Amendment_00001_M00264-15-R-1049_Marine_Corps_Center_For_Lessons_Learned_Program_Support.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment 0001 is to :

1) Make updates to the solicitation ;

2) This requirement is a 100% set aside for Small Businesses.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Aug-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-1049

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 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

25-Aug-2015

CODE

COMMANDING GENERAL - REG CON OFFICE NCR

2010 HENDERSON RD

HUGHES, JOY

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-1049

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 10-Sep-

2015 10:00 AM.

The Acquisition Set Aside has changed from SVC-DISABLED VET-OWNED SB to

Small Business.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 4001 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

4001 6 Months OPTION Zero Out CLIN 3001

FFP

Zero Out CLIN 3001- Option- Lessons Learned System Support

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

CLIN 4002 is added as follows:

4002 6 Months OPTION Zero Out CLIN 3002

FFP

Zero Out CLIN 3002- Option-Collection Analysis

CLIN 4003 is added as follows:

4003 6 Months OPTION Zero Out CLIN 3003

FFP

Zero Out CLIN 3003-Option-Exercise Support

CLIN 4004 is added as follows:

4004 1 Months OPTION Zero Out CLIN 3004

FFP

Zero Out CLIN 3004-Option-Travel

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4001:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

N/A N/A N/A Government

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4002:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4003:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4004:

The following have been added by full text:

ATTACH 4: PPQ

ATTACHMENT 4: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions:

Sections I through III are to be completed by the Offeror/Major Subcontractor and provided to the assessor (Government personnel who had experience with the Offeror/Major Subcontractor on a previous relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, 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 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 or FAX the completed questionnaire(s) to: Joy.Hughes@usmc.mil no later than

September 10, 2015, 10:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)

I. Solicitation Data (for the proposed effort)

Solicitation Number M00264-15-R-1049

Project/Requirement Marine Corps Lessons Learned

Customer/Agency TECOM

Project/Requirement Description Program Support

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 mailto:Joy.Hughes@usmc.mil

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

Use the following definitions in your assessment of contractor performance.

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.

[The above evaluation levels and rating definitions are the same as prescribed in Attachment 2 of the

Department of Defense’s Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System

(CPARS) for use within the Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS).]

V. Performance Evaluation http://www.cpars.gov/cparsfiles/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf http://www.cpars.gov/cparsfiles/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf

1. Quality of Performance

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

Exceptional Very

Good

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Quality of

Performance

Please provide the rationale for your assigned rating.

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

Good

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Conformance to

Contract

Requirements

Conformance to

Specifications

Standards of

Workmanship *

* Standards of Workmanship: Technical, professional, environmental, safety, etc.

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?

Please provide your rationale for the assigned rating.

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

Schedule

Exceptional Very

Good

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Completion of

Contract/Task

Order/Delivery

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. Management Performance

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

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Management

Please provide rationale for assigned rating.

Exceptional

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

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

Exceptional Very

Good

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Responsiveness

Subcontract

Program

Management Of

Personnel

Integrated Product

Team Management

Management Responsiveness: Timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, proposal submittal, history of cooperative behavior, effective business relations, teamwork AND customer satisfaction.

Subcontract Management: Timely award and management of subcontracts and meeting subcontracting goals for small business, small disadvantaged business, etc.

Program Management: Effectiveness of integration and coordination of all activities required to execute the contract, use of resources, assignment of responsibility, internal coordination and communication, and risk management practices

Management Of Personnel: Ability to select, retain, support, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise necessary to accomplish the Government’s requirements within schedule and budget

Integrated Product Team Management: Commitment and participation in the Integrated Product Team process

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.

4. Cost Control

a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to forecast, manage, and control costs?

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Cost

Control

Please provide your rationale for the assigned rating.

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

COST

CONTROL

Exceptional Very

Good

Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A

Cost/Price

Estimates

Cost Efficiency

Invoicing

Forecasting

Management Cost

Control

Cost/Price Estimates: Ability to meet proposed costs and whether actual costs/rates realized reflect negotiated costs/rates.

Cost Efficiency: Realization of any cost reductions or operating efficiencies in accomplishing requirements of the Statement of Work.

Invoicing: Accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of invoices submitted.

Forecasting/Management/Cost Control

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

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

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

VII. General Comments:

Assessor’s Signature Date

The following have been modified:

ATTACH 1: INSTRUC TO OFFEORS

Attachment 1

Instruction to Offeror’s – Commercial Items

52.212-1 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

1. Multiple Offers

The Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region shall not submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

2. Overview

The Government intends to award a single contract containing Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Labor, and Travel CLINS for an eight (8) month base year and two (2) one (1) year option periods.

ii. 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

i. Proposals should be prepared in accordance with these instructions. Failure to do so may 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 Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL) support.

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

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

4. Confidential Information

i. 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:

a. 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).”

b. 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, 10:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

All questions submitted for this solicitation must be electronically sent to the following e-mail address: joy.hughes@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.

6. Proposals

i. Electronic proposals are not authorized for this solicitation and will not be considered for evaluation. Proposals must be submitted no later than 10 September 2015, 10:00am, Eastern

Daylight Time (EDT). In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the proposal evaluation process, all Offeror’s 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 Offer submission, provide three (3) Technical Volumes and three (3) Business Volumes.

ii. Proposals shall be sent via Federal Express, private courier, or hand delivered to the following address and received prior to the cutoff date/time to:

Regional Contracting Office, NCR

2010 Henderson Road

Room 222B

Attention: Joy Hughes

Marine Corps Base (MCB)

Quantico, VA 22134

7. Proposal Format

i. In addition to the paper copies identified above, the proposal shall submit the proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Work 2003 or earlier. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2003 or earlier. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

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

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

8.5 x 14 inch for foldouts, matrixes, 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 “Marine Corps Lessons Learned (MCLL)

Program Support”, RFP - M00264-15-R-1049.

Each proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

7.1 Volume I - Non-Price Volume

The Offeror’s technical proposal shall not exceed 120 pages, which include the Letter of

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

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

7.2 Volume II – Business Volume

i. The Offeror’s price proposal shall not exceed 25 pages, including a Formal Offer Letter, SF1449, and Price Proposal corresponding to Section B; Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)

Section B supporting materials.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

7.3 Non-Price Volume I

i. The following documents are excluded from the 120-page limit: resume appendix, title pages, executive summaries (to include company’s mission statement) and Transition-in Plan.

ii.The Offeror should address only the Letter of Transmission, Table of Contents, Compliance

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

iii. Shall include the following:

The Letter of Transmission – (See Volume I – Non-Price 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.

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

The Compliance Matrix may be presented as an 11 x 14 foldout.

8 Non-Price Evaluation Submissions

8.1 FACTORS

8.1.1 Factor 1. Technical Capability.

The Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and they shall clearly articulate 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 PWS objectives to execute the intended strategy.

8.1.2 Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

i. The Offeror shall demonstrate a management approach suitable to respond to the types of requirements described in the PWS and consistent with their technical approach. The discussion shall provide a comprehensive approach to: managing task orders or performance-based work requirements; assurance of consistent quality of performance at the task order level; handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; and ensuring complementary roles between the

Contractor’s managers and Government staff. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and that it has management techniques, controls, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

ii.The Offeror shall demonstrate a management approach suitable to respond to the types of requirements described in the PWS and consistent with their technical approach. The discussion must provide a comprehensive approach to include: management of performance-based work requirements necessary to provide Program Analyst Support as described in the PWS;

identification of the responsibilities and roles of qualified and experienced personnel to attain performance objectives; description of the processes and quality measures associated with executing the strategy; and illustration of the roles of staff and team resources relevant to

Offeror’s approach to ensure suitable oversight and control of performance execution in a manner that ensures consistent quality of the performance tasks described in the PWS.

Collectively, the Offeror’s integrated approach must demonstrate that the Offeror possesses the capabilities and resources to establish and operate an efficient organization that is both responsive and flexible to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror must annotate the roles of management and other qualified personnel and incorporate provisions for independent, objective quality assurance (e.g. customer surveys, etc.).

iii.The Offeror must also note its measures for immediate action and remediation necessary to ensure the quality of contract deliverables and timeliness of service delivery. Offeror’s key considerations should include process maturity, roles of responsible staff, degree of work breakdown structure (WBS) integration, and controls at both the corporate and contract level under performance-based operating parameters.

8.1.3 Factor 3. Past Performance.

i.The Offeror shall demonstrate sufficient, satisfactory performance history employing management and technical capabilities similar to those required in the execution of this PWS.

Discussion should illustrate satisfactory performance of both technical and management tasks necessary to meet Government requirements with some degree of assurance based upon recent

(e.g. 5 years, or less) performance for comparable work. Any Offeror that submits any contract reference that is not relevant will receive a neutral rating for that contract reference in Past

Performance. The Offeror should provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality of performing the same or similar services within the last five (5) years that include the following fields:

Customer;

Contract/Task Order Number;

Program Name;

Period of Performance;

Contract Type;

Total contract value;

Identification of any Key Staff involved who will be assigned to this contract;

Names/telephone numbers/e-mail for the PCO and COR/TOM.

ii. An Offeror that has no record of past performance or if less than three (3) questionnaires are returned, (e.g. new businesses),the Offeror must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror, the Offer must address (1) the relevant background and experience of Key Personnel, in matrix form, that shows their related experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements, who will be assigned to the contract; and the total contract value.

iii. In addition, 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 10 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.

8.1.4 Volume II – Business Volume

i.The Offeror’s shall address, at a minimum, all facets of the price aspects of the offer, including a Formal Offer Letter, to include the total contract dollar value. Provide prices on the

SF1449,and Price Proposal corresponding to Section B ;Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure and supporting materials.

Ii.Offeror’s is required to price the base and option year periods.

8.1.5 Factor 4. Price

i. No price data shall be contained in any volume other than the price volume.

ii.The Offeror shall complete Section B CLIN’s for Labor (0001-0003,1001-1003, 2001-2003) and include supporting documentation for the firm fixed price portion that includes labor categories, labor rates and labor hours.

iii.Offeror's shall use the not-to-exceed amounts (if appliable) in Section B of the 1449. which will be considered to be inclusive of any applicable indirect expenses.

iv. The grand total price for each function area established in the CLIN structure of Section B of the solicitation should be clearly annotated in the proposal. No ambiguities of inclusion, exclusion, or content shall be extended and lack of content or clarity with regard to pricing shall be considered as representing a “non-responsive” offer.

v. The Government intends to evaluate the base and all option years.

Failure to provide this information (whether in the form of a “positive or negative” response) will result in the proposal not being given any further consideration for award.

8.1.6 Completeness.

i. 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;

SAM validated / NAICS 541611 compliant;

Signed Offer of $ for BY/4-Options provided;

CLIN pricing and supporting documentation is provided;

Staff positions based upon contingency hires must include a

Signed letter of offer/acceptance in the Non-Price Volume;

ATTACH 2: EVAL OF OFFERORS

Attachment 2

52.212-2 – Evaluation of Commercial Items

1. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:

i. It is the intentions of the Marine Corps to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide overall the “Best Value” to the government.

1.1. FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

The Government will award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror’s, whose offers conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The evaluation factors used to evaluate offers and their relative importance are as follows:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability, and Factor 2 - Performance Execution and Management, are equal in importance to each other and each is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Past Performance. Past Performance is slightly more important than Factor 4 – Price. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than

Factor 4 - Price.

As this is a “Best Value” procurement, prospective Offeror’s are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher technical rated or more superior past performance evaluated offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. Although

Factor 4 – Price, is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly more important when Offeror’s receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

2. Factor 1. Technical Capability.

Offeror’s will be evaluated on their knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and how clearly the proposal articulate the capability to perform all of the tasks outlined in the PWS so as to provide continuous quality support. The Offeror will be evaluated on how well the proposal identifies performance objectives that can be accomplished by their technical approach, and describes the benefits and advantages of that approach. The discussion must provide the evaluation panel with sufficient confidence that the Offeror’s have 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 the PWS objectives to execute the intended strategy.

3. Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

i.Offeror’s will be evaluated on their management approach to respond to the types of requirements described in the

PWS and consistent with their technical approach. Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on the comprehensive approach to: managing orders for assurance of consistent quality of performance at the order level;

handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; and ensuring complementary roles between the Contractor’s managers and Government staff.

ii.Offeror’s will be evaluated on their understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and that it has management techniques, controls, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

iii.Offeror’s will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate an approach consistent with their technical approach.

Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on: management of performance-based work requirements necessary to provide broad-based support in the identification, monitoring, and evaluation of technologies to enhance current and future warfighting capabilities as described in the PWS; identification of the responsibilities and roles of qualified and experienced personnel to attain performance objectives; description of the processes and quality measures associated with executing the strategy; and illustration of the roles of staff and team resources relevant to Offeror’s approach to ensure suitable oversight and control of performance execution in a manner that ensures consistent quality of the performance tasks described in the PWS.

vi.The Offeror’s will be evaluated on their integrated approach to possess the capabilities and resources to establish and operate an efficient organization that is both responsive and flexible to meet the requirements of the PWS, the roles of management and other qualified personnel and incorporate provisions for independent, objective quality assurance (e.g. customer surveys, etc.), the measures for immediate action and remediation necessary to ensure the quality of contract deliverables and timeliness of service delivery, and key considerations including process maturity, roles of responsible staff, degree of work breakdown structure (WBS) integration, and controls at both the corporate and contract level under performance-based operating parameters.

4. Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and

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

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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.

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.

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.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

***A proposal that receives an “Unacceptable” rating from the source selection authority for Factors 1 or 2 will result in the entire proposal being determined to be “unacceptable”. The proposal may not be considered to be in the competitive range.

5. Factor 3. Past Performance.

i.In addition to the references identified by the Offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DoD Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also contact previous customers, and review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases.

ii.Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

iii. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

iv. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment that past performance of lesser relevance.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the evaluation of Past Performance Relevancy:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Rating Definition

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 much of the 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.

v. The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customer on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

6. Performance Confidence Assessment i.The following adjectival rating/definitions shall be used for conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the below table:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

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.

7. Factor 4 – Price i.The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposed prices, but this factor will not be given an adjectival rating. The proposals will be evaluated on accuracy, completeness and reasonableness.

Evaluation of the proposed prices for the services may be based on a comparison to the IGCE along with any other relevant price analysis techniques.

8. Reasonableness

Reasonableness. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions, general economic conditions, and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including the following:

(a) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the

Offeror’s business or of the contract performance;

(b) Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc; and

(c) Any significant deviations from the Offeror’s established practices.

Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

9. Completeness and Accuracy

i. The Government will review the solicitation Section B for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the pricing tables. The

Offeror’s proposals will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

a) Checking arithmetic in all Section B computations; and

b) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly.

i. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise option (s).

ii. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

1.0 SCOPE.

1.1. The Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL), a branch of the Marine Air-Ground

Task Force MAGTF Staff Training Program (MSTP), in Training and Education Command (TECOM) requires contractor support to provide a full range of analytical, technical, and liaison support.

Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL) actively collects, analyzes, publishes and archives lessons learned materials to include observations, insights, lessons (OILs), trends, after action reports

(AARs) and Marine Corps lessons learned reports. These efforts support training and planning for both exercises and operations, and the warfighting capability development process. MCCLL focuses on tactics, techniques and procedures of immediate importance to the operating forces thereby identifying gaps and best practices, and recommending solutions across the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) spectrum

2.0 BACKGROUND.

2.1 MCCLL collects and analyzes observations, insights, and lessons to produce and disseminate lessons learned materials, to include, but not limited to MCCLL lessons learned collection reports, trend reports, unit submitted after action reports, briefs, best practices, emerging tactics, techniques, and procedures, and other materials to support the Marine Corps Lessons Learned Program, Marine Corps Order 3504.1.

2.2. In response to increasing requirements for lessons learned information, MCCLL has identified a requirement for contractor to support operational goals. This includes lessons learned data collection efforts and liaison efforts at the Marine Forces (MARFOR) Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF) and major subordinate command levels to provide support of the lessons learned and after action report processes, and assisting Marine Corps activities with preparations for operations and exercises.

3.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

3.1. The contractor team will be required to draw upon the guidance, policies, and procedures outlined in the following set of Department of Defense (DoD), joint and Service documents, processes, systems, and plans:

Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3504.1, Marine Corps Lessons Learned Program (MCCLP)

CJCSI 3150.25E, Joint Lessons Learned Program

Marine Corps Center for Lesson Learned Standard Operation Procedures

Marine Corps Service Campaign Plans

4.0 TASK REQUIREMENTS. The contractor shall provide project management, administrative, analytical and liaison support to the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned in support of (MARFOR), (MEF), and major subordinate commands (MSC), Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Programs, Policies, and Operations (PP&O); HQMC Combat Development and Integration (CD&I), and Marine Air

Ground Task Force Training Command (MAGTF TC). The contractor shall support MCCLL in executing its mission by performing the range of tasks noted below:

4.1 Lessons Learned System Support

a) Assist in the implementation and maintenance lessons learned processes at each location/command listed in paragraph seven (7) to be in compliance with MCO 3504.1, the Marine Corps

Lessons Learned Program (MCCLP).

b) Assist in the identification and assignment of Command Lessons Managers (CLM), at the battalion/squadron level, in the Marine Corps Lessons Learned System (MCCLS).

c) Assist in the registration and maintenance of subscribers in the MCCLL system.

d) Assist in the review of unit submitted lessons learned materials for proper classification and/or

For Official Use Only (FOUO) markings prior to submission to MCCLS.

e) Utilize the MCCLL Battleboard to capture and document all aspects of the planning and execution of the annual lessons learned campaign plan.

f) Assist in the development of Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned electronic communities of practice for identified lessons learned events and topics.

4.2 Lessons Learned Collection and Analysis Support

a) Assist in MCCLL annual lessons learned collection campaign plan development and execution

b) Assist in the preparation of and submission of collection topics associated with their designated

Command, based on the analysis of lessons learned requirements

c) Assist in the preparation for the mid-year review of the annual lessons learned collection campaign plan to revalidate existing topics, and solicit emerging topics as required

d) Assist in the preparation of briefings to senior military and government officials on collection campaign topics.

e) Assist in the development of collection proposals and collection plans

f) Conduct lessons learned collection efforts by performing lessons learned interviews of commanders and key staff.

g) Assist the compilation of lessons learned collection interview summaries and outbriefs.

h) Assist review of MCCLL reports to ensure the synthesized lessons learned information, that typically involves the perspectives of multiple commands on complex issues.

4.3 Exercise and Operations Support

a) Assist in preparation of responses to lessons learned requests for information (RFI) for the planning and execution of operations and exercises.

b) Assist units in preparation of exercises and operations by providing applicable lessons learned documentation from previous exercises/operations.

c) Assist in the administration of lessons learned surveys to Marine Corps units

d) Assist units in the submission lessons learned materials to the MCCLS to include unit after action reports from operations and exercises.

e) Attend planning conferences, work group sessions, meetings and other seminars required to support the lessons learned planning aspects of operations and exercises.

f) Participate and assist in the post exercise and operations hot wash reviews.

5.0 Performance Management.

5.1. Contract Management. The Contractor shall establish processes and assign appropriate resources to effectively perform the tasks specified in the PWS. At all times, the Contractor shall be responsible for the actions of their teaming partners and/or subcontractors.

5.2. Technical Performance Quality. The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing a staff complement capable of handling the responsibilities of contract execution and coordination of team resources. Task leads may be appointed from any team member, however, technical cognizance over performance remains with the prime contractor at all times. The contractor is responsible for all assigned resources, performance quality (e.g., Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) compliance), and deliverables associated with each task.

6.0 KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

6.1. The Contractor shall be responsible for staffing, competency training, guidance, and supervision of qualified personnel performing under the PWS. The Contractor shall accomplish the assigned work by employing and utilizing qualified personnel possessing an appropriate combination of education, training, skills, and experience required to respond to the PWS criteria. No waivers will be proposed or considered. Staff initially assigned shall provide the benchmark for replacement staff qualifications and no dilution of such qualifications or reduction in performance shall be incurred by the government as a result of staff reassignment/departure. All training provided by the Contractor to Contractor employees shall be at their expense.

6.2. The Contractor shall provide lessons learned subject matter expertise (SME) with the commensurate level of operational and staff experience required to perform analyst support for the designated commands.