HTC71119RD007_Amend_0004.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 Amendment 0004 is to revise the Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Aw ard. Specifically, revisions have been made to evaluation factor, Cost/Price. The offer due date remains unchanged; how ever, offerors w ho previously submitted a proposal response may resubmit Volume IV, Cost/Price as a result of the Amendment. Instructions and page limitations for the resubmission remain unchanged. Volume IV, Cost/Price revisions are due Friday, October 11, 2019 at 5:00 pm (CT).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Oct-2019

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 HTC71119RD007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2019

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

09-Oct-2019

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC71119RD007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

i. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection procedures. The Government will award to the offeror who, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors described below, represents the best value to the Government and is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented. An offeror’s proposal must conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation) to be considered for contract award.

ii. Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer deems necessary. The Government may establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal; furthermore, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

iii. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a hybrid, single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract with Firm-Fixed Price and Labor Hour line items; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. Additionally, the Government anticipates issuing one task order under the single award ID/IQ contract at time of award to fulfill the Government’s minimum guarantee.

iv. Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers in whole or in part and to incorporate all, part or none of the offeror’s written proposal into the resultant contract.

v. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal, and allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

a) Factor 1: Technical/Management Phase One: Subfactor 1 - CMMI Level III in the Development and/or Services model Phase Two: Subfactor 2 - Architecture – DoDAF model

Subfactor 3 - Data Management Subfactor 4 - Enterprise Engineering Support

b) Factor 2: Past Performance

c) Factor 3: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: technical, past performance and cost/price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the technical/management factor, subfactor 1 will be pass/fail, and subfactors 2 through 4 are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

vi. Evaluation

(1) Technical/Management Factor. The Technical/Management evaluation will consist of two phases. In Phase one, the Government will conduct a Pass/Fail evaluation against Subfactor 1 to determine if the offeror is CMMI Level III in the Development and/or Services model at time of initial proposal submission. (Reference PWS Section 2.1) The burden of proof is the responsibility of the offeror as part of the proposal submission.

The Government will verify Level III on the CMMI Institute site, https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/. While a Joint Venture (JV) or Contract Teaming Arrangement (CTA) is its own unique entity distinct from the member companies, for the purpose of evaluation, the Government will accept proof of CMMI from each member of the JV/CTA, in lieu of CMMI at the entity-level.

Offerors that clearly meet the requirement specified in Phase One will receive a rating of “Pass.” Offerors that do not clearly meet the requirement in Phase One will receive a rating of “Fail.” If an offeror receives a rating of “Fail,” their submission will not be further evaluated. The results of the Phase One evaluation rating of “Pass” will have no impact on the Phase Two evaluation or on the best value tradeoff determination.

In Phase two, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s responses to Subfactors 2-4. Phase Two of the Technical/Management Factor will be evaluated using a combined Technical/Management rating and risk rating. The Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies as identified below to the offeror’s technical proposal.

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

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency 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.

Color ratings, as documented below, will be used in evaluating Subfactors 2-4, assigning one of the color ratings for Subfactors 2, 3 and 4.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings 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.

a) For Subfactor 2, Architecture – DoDAF model, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their ability to document architecture in the following:

i. OV-5a, Operational Decomposition Tree, (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

ii. OV-6c, Event-Trace Description (Developed using BPMN)(Reference PWS Section 4.1)

iii. AV-2, Integrated Dictionary, utilizing DoDAF. (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

b) For Subfactor 3, Data Management, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their knowledge and understanding in enterprise data management in the following areas:

i. DAMA framework as it applies to leading, prescribing activities, and performing Data

Management for the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise. Describe utilization of the Enterprise Data Environment to proactively identify, MetaTag, manage (e.g. warehousing, lifecycle management, etc.), and track data management (adherence to standards, data quality) variance/issues till resolution. (Reference PWS Section 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.13)

ii. Project Portfolio Management best practices to capture, score, select, and manage Data-oriented projects for implementation and therefore move to a more effective and efficient JDDE future architecture, leveraging systems & data architectures for data interoperability to further improve data quality, reductions in duplication of data (e.g. move to Reference, Master, & Common data) & data stores, optimization of systems capabilities across multiple portfolios, and implementation of data standards for that purpose. (Reference PWS Section 5.3 and 5.6)

iii. Data Services/Data as a Service to capture, store, converge data sets, and present data for consumption by systems or business intelligence tools utilizing industry best practice technologies and tools. (Reference PWS Section 5.8 and 5.9)

iv. Data convergence, visualization methodologies (e.g. BI outputs, applications, and complex software solutions to meet iterative customer requirements in an agile development approach to leverage the EDE as a data source to satisfy JDDE customer loosely defined requirements.

(Reference PWS Section 5.11 and 5.12)

c) For Subfactor 4, Enterprise Engineering Support, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their knowledge and understanding in enterprise engineering in the following areas:

i. Systems engineering concepts and describe situations where the concepts were used to solve customer problems. (Reference PWS Section 7.11)

ii. Design and implementation of services in a cloud environment (to include micro-services and containerization) utilizing industry best practices and tools. This includes design and allocation of services with respect to Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Software as a Service layers, infrastructure versus application support services, use of software frameworks, and modern software and system architectures. (Reference PWS Section 7.3)

iii. DevSecOps Pipelines and the associated security checks/metrics to transition between stages within a pipeline and across environments. (Reference PWS Section 7.12)

iv. Security related to services in a cloud environments by describing a sample of security risks they have encountered in designing and building enterprise services and how those risk were mitigated.

(Reference PWS Section 7.4)

v. Developing prototypes, modeling complex processes, and running simulations. Describe a proposed development methodology and how the team is structured. (Reference PWS Section 7.11, 10)

(2) Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts.

a) Recency - To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of the initial proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional recent past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

b) Relevancy - For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

To be determined relevant, the past performance effort must demonstrate the following performance in relation to the current procurement:

1) Enterprise Architecture and/or DoDAF Support

2) Data Management Support

3) Engineering Support

While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than DoD.

The below table reflects the definitions that will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

c) Quality - 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, comprehensive evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will be assigned a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this effort. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all of the information submitted, obtained, and determined relevant by the Government, regardless of whether the information is for a prime or subcontractor.

Past Performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that offeror will receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Neutral Confidence” which will be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably. The below table reflects the Past Performance Confidence Assessment ratings.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

(3) Cost/Price. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. In addition, the Government reserves the right to evaluate the offeror’s proposed prices for realism. For a price proposal to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated, and costs presented in the Government provided pricing template, Attachment 7.

a) Total Evaluated Price. The basis for evaluating price will be the total price proposed for the estimated quantities provided in the solicitation. The Government will calculate a total proposed price by applying Government estimated labor hours for each Fiscal year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The Government estimated hours in the pricing template are for evaluation purposes only.

FAR 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits, and at the rates specified in the contract. The total evaluated price will include the sum of all Fiscal years and the six-month extension authorized in FAR 52.217-8. The prices proposed for the six-month extension shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six-months prior to expiration of the contract.

b) Price Analysis. Price analysis will be used to determine reasonableness and completeness. The

Government will determine completeness of the offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and the offeror has submitted the Government provided pricing template, Attachment 7. The Government will determine reasonableness of the offeror’s proposal by using one or more of the price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404- 1(b).

The Government will analyze all offeror’s proposed prices to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

As stated above, the Government reserves the right to conduct a realism analysis. The realism analysis will review the offeror’s proposed labor rates to determine whether the proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed. The Government may reject a proposal where the proposed prices are unreasonably high or low for the work to be performed.

c) Other Direct Costs/Travel. Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate Other

Direct Costs and/or travel requirements associated with this requirement, the Government is providing dollar figures to be used by all offerors when proposing. The proposed dollar amounts will be identified in the pricing template.

Travel shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to performance and will be reimbursed in accordance with PL 99-234, Federal Civilian Employees and contractor Travel Expenses Act of 1985 and FAR Part 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for travel, materials, or ODCs. Applicable burdens (e.g. G&A) will not be accepted or paid for on approved ODC purchases.

(End of Summary of Changes)