15-R-1037-0001.pdf

M00264-15-R-1037

M3070816SU00001

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

THIS AMENDMENT IS ISSUED TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN REFERENCE TO THIS SOLICITATION AND ADD

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1 (QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS), PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE, SOURCE

SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD FORM, ECMRA, AND THE WAGE RATE DETERMINATION. "SEE PAGE 2 FOR DETAILS."

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Sep-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 M00264-15-R-1037

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Aug-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

16-Sep-2015

CODE

COMMANDING GENERAL - REG CON OFFICE NCR

2010 HENDERSON RD

TREMAKIA SUMMERLIN

QUANTICO VA 22134

M00264 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

ATTACHMENT 1

No. Section Question Answer

1 Is this a new effort or is the incumbent contract #

N0017805D4395 MUT1?

This is the incumbent contract number

2 Does this opportunity have an incumbent? If so can you please provide the name.

The incumbent is Harris Corporation

3 Is this solictiation a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent vendor and contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

See response to No. 1 & 2

4 Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number.

Yes, see response to No. 1

5 If unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

See response to No. 1

6 Pg 5, CLIN

Confirm if the contract for 1 base year and 4 option years or for 1 base year and 4 ½ option years?

The contract is for 1 base year and 4 option years

7 Pg 53, Table 1

Please clarify if the subcontract percentage is based upon the award amount or subcontractor participation?

Percentage is based upon both award amount and subcontractor participation

8 The small business allocation appears to be not feasible for a large business. Based upon the amount of staff needed to support the contract can the target percentages be reevaluated to the following?

Business Status Percentage: Small Business, 25%

The target percentage is set by SBA and cannot be reevaluated until the new Fiscal Year.

9 Pg 64, Table 1

Define the “minimum requirements,” as stated in table 1.

See PWS.

10 Pg 47 When can we anticipate a response to our questions in support of the solicitation?

Receipt of this amendment is the response.

11 Confirm if the award will be based on Best Value and not Lowest Price Technically Acceptable.

Award will be based upon Best Value

12 Pgs 3-14 Is the Schedule of Supplies/Services the submittal template for pricing?

Yes

13 Are travel and ODC anticipated? They were not included in Section B of the RFP.

No

14 Which volume should include the Offers Representations and Certifications that are

Volume I, Non-Price Factors included on pages 29-44 of the RFP?

15 Are the Offers Representations and Certifications included in the volumes page count?

The Reps & Certs can be included with the RFP page count. Information can be filled in clauses 52.212-3 of RFP.

16 Section

7.1.2.

Factor 2, states “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of MarineNet online course requirements in order to support development of asynchrounous interactive multimedia instruction via the

MarineNet Learning Management System…” Are the contractors expected to support the development and/or management of MarineNet?

No, this sentenced was erroneously placed in

PWS.

17 Pgs 3 -14

& 16-17 Would the government consider revising the CLIN structure to merge JCIDS Activities and

Administrative Support considering they fall into the realm of day-to-day activities and it is unnecessary to price separately?

The CLIN structure will remain as is. The offeror can choose not to separately price the two tasks.

18 Pg 15, para 2

Request the Government to reword the following sentence to clearly identify and define its objective:

The overall objective of this requirement is to obtain high-quality, day-to-day program management services to assist the Deputy Director, JCID, JCIDS activities, mission to shape and positively influence JCID, Joint capability development programs and initiatives.

The sentence will remain as is.

19 Pg 15, para 4.1

& Pg 16, para 5.2

Will the Government clarify the requirement for

CMCC Management and adjust the PWS appropriately?

No

20 Pg 17, Section 5.4

There’s a run-on sentence, therefor it is unclear whether or not CMCC Management was intended to be placed there.

CMCC Management was intended.

21 Pg 16, para

4.2.1 & pg 18, para 5.5

Please verify LCAT Requirement. Does the

Government believe the Analyst Support LCAT as presented is truly sufficient for this work? If so, then why are all staff key?

LCAT is not referenced in the PWS.

22 Pg 16, para 4.2.1

How would the Government prefer to receive the

Staffing and Qualifiaction of Key Personnel given that resumes and letters of commitment are not required? Would a table suffice?

Yes, a table is sufficient.

23 Pg 16, para 5.1 & pgs 3-

Will the Government clarify the experience/skillset expectations for a “subject matter expert” and incorporate them into the labor category descriptions? If not, adjust the

PWS accordingly?

No

24 Pg 16, para

5.2.1

Is it fair to assume that “represent the Marine

Corps position” would be executed in line with text provided earlier in PWS para 3: “make recommendations only to Marine Corps and/or Government personnel?” Given that a contractor cannot represent the government, please clarify if any other intent is meant here.

Yes, the assumption is valid and there are no other intentions.

25 Pg 18-19, Is the “benchmark” established by the individual See response to No. 21 para 5.5 Staff Member or the provided LCAT requirements? In other words, if a staff member’s replacement is required, will the replacement staff member have to meet the initial staff’s number of years experience and education level or will existing labor category requirements and consistent knowledge of JCIDS be acceptable?

26 Please provide an acceptable formula for acceptable years of experience in lieu of a

Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree per the

Note.

See Labor Category, Experience Level column.

27 Does the Government intend to use this “benchmark” as a measurable performance element and if so, will this be codified in the

QASP or other contractual artifact.

See response to No. 21

28 Pg 43 Please confirm if 52.222-41 is applicable to RFP or provide the appropriate wage determination.

Yes, see the RFP for wage determination.

29 Pg 48, para 3.6

Would the Government allow for more space to provide the required responses to make an informed decision? For example, Factor 1 (25 pgs), Factor 2 (10 pages), Factor 3 (30 pages) and

Factor 4 (20 pages)

No.

30 Attachme nt 1, pg

49, 7.1.2

The description of Factor 2 seems misaligned.

The same misalignment occurs on pg 58 under the Technical Evaluation Factors. Please clarify

See RFP for corrections

31 Please provide the PPQ See Attachment 2, of RFP 32 Pg 50, para 7..1 Please clarify if there should be sections 7.2.1 or 7.2.4

No other sections are intended

33 Pg 53, Factor 4 & Pg 56, para 8.2

What percentages should be used for this solicitation? Is it the Government’s intent that the percent listed for SB is the combined total percent for SDB/8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, and

HubZone?

See RFP for corrections

34 Pg 57, para 8.3

If there is a need for an OCI Mitigation Plan, which Volume does the Government want that in and is there a page limit for that mitigation plan?

Volume I, Non-price Factors

35 If it goes into either Volume I or II, will the

Government increase the number of pages in the corresponding Volume to account for the additional space required to address the

Government’s concerns?

No

36 Can you confirm that the basis for award is best value and not LPTA?

See response to No. 11

37 Is there a requirement to submit subcontractor pricing or prime or sub-price build-up?

See Addendum 1, 52.212-1, Instructions to

Offerors 38 Does JCIDS create a Conflict of Interest with any other active USMC solicitations or contracts?

No

39 Pgs 50-

Are consent letters and a road map required documents? If so, can you provide the appropriate information?

Yes, offerors shall provide what is requested in

RFP.

40 Pgs 48-

Will the government provide a pricing template for the Schedule of Supplies/Services?

See response to No. 12

41 Pgs 64-

Can the Government define a minimum requirement for small business participation plan

The minimum requirement is meeting the details specified within Factor 4, Small

(acceptable/unacceptable rating)? Business Participation Plan 42 Pg 65 B-Table is referenced, but there is none provided in the RFP – will that be provided?

No, B-Table is referring to Section B, Supplies/Services of the RFP.

ECMRA

5237.102.90 - ENTERPRISE-WIDE CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING APPLICATION

“The contractor shall report contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) required for performance of services provided under this contract for the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT (R699) via a secure data collection site. Contracted services excluded from reporting are based on Product Service Codes (PSCs). The excluded PSCs are:

(1) W, Lease/Rental of Equipment;

(2) X, Lease/Rental of Facilities;

(3) Y, Construction of Structures and Facilities;

(4) S, Utilities ONLY;

(5) V, Freight and Shipping ONLY.

The contractor is required to completely fill in all required data fields using the following web address https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil

Reporting inputs will be for the labor executed during the period of performance during each Government fiscal year

(FY), which runs October 1 through September 30. While inputs may be reported any time during the FY, all data shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year. Contractors may direct questions to the help desk, linked at https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil.”

ATTACHMENT 2:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

*Please denote if the vendor was either the Prime or Subcontractor in supporting your requirement.

Instructions:

Sections I through III are to be completed by the Offeror and provided to the assessor (Government personnel who had experience with the Offeror on a recent, relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, is to verify Sections I through III, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office. The Offeror should also submit with its proposal (by the closing date of the Solicitation) copies of Sections I and II of all questionnaires as provided to assessors.

Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.

Sections III through VII are to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.

Message to the assessor: Your assistance is requested by the USMC Regional Contracting Office, National Capital

Region to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below. In efforts to expedite receipt of the requested information, the Contracting Office respectfully requests that you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: tremakia.summerlin@usmc.mil. Because of the firewall at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Enterprise Email addresses are often filtered out. Please call

(703.432.1668) to make sure your email was received.

https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil/ https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil/ mailto:tremakia.summerlin@usmc.mil

I. Solicitation Data (for the proposed effort)

Solicitation Number M00264-15-R-1037

Project/Requirement JCIDS Administrative Support & Information Management

Customer/Agency USMC, JCIDS

Project/Requirement

Description

To obtain high-quality, day-to-day program management services to assist the Deputy

Director, JCID, JCIDS activities, mission to shape and positively influence JCID, Joint capability development programs and initiatives.

II. Current or Historical Contract Information

Assessor: The information listed below is

Correct Incorrect

CONTRACTOR

NAME & ADDRESS:

Contract Number

Type of Contract

Initial Final

Contract Value

Performance Period /

Delivery Schedule

Project/Requirement

Description

Please select from the following as it applies to this contract:

Contracting Role PRIME SUBCONTRACTOR

Termination History Convenience Default N/A

III. Assessor Information

Assessor Name

Title

Phone Number/Email Address

Identify your role in the contract award or administration and the period of your involvement.

Role Period of Involvement

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

Contract Specialist

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Technical Project Lead/Project Officer

Quality Assurance Specialist

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Auditor

Other (Specify)

IV. Evaluation Definitions

EXCEPTIONAL

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL

Performance does 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

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

V. Performance Evaluation

1. Technical Performance

a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the technical capability of the contractor’s performance?

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Un-satisfactory N/A

Technical

Performance

Please provide the rationale for your assigned rating.

b. Assess the Contractor’s quality of performance in the following areas.

Exceptional Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal

Un-satisfactory N/A

Identified project tasks and provided continuous quality support

Understood performance objectives through a comprehensive approach

Identified mission areas, understood those priorities through execution

While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or unsatisfactory.

c. Did the Government contribute in any way to problems associated with quality as identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.

2. Schedule Performance / Timeliness

a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to meet the schedule?

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Un-satisfactory N/A

Schedule /

Timeliness

Please provide your rationale for the assigned rating.

b. Assess the Contractor’s Schedule Performance in the following areas.

Exceptional Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal

Un-satisfactory N/A

Completion of Contract or Task/Delivery Order

Meeting Milestones and

Schedules

Submitting Deliverables

While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or

c. Did the Government contribute in any way to any schedule problems identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.

3. Performance Execution & Management

a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s management performance?

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Un-satisfactory N/A

Performance

Execution &

Management

Please provide rationale for assigned rating.

b. Assess the Contractor’s management performance in the following areas.

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Un-satisfactory N/A

Approach

Performance

Execution of Personnel

Management Approach – Demonstrated ability to provide and possess the capabilities and resources to establish and operate an efficient organization that is both responsive and flexible in meeting all project requirements

Performance Execution – Demonstrated ability to respond to performance-based work requirements necessary to provide products and/or services. Demonstrated experience which ensures suitable oversight and control of performance execution in a manner which ensured consistent quality of the performance tasks as per the project requirements

Management of Personnel – Proven ability to identify the responsibilities and roles of qualified and experienced personal to attain performance objectives, execution of processes and quality measures associated with executing strategy. Demonstrated approach for immediate action and remediation necessary to ensure the quality of the contract deliverables and timeliness of services delivery (i.e., process maturity, roles of responsible staff, degree of work breakdown structure (WBS) integration, and controls at both corporate and contract level under performance based operating procedures).

While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or

c. Did the Government contribute in any way to any of the management problems identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.

VI. Overall Rating of Contractor’s performance (technical, schedule, management) on contract being assessed.

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

VII. General Comments:

Signature of Assessor Date

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION FORMS

OFFEROR: EVALUATOR:

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign each factor an adjectival rating using the following adjectival rating scale:

BLUE OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE GOOD

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable**

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

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

RATING:

FACTOR 1: Technical Capability

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

FACTOR 2: Performance Execution & Mgmt

FACTOR 3: Past Performance

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support provided, complexity of effort, dollar value, contract type, and, where applicable, the degree of subcontracting/teaming. To be relevant performance data needs to be recent as described in attachment 1 of the RFP, Instructions to Offerors.

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Confidence in an offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s proposed requirements will depend on the success of an offeror in achieving various evaluation factors relating to past performance.

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

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.

FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation Plan

WAGE RATE DETERMINATION

(a) Offerors are advised that this procurement is subject to the requirements of the Service

Contract Act of 1965, as amended.

(b) The Contractor agrees to furnish the Contracting Officer a copy of any collective bargaining agreement applicable to employees performing under this contract.

(c) The labor category and wage rate that is applicable to this requirement is: Occupational

Title(s) and hourly rate:

All positions $10.10

Salaries paid to employees must be in compliance with this labor category and wage determination or collective bargaining agreement.

(d) Wage Determination No. _2005-2104_ Revision _18_ dated _07/08/2015_.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52-212.1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

1. Multiple Offers

The Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region (RCO-NCR) does not encourage offerors to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

2. Overview

The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for an one (1) year base and four (4), one (1) year option periods as a result of the solicitation.

Each Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes its response to the requirements of the solicitation. Use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” will not satisfy this requirement. Unnecessary elaboration or presentations beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective solution are not desired and may be construed as a lack of understanding of the requirement.

3. Guidance

Proposals must be prepared in accordance with these instructions. Failure to do so will result in the Offeror’s submission being determined to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Each Offeror’s submission shall be screened by the Contracting Officer upon receipt to ensure completeness and compliance with the instructions contained in the Request for Proposals (RFP).

Elimination of an Offeror is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

The purpose of this procurement is to obtain Program Analysis and Information Management

Support. The support services are necessary in order to achieve high-quality, day-to-day program management services to assist the Deputy Director, JCID, JCIDS activities, mission to shape and positively influence JCID, joint capability development programs and initiatives.

4. Confidential Information

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” (5USC 552(b)(4), the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s)_______.”

Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

5. Submission of Questions and Proposal

5.1. Questions

All questions must be received by 31 August 2015 at 10:00AM Eastern Standard Time

(EST). All questions submitted for this solicitation must be electronically sent to the following e-mail address: tremakia.summerlin@usmc.mil

Note: Due to the firewall at Quantico, please be advised that it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure all electronic submittals of questions are received by the Contracting Officer in the timeframe given above.

5.2. Proposals

Electronic proposals are not authorized for this solicitation and will not be considered for evaluation. Proposals must be submitted no later than 23 September 2015 at 10:00AM EST.

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the proposal evaluation process, all Offerors must comply with the following instructions for proposal format and content. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award. For each Offerors submission, provide one (1) original and four (4) copies of the Technical and Business Volumes.

Proposals shall be sent via Federal Express, private courier, hand delivered, or mailed, to the following address:

Regional Contracting Office, NCR

2010 Henderson Road

Room 222B

Attention: GySgt Summerlin, T. N.

Marine Corps Base (MCB)

Quantico, VA 22134

5.3 Proposal Format

In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Word 2010 or earlier. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2010 or earlier. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, it is required that all Offerors submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified.

mailto:joy.hughes@usmc.mil

8.5 x 11 inch paper in 3-ring binders for text;

11 x 14 inch for foldouts, matrixes, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS);

Single-spaced typed lines;

1 inch margins on all sides;

11 point Arial font;

Headers/footers – ensure the company name and RFP number is included on each page;

Graphs and drawings must be clear/legible and may use a smaller font;

No photographs or hyperlinks are permitted; and

Content should utilize .doc, .pdf. xls, and .jpg formats to the degree possible; and

PLEASE NOTE: Your subject line must read Program Analysis and Information

Management Support, RFP M00264-15-R-1037.

Each proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

6.3. Volume I - Non-Price Volume

The Offerors technical proposal shall not exceed 25-pages, which includes the Letter of

Transmission, Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix; Factor 1 – Technical Capability;

Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management; Factor 3 - Past Performance and Factor 4 –

Small Business Participation Plan. (Each Factor shall be individually tabbed within Volume I.)

Offeror’s should provide the enclosed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the same references. The references should email the form directly to the RCO-NCR at the address provided on the form on or before 23 September 2015, 10:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time

(EDT). It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to make sure the Past Performance

Questionnaire is submitted and received by the requested date. If not returned on the date/time above, past performance will receive a neutral rating.

6.4. Volume II – Business Volume

The Offerors price proposal shall not exceed 25 pages, including a Formal Offer Letter, SF1449, and Price Proposal corresponding to SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES; Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN) structure and supporting materials. Pricing information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume.

Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, i.e. descriptions of previous projects performed for the Government cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal. Clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential.

If a proposal volume exceeds the above page limitations, all pages in excess of the limitation for each volume will not be considered in order that all proposals are treated equally.

6.5. Non-Price Volume I

The following documents are excluded from the 25-page limit: title pages, executive summaries

(to include company’s mission statement) and Transition-in Plan.

The Offeror shall address only the Letter of Transmission, Table of Contents, Compliance

Matrix, Technical Understanding of Requirements and Support Plan, Staffing and Qualifications of Key Personnel, Past Performance Information.

6.6. Include the following and adhere to the page limitations:

The Letter of Transmission – (See Volume I – Technical Volume above) Should identify the solicitation number, corporate principal submitting the offer, key points of contact within the firm who are authorized to bind the firm, (e.g. contracts, pricing, technical), and a summary of the material content (to include identifying all subcontractors, if applicable.

A Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix (See Volume I – Non-Price Volume above) pertinent to the proposal’s material organization and providing traceability from the Offeror’s proposal, to the PWS, to the evaluation criteria, and to other solicitation sections as necessary.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS

7.1. Volume I- Technical

7.1.1 Factor 1. Technical Capability.

The Offeror shall provide demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS); ensuring their discussion clearly articulates their capability to perform all of the tasks outlined in the PWS so as to provide continuous quality support. The Offeror shall identify performance objectives that can be accomplished by their technical approach, and describe the benefits and advantages of that approach. The Offeror shall also illustrate the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended strategy. The discussion must provide the evaluation panel with sufficient confidence that the Offeror has the capacity to support the identified mission areas, understands the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of staff resources to meet objectives.

7.1.2 Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

The Government will evaluate the offeror on their demonstrated management approach suitable to respond to the types of requirements delineated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), consistent with their operational, technical, logical, and programmatic approach. The

Government will evaluate the capabilities summary provided and verified by the contractor and compare it to the capabilities requirements listed the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to ensure competency. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s comprehensive approach to quality control, and managing the task order for culture and language support services which includes Marine-Net courseware development, assurance of consistent quality performance, capacity for handling matters of staffing, resource balancing; and ensuring complementary roles between the contractor’s managers and government staff. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated an understanding of MarineNet online course requirements in order to support development of asynchronous interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) via the Marine-

Net Learning Management System. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and has the management techniques, controls, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

7.1.3 Factor 3. Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror on performance under existing and prior contracts and or task orders for similar products or services. Offerors shall submit no more than six (6) total recent past / present performance efforts for evaluation and each cited past performance effort shall not exceed five (5) pages. (Note: Individual task orders under an ID/IQ contract are each considered to be one (1) past / present performance effort.) Information on up to three (3) recent contracts performed by an Offeror’s significant teaming partners / subcontractors and significant subcontractors considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and / or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and / or a company who provides a critical portion of the effort required and / or influences the results of performance.

The maximum number of past performance efforts submitted by the prime Offeror and its teaming partners may not exceed six (6) total. Therefore, if three subcontractor efforts are submitted, the maximum number of efforts submitted by the prime would be three efforts.

Offeror’s should provide the enclosed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the same three (3) previous references. The references should email the form directly to the RCO-NCR at the address provided on the form on or before 23 September 2015, 10:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to make sure the Past Performance Questionnaire is submitted and received by the requested date. If not returned on the date/time above, past performance will receive a neutral rating.

A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the

Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2). References other than those identified by

Offerors may be contacted by the Government, and the information received may be used in the past performance evaluation. Offerors for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, 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.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not be limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program

Managers, Contracting Officers, and, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The

Past Performance Evaluation Team may review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than a less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. If a PPIRS entry exists for the proposed past performance effort, the information and ratings contained in the PPIRS entry will take precedence for the Past Performance Evaluation

Team over any other source of past performance information.

As previously mentioned, the consent letter/s (NTE 1 page for each subcontractor) referenced in section 7.2.1 and the “road map” (NTE 1 page) referenced in section 7.2.4 shall be included as separate attachments to the proposal and will not count against the thirty (30) page restriction to the Past Performance Volume but will be reviewed in accordance with the evaluation criteria provided in 2.4.2.

2.4.1. Past Performance Recency Assessment:

Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three (3) years from date of issuance of this RFP, including those efforts currently being performed. For those efforts currently being performed, the Offeror must have been performing for at least six (6) months from the date of issuance of this RFP. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be further evaluated. However, if any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract / task order in its entirety may be evaluated. For each instance of an Offeror’s past performance that meets the recency timeframe, Government evaluators will then assess relevancy of that instance of past performance.

2.4.2. Past Performance Relevancy Assessment:

If the Government evaluators consider the Offeror’s past performance reference to be recent, then the Government will assess the relevancy of the referenced past performance task order / contract in accordance with the Past Performance relevancy definitions in Table 02 below. The

Government shall evaluate relevancy by assessing whether the past performance effort proposed is relevant to the Technical factors and the Cost / Price factor contained in the RFP. Evaluations do not assess an overall relevancy rating at the Factor level. Further, the Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy and quality of past performance.

Table 2: PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

Relevancy Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R)

Present / past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR)

Present / past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Not Relevant (NR)

Present / past performance effort involved little or none of the scope

2.4.3. Past Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government evaluators will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered. The quality assessment may consist 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 other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 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. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels in Table 3 – Past Performance Quality

Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 3: PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

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

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)

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.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.4.4. Performance Confidence Assessment:

As a result of the recent, relevancy, and quality assessments, the Government evaluation team will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating per Table 04. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s performance. 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. An excellent recent past performance that occurred three (3) years ago may not affect the Performance Confidence Assessment as much as a recent effort that occurred within the last year and has an unsatisfactory performance. Also, an example of favorable recent and relevant performance of a prime Offeror will have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners / subcontractors, joint venture and / or significant subcontractor(s)

Table 4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

(ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR THE PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR)

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

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

Limited

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 government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

Unknown No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s

(Neutral) performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

Both Large and Small Businesses are required to submitted a Small Business Participation Plan and will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilize small businesses in performance of prior contracts in complying with requirements of the Clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Offeror’s must provide a Small Business Participation Plan proposing their goals for this solicitation to include Small Business Participation. This plan shall include an overall goal which shall be accomplished through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business. The agency target percentages for this solicitation are below:

Category Target

(Percentage)

Small Business 35%

Small Disadvantaged

Business 15%

Woman-Owned Small

Business 5%

Service-Disabled Vet

Small Bus 9%

HUBZone Small Business 1%

The work performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be evaluated as Small

Business Participation. A small business is NOT required to subcontract out any portion of the work. This factor gives the small businesses the opportunity to indicate that they will meet small business participation through self-performance; however, this Small Business Participation Plan is still required to be submitted for evaluation of this factor.

All offerors at a minimum are required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan individually addressing the following areas:

(1) The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in proposals;

(2) The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (enforceable commitments, such as established relationships, will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(4) The extent of utilization of Small Business firms on prior contracts;

(5) The evaluation will be based on the total contract dollar value, the offerors propose in terms of small business participation.

(6) The extent of participation of Small Business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the offeror provides detailed explanations and supporting documentation of the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof, for this acquisition. Offerors proposed goals are to be filled-in as provided below:

(a) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large

( ) Small (also check type of small business)