RFP _15-R-1037-0002.pdf

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 BEING ISSUED TO EXTEND THE RESPONSE DATE FOR THE PROPOSALS AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

TO 28 SEPTEMBER 2015. SEE PAGE "2" FOR DETAILS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-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 X is extended, 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

18-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:

M00264-15-R-1037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Sep-2015 10:00 AM to 28-Sep-2015 03:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

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 28 September 2015 at 03:00PM 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:

mailto:joy.hughes@usmc.mil

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.

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 28 September 2015, 03:00 pm, 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).

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 magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR)

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

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)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)

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

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

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

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)

( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business

( ) Small Disadvantaged Business*

( ) Woman-Owned Small Business **

( ) HUB Zone Small Business

( ) Veteran Owned Small Business

( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(b) Total Contract Value (including options): $______________

(d) Dollar Value of your participation as a prime contractor: $____________

(e) Dollar value and percentage of the total contract value of subcontractors planned for:

Business Category Dollar Value Percentage of Total

Contract Value

Total Large Subcontract

Dollars

Small Business

Small Disadvantaged

Business*

Woman-Owned Small

Business

Service-Disabled Vet Small

Bus

HUBZone Small Business

*Note: Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HCBU/Mis) are considered as disadvantaged and should not be broken out separately.

The sum of the dollar values and percentages of Small Non-Disadvantaged and Small

Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small. However, the sum of all the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

(f) List the principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Business Category Name of Company Type of Service/Supply

Large

Small Business

Small Disadvantaged

Business*

Woman-Owned Small

Business

Service-Disabled Vet Small

Bus

HUBZone Small Business

*Note: Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HCBU/Mis) are considered as disadvantaged and should not be broken out separately.

(g) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the offeror’s history of utilizing small business on past contracts. For large businesses, include

INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING REPORT (IRS) formerly SF 294 and SUMMARY

SUBCONTRACT REPORT (SSR) formerly SF 295 information for government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three (3) years. If the offeror has no contracts in the last three (3) years with these reporting requirements, a statement to that effect must be included. For large and small businesses, provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with small business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships should be provided.

8. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

8.1. Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan, large business offerors must submit a

Subcontracting Plan as required under FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Large businesses shall ensure the Subcontracting Plan adequately responds to each of the required elements of FAR 52.219-9(d) paragraphs (1) through (11). In accordance with FAR

19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements, small businesses are exempt from having to submit a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

In the Subcontracting Plan, offerors must demonstrate their commitment to engage firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs. The offeror's proposed plan must engage small, HUBZone, small disadvantaged women-owned, veteran-owned small, and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses with the maximum subcontracting opportunities practicable under this requirement. Large businesses are required to ensure that the commitments in the Subcontracting Plan are comparative to the commitments established in the Small

Business Participation Plan.

8.2. Large Business Subcontracting plans will be reviewed to determine if the offeror is eligible for award based on the acceptability of the proposed subcontracting plan.

(a) The Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed based on the extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, are specifically identified in proposal, such as, Small Business, HUBZone, Small Disadvantaged Business (including

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Owned Small Businesses), Women-Owned Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service Disabled

Veteran-Owned Small Business.

(b) Subcontracting Plan must present the maximum practicable opportunity for subcontracting in line with the current agency goals. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. The current agency goals are as provided in Table 1 below.

Current Agency Goals

Business Status Percentage

Small Business (SB) 35%

Small Disadvantaged Business 8(a) Participant (SDB/8(a)) 15%

Service Disabled Veterans-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 9%

Women-owned Small Business (WOSB) 5%

Hub Zone 1%

Table 1

(c) Large businesses - Failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan shall make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract. (FAR 52.219-9)

This will be included as an attachment to Volume I - Technical Volume.

9. Factor 5. Price

The Government will evaluate price proposals using one or more of the techniques defined in

FAR 15.404-1 (b) in order to determine if they are reasonable and complete. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror's proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The Government reserves the right to perform a realism analysis in assessing performance risk or responsibility determinations.

The Offeror's total evaluated price for purposes of the best value tradeoffs will use the Offeror's proposed price. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal

The total evaluated price will consist of the Offerors proposed price inclusive of all options

(including one (1) year base period and all four (4), one (1) year options including the six (6) month option).

Evaluation of the proposed prices for the core services may be compared to the Government

Estimate, historical data and/or other proposed price competition to determined price reasonableness.

Prospective Offerors are cautioned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher evaluated, higher priced Offeror is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government.

The price for the base year and options years will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-

5, Evaluation of Options (July 2009). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The solicitation will require Offeror’s proposals to price options which will be included in the overall evaluation of offers for award in accordance with FAR 17.2. FAR clause 52.217-8

“Option to Extend Service” and FAR clause 52.217-9, “Option to Extend the Term of the

Contract” will be included in the solicitation and resulting contract. By inclusion of both clauses, the Government will have unilateral right to extend the contract for an additional twelve

(12) months up to a total of 60 months under the authority of FAR 52.217-9 or for six (6) months beyond the initial 60-month performance period, should the extension be required under the authority of FAR 52.217-8.

9.3. Completeness. The Offeror must sign the SF1449, acknowledge all amendments, and include a compliance matrix and Table of Contents corresponding to its proposal submission.

At a minimum, the following areas must be addressed:

Offer is valid for 90 days from (Date of Submission);

No exception to any Terms and Conditions has been taken, or if so, clearly cited;

Acknowledge any amendments to the RFP;

CCR validated / NAICS 541611 compliant;

Signed Offer of $XXXXXXX for BY/ Base Period and all Option periods provided

(including FAR 52.217-8 Option);

CLIN pricing and supporting documentation is provided;

Staff positions based upon contingency hires must include a signed letter of offer/acceptance in the Business Volume;

8.3 Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

The Offeror shall provide an affirmation statement that no OCI exists; or, if applicable, submit an OCI plan that identifies any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of

Interest (OCCI) as described in FAR Subpart 9.5 as it relates to this solicitation.

If applicable, the OCI plan shall provide any and all methods to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate present and future conflicts of interest. The Prime Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan should encompass the Prime and all teaming partners. The OCI Mitigation Plan should be specific to

OCI as related to the solicitation requirement. Early submissions of the Offeror’s OCI Plan shall be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist cited within this solicitation. Submission of the OCI Plan, if applicable, is also required with the Offeror’s proposal.

(End of Summary of Changes)