HS0021-15-R-0010-0004_Amendment.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 amendment is to update Section M.3.1.1. Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Apr-2015

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 HS0021-15-R-0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Mar-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Apr-2015

CODE

DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE

ASHLEY MADDOX 571.305.6547

RUSSELL-KNOX BUILDING

27130 TELEGRAPH ROAD

QUANTICO VA 22134

HS0021 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HS0021-15-R-0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Contract and Task Order Award

The basic contract and Task Order 0001 award will be made on the basis of lowest price technically acceptable proposals [LPTA], as defined FAR 15.101-2 meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

The basic contract and Task Order 0001 will be awarded based on the technical evaluation of the following factors and subfactors for Task Order 0001: The three (3) evaluation factors are: 1) Technical Capability, 2) Past Performance and 3) Price. The Technical Capability factor consists of three sub-factors: (1.1) Technical Approach, (1.2) Offeror Qualifications and Experience and (1.3) Key Personnel.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Capability and Past Performance Factors. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable, responsible offeror with the lowest evaluated price whose proposal most closely conforms to the solicitation requirements (the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)). The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, instructions, conditions, notices, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the lowest priced proposal for technical acceptability. If it is found acceptable, the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced proposal to determine adequate competition, no other proposals will be evaluated once the lowest and next lowest priced proposals are found technically acceptable.

M.2 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

FACTOR 1 – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Approach Subfactor 1.2 - Offeror Qualifications and Experience Subfactor 1.3 – Key Personnel

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

M.3 Proposal Evaluation

A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with the information contained in this solicitation.

The Government will arrange the offerors proposals from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price, as described below in M.3.3.

a. The Government will then conduct technical and past performance evaluations beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

b. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable for Factor 1, has an acceptable past performance rating and meets all of the other requirements of this solicitation, then the Government will make award to the lowest price offeror for both the Basic IDIQ Contract and Task Order 0001.

c. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable for Factor 1 or does not have an acceptable past performance rating, then evaluations shall continue and the CO may:

i. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror who is technically acceptable for Factor 1, has an acceptable past performance rating and meets all of the other requirements of this solicitation; or

ii. Set a competitive range that may include all of the lowest priced offerors who appear to be in technical accord having acceptable past performance and meeting all other requirements of this solicitation.

d. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance acceptability.

Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is created by the CO.

The Government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below:

M.3.1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s proposed solution satisfies the requirements specified in the solicitation and the Task Order 0001 PWS. Technical Capability has three (3) subfactors: (1.1) Technical Approach, (1.2) Offeror Qualifications and Experience and (1.3) Key Personnel, which will be rated separately.

The evaluation process will consider the following:

M.3.1.1. Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach. The extent to which the offeror's technical approach in response to the Task Order 0001 PWS satisfies all of the requirements of the Task Order 0001 PWS and the attached CDRLs to ensure successful performance. The extent to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the tasks as stated in the Task Order 0001 PWS, identifies risks, and proposes satisfactory solutions that reflect the capability to perform successfully. The Government will consider how the offeror plans to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities and workloads without affecting the ongoing work.The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed usage of specialized expertise and labor categories which will be employed to execute the efforts identified in the RFP and the Task Order 0001 PWS, including any categories which shall be filled by a subcontractor. The Government will consider the realism and appropriateness of the mix of labor assigned to the functional program areas and the number of personnel employed in relation to the proposed effort.

The Government will consider Offeror’s strategy to maintain full staffing, incentives to hire and retain key personnel, how the Offeror intends to validate contract employee education and experience to meet the minimum requirements in the Task Order 0001 PWS section 1.6.8, and how the offeror plans to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities and workloads without affecting the ongoing work. Offerors shall be evaluated on the submission of the technical approach and how it satisfies the task order 0001 PWS requirements and the deliverables identified in the CDRLS. Offeror’s will also be evaluated on how the Technical Approach proposal conveys the offeror’s “understanding” of the Government’s requirement, the operational needs that the contractor personnel will be performing and how they will meet the Government’s requirements.

M.3.1.2. Subfactor 1.2: Offeror Qualifications and Experience. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and execute the requirements of the RFP by considering the degree of relevance of the Offeror’s or subcontractor’s experience to the work listed in the Task Order 0001 PWS. The Government will assess the relevance and breadth of the Offeror’s experience in efforts that are of the same size, complexity and scope as those required to complete the requirements of this RFP.

Evaluation of this factor will assess the Offeror’s knowledge, experience, technical and project managerial proficiency in the following areas: Program/Project/Portfolio Management, Strategic Process Improvement and Business Requirements Support and Analyses and Quality Assurance (QA) Support. The evaluation will also assess the degree to which the offeror’s experience is relevant to the requirements of the solicitation on the basis of similarity in size, complexity and scope is limited to recent experience (within the last 3 years).

M.3.1. 3. Subfactor 1.3: Key Personnel. The Government shall evaluate the key personnel resumes to ensure they have met the requirements set forth in the task order 0001 PWS 1.6.8.1 – 1.6.8.6.

M.3.2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Task Order 0001 PWS. The Government is seeking to determine how well the Offeror has performed in the execution and completion of Contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to those identified in the solicitation. The Past Performance Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror’s past performance reflects knowledge, technical and project managerial proficiency. The Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the quality, relevancy and confidence of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Areas of relevance include Program/Project/Portfolio Management, Strategic Process Improvement and Business Requirements Support and Analyses and Quality Assurance (QA) Support. The Government will evaluate Past Performance using the information submitted on the Past Performance Questionnaires provided in Section J.2 of this solicitation. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror’s past performance reflects effective methods to control schedule and cost to meet all project objectives in their past performance. The extent of satisfaction of end users with contract deliverables and overall contractor’s service as well as business-like concerns for Government’s interest will also be evaluated. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy and timeliness of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates. The extent to which past performance reflects good operational support, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction, initiative, and adequacy of resources will be evaluated. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance.

Past performance information on work for State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that is similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar Federal contracts. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

M.3.3. FACTOR 3 - PRICE

Task Order 0001 Price Evaluation: Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The reasonableness of all labor rates proposed for fixed price for the base year and all option periods will be evaluated. A risk assessment will also be made if out-year labor rates are significantly higher or lower than the initial year labor rates. The determination that labor rates proposed for the base and all option years are reasonable will be based on the information submitted with the offeror’s proposal, the comparison of competitive offers, and a comparison of the Government’s Independent Cost Estimate. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price proposed for the CLINs for the base periods and the four option periods of Task Order 0001 to obtain a total evaluated price.

Basic Contract Labor Rate Evaluation: The base contract labor rates will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The reasonableness of all labor rates proposed for the five years of the ordering period will be evaluated. A risk assessment will also be made if the labor rates from the first year though the out-years are significantly higher or lower than the initial year labor rates. The determination that labor rates proposed for the five year ordering period are reasonable will be based on the information submitted with the offeror’s proposal, the comparison of competitive offers, and a comparison of the Government’s Independent Cost Estimate.

Price Analysis: The Government may use one, or a combination of the price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404- 1(b) to determine reasonableness. The Government will conduct price realism on each offeror’s proposal to ensure that rates and other pricing data are accurate, complete and reasonable. A determination will be made as to whether the price proposals submitted by offerors are complete in all aspects and whether the amounts submitted are calculated accurately. The determination that a total price is reasonable will be based upon information submitted with the offeror’s proposal, comparison of other competitive offers, the IGCE or other reasonable basis.

Failure to provide detailed pricing may be grounds for proposal being found non responsive and not eligible for award. While price will not be scored, it will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Additionally, a determination will be made if there is any significant performance risk to the Government because of unrealistically low or high prices. If Price information is included in any volume other than Price, that volume will not be evaluated at all.

M.4. TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE PROPOSAL

In accordance with, DFARS 215.300, the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated March 4, 2011, Appendix A, para A.2.1, “In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.” A technically acceptable proposal meets all material requirements; indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; and the risk of unsuccessful performance for any factor or subfactor is assessed as acceptable.

M.5. RATINGS:

M.5.1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR

Technical. The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. More than on “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

Table M.5.1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.5.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

When Past Performance is utilized under the LPTA process, it will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the below table:

Table M.5.2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

(End of Summary of Changes)