security levels to meet the needs of the TO will receive higher ratings.

Factor 6: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate responses from past client points of contact identified for each work sample provided for Factor, to further validate past performance and assess confidence in the Offeror’s future capability to provide services.

The Government may request information regarding overall satisfaction with the Offeror’s performance, to include, but not necessarily limited to, compliance with schedule, budget constraints, and trends in Contractors’ performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s work samples to determine recency:

1) Work samples completed since 2014 will be determined recent.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s work samples for the following topics to determine relevancy:

1) Assessment and recommendations of Government and industry policy as it affects the evolution of the science and technologies related to the capabilities of advanced electronics for military use; or,

2) Strategic and business planning involving setup, structuring, and facilitation of strategic and business planning processes to develop a vision, enterprise roadmap and long-term plan for an organization; or,

3) Analysis of risks and security vulnerabilities inherent in utilizing both commercial and foreign sources of microelectronics in military weapon systems.

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 shall be determined to have Unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Past Performance will be reviewed and evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for Acceptable / Unacceptable past performance ratings, as follows:

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is Unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have Unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

The Government will also consider past performance information obtained from other than the sources provided, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), and/or other DOD contracts available in the Electronic Document Access (EDA) Library.

Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

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.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The ratings below will be used for evaluation. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

VOLUME 4: PRICE

Factor 7, Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates

Before making award, the Contracting Officer (CO) must determine that the Offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable.

It is anticipated that adequate price competition will support a determination that prices are fair and reasonable, however Offerors may be required to submit additional pricing information and other than certified cost data for the CO to adequately determine price reasonableness.

Evaluation of Price includes consideration of whether the Offeror’s prices and cost proposal are complete and reasonable, defined as follows:

Completeness – The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the proposed pricing to determine that all price/cost data have been submitted in compliance with the solicitation and STAMSaT PWS. Pricing data provided should be consistent with the elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror must provide all price/cost data that is necessary to support the offer.

Reasonableness – The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing to determine whether the Offeror’s estimated Prices are reasonable to the scope of the solicitation, and STAMSaT PWS. The Offeror will be evaluated on the reasonableness of fixed labor rates associated with each labor skill classification, as well as application of other quoted costs. The Government will assess each proposal to ensure that appropriate labor categories and overhead costs are proposed to ensure the Offeror can successfully perform all contractual requirements. An Offeror who submits unrealistically low pricing may be excluded from award as this indicates that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or that the Offeror has purposefully submitted an unrealistically low proposal to “buy in” to the contract. In accordance with provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Schedule of Positions and Labor Rates to ensure the Offeror has provided competitive labor rates for all identified positions for five years, 6 months, and that the rates are complete and reasonable based on education, experience, functional responsibilities, and security clearance levels.

Offerors shall provide pricing using fully burdened labor rates (include all indirect costs, overheads, general and administrative expenses, allocated other direct costs and profit) for each position identified.

Offerors must provide pricing in the specified format (Attachment 1) and must group each labor discipline into one of the following categories (as separated in the Attachment, if appropriate, or identify new proposed labor categories by revising Attachment 1):

a) Technical (ex: researchers, analysts, illustrators, editors, professionals performing hands-on work, etc.)

b) Managerial (ex: executive director, senior managers, partners, program managers, project managers, etc.)

c) Administrative (ex: clerical, accounting, procurement, etc.)

Offerors must provide pricing for the minimum positions identified by the Government, and other positions required to meet the needs of the solicitation and STAMSaT PWS.

Labor rates will be evaluated on a competitive basis to ensure that rates are complete and reasonable to the needs of the solicitation and STAMSaT PWS. Labor rates will not be used in determining a lowest-priced Offeror.

Factor 7 pricing is slightly less important than Technical Evaluation Factors 1-6.

Factor 8, Task Order 0001 – Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal for TO-0001 to ensure that Offeror has provided a proposal that is complete and reasonable to the needs of the solicitation, STAMSaT PWS, and TO-PWS.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the procedures required to generate a TO price proposal based on the Offeror’s TOP for TO-0001 and the Offeror’s associated price breakout.

Price Proposal shall include a break out of all proposed labor positions, rates, labor hours, and any other costs for performance of TO-0001 including subcontractor quotes or travel costs, if any.

The TO-0001 Price Proposal will be evaluated on a competitive basis to ensure that proposed prices are complete and reasonable to the needs of the solicitation, STAMSaT PWS, and TO-PWS.

If Price becomes the determining Factor for award, the Government will use the Price Proposal for Task Order 0001 to determine the best value to the Government.

Price to the Government will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Additionally, all offers may be analyzed for unbalanced pricing. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Factor 8 pricing is of equal importance to Factor 7.

(End of Summary of Changes)