M00264-15-T-1100-01.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 the amendment is to address questions received in response to the solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-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-T-1100

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-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 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

03-Sep-2015

CODE

COMMANDING GENERAL - REG CON OFFICE NCR

2010 HENDERSON RD

STONE KIMBERLY

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-T-1100

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

Q&AS

RFP M00264-15-T-1100

Question and Answers

Question 1: Reference: PWS, pg. 12, paragraph 2.0.1 Security Requirements. Relevant Text:

The Contractor shall be required to store, access and handle unclassified and classified information up to and including SECRET. Is it the government’s intent that the contractor will store classified information at the contractor’s location?

Answer: No, the Contractor will not be required to store unclassified or classified information at the contractor facility; however, the Contractor may be required to access and handle unclassified or classified information at either the contractor facilities meeting requisite classification levels or Government facilities.

Question 2: Reference: Instructions to Quoters, pg. 30, paragraph 6.3.2.2.1 Relevant Contracts and Evaluation Factors, pg. 36, paragraph 7.3 Past Performance Recency Assessment. Relevant Text:. The Instructions to Quoters defines past performance recency as “active within the past 5 years from the date of this solicitation….”, whereas the Evaluation Factors section states that “Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three (3) years from date of issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP)…”. Please clarify as to whether the past performance recency metric is 3 or 5 years.

Answer: The Past Performance Recency Assessment is defined as active within the past 5 years from the date of the solicitation. See amendment for corrected wording.

The following have been modified:

EVALUTION FACTORS

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS – EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract to a Offeror whose proposal is the best value to the Government. The Government’s intent is to award without discussions with Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to the solicitation cannot be resolved to the PCO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, Offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. Selection of the successful Offeror will be made based on the evaluation criteria below.

2.0 Evaluation Criteria

2.1 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price/cost and other factors considered.

3.0 Relative of Importance of Factors.

3.1 In evaluating the proposals, the Government will evaluate the following factors: Factor 1, Technical Capability, is more important than Factor 2, Performance Execution and Management. Factor 2, Performance Execution and Management, is more important than Factor 3, Past Performance. All non-price factors are more important than Factor 4, Price, and when combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than the Price factor. Although Price is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-priced factors.

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

4.0 Factor 1: Technical Capability

4.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror on the following capabilities, which are to be considered “elements” of this Factor and not “Subfactors”: (1) The Offeror demonstrated understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements; (2) The Offeror’s ability to handle the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the PWS requirements; (3) The Offeror’s knowledge and understanding to effectively and efficiently manage the contract requirements; and (4) The Offeror’s innovative approaches in providing services required by the PWS.

5.0 Factor 2: Performance Execution and Management

5.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror on the following capabilities, which are to be considered “Elements” of this Factor, and not “Subfactors”: (1) The Offeror’s understanding of contract management, modification management, subcontractor interaction and management, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and Occupational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan; (2) The Offeror’s management approach in planning, managing, and controlling multiple tasks that may be specified by modifications; (3) How suitable the proposal is to efficiently manage and provide an active, responsive staffing vacancy-filling system to ensure adequate manning throughout the contract period (process for new personnel); (4) The Offeror’s ability in recruiting and initially staffing the requirements of the PWS;

and (5) The Program Manager’s ability to maintain visibility and control of all levels of support.

6.0 Technical Ratings

6.1 The rating definitions in Table 1, Technical Ratings, will be used in evaluating Factors 1 and 2. A proposal that receives an initial rating of “Unacceptable” for either Factor 1 or Factor 2 will not be considered in the competitive range and no discussions will be conducted with the Offeror. No further evaluation of the proposal shall be performed (i.e. past performance or price evaluation) and the Offeror will not be considered for award.

6.2 The combined technical/risk ratings below, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1, below.

Table 1 Technical Ratings

Blue

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.

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 not 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 “unawardable”.

6.3 Definitions for strength, weakness, signficant weakness, and deficiency are provided below.

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

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

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

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.

7.0 Factor 3: Past Performance

7.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror on performance under existing and prior contracts and or contracts 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 contracts 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 a 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.

7.2 A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4). 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.

The Government will perform past performance evaluations on all proposals received, in accordance with the solicitation. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not 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 Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

7.3 Past Performance Recency Assessment: Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last five (5) years from date of issuance of this Request for Proposal (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 a Offeror’s past performance that meets the recency timeframe, Government evaluators will then assess relevancy of that instance of past performance.

7.4 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 in accordance with the Past Performance relevancy definitions in Table 2 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 Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

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

7.5 Past Performance Quality Assessment: The Government evaluators will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant Government 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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Aspects of quality include how well an Offeror meets or exceeds contractual requirements, how problems encountered in the course of contract performance were addressed, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

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.

7.6 Performance Confidence Assessment:

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments, the Government will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating per Table 4. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. 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 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.

8.0 Factor 4 - Price.

8.1 Price proposals will be evaluated 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.

8.2 The Offeror's total evaluated price for purposes of the best value tradeoff 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 Offeror’s proposed price inclusive of the six (6) month extension.

8.3 Evaluation of the proposed prices for the core services may be compared to the Government Estimate, historical data and/or other proposed price competition in order to determine price reasonableness.

8.4 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

9.0 Options.

9.1 The price for the base period, and six (6) month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (July 2009). The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for this option to extend to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of the option to extend shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The solicitation will require Offerors’ proposals to price the option to extend, which will be included in the overall evaluation of proposals for award in accordance with FAR 17.2.

FAR clause 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Service” will be included in the solicitation and resulting contract. By inclusion of this clause, the Government will have unilateral right to extend the contract for an additional six (6) months beyond the initial performance period, should the extension be required under the authority of FAR 52.217-8.

10.0 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

10.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan(s) in accordance with paragraph 6.3.2.4.5contained in addendum to 52.212-1.

(End of Summary of Changes)