Amendment_0001_M00264-16-R-0031_Marine_Corps_Center_For_Lessons_Learned_(MCCLL).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 is as follow s:

1. Provide Government Responses to Vendors' Questions;

2. Update Instructions to Offeror's;

3. Update the PWS; and

4. Add Optional CLIN for 6 months

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Apr-2016

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 M00264-16-R-0031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Apr-2016

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

26-Apr-2016

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:

M00264-16-R-0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1001

The FSC code has changed from R702 to R499.

The SIC code 8900 has been added.

The NAICS code 541611 has been added.

CLIN 1002

The FSC code R499 has been added.

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 1003

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 1004

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 2001

The FSC code has changed from R702 to R499.

CLIN 2002

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 2003

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 2004

The PROG code S10 has been added.

CLIN 3001 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

3001 6 Months OPTION 6 Month Option

FFP

In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 3001:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

N/A N/A N/A Government

The following have been added by reference:

52.217-8 Option To Extend Services NOV 1999

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Government Responses to Vendors Questions To Solicitation M00264-16-R-0031

Page # RFP Section Question/ Answer

1 15-16 C-5.3

Software/Server

As the LMS is running on Operating Systems / components that have reached their published End of Life (EOL) in Microsoft's

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Requirements C-

5.3.1, C-5.3.4

Product Lifecycle Support, will the contractor be tasked with the migration of the LMS to newer Operating systems and corresponding components?

Answer: Yes. LMS is hosted in the Marine Corps Enterprise

Information Technology System (MCEITS) data center at

Kansas City. The MCEITS Kansas City data center is responsible for versioning and information assurance compliance requirements of the Operating System / Database components of the LMS application. The operating system/database components will be upgraded in accordance with MCEITS and Marine Corps Cyber Command requirements. MCCLL’s role in this process is to evaluate the impact of operating system / database upgrades in

MCEITS pre-production environment and comply with upgrade requirements unless a waiver/extension is provided.

Specific timelines for upgrade to Microsoft Server 2012 and

Microsoft SQL 2014 have not been established but will likely occur during this contract’s base POP.

2 16 Software/Server

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Requirements

OPTION: C-

5.3.8.1

This section mentions the option of a FedRAMP’d cloud development environment. To clarify is this currently an active development or will this be a new task for the contractor to execute?

Answer: This option requirement no longer exists. This section has been removed from the PWS

3 16 C-6.1 If we include writing samples, in which volume should they be placed and will they count against the page count?

Answer: Writing samples can be attached to the resume of the writer In Volume II of the proposal.

4 17 C-9 Protection of

Human Subjects

When is the delivery of the assurance of compliance and IRB approval per Section 9.1.1 expected to be due to the government?

Answer: No later than 1 October 2016. Please see PWS

Section 9.1.1.

5 31 6.0 Instruction for

Submission of

Proposals

According to Section 6.1, the Government has requested 5 separate volumes and 3 copies of each volume. Would the

Government prefer each copy in a separate binder, for a total of 15 binders, or would the Government accept the copies consolidated

(separated by tabs) into one binder per volume, for a total of 5 binders?

Answer: You may place all volumes (I-V) separated by tabs in one binder. The Government must receive three binders, each consisting of Volumes I-V.

6 32 6.0 Instructions for

Submission of

Proposal Section

6.3.1.2 Volume I –

Table of Contents

& Compliance

Matrix

Can the Government define the requirements of the Master Table of Contents & Compliance Matrix? Would it be acceptable for the TOC and Matrix to be provided before the Narrative

Summary? Also, does the government expect separate table of contents/matrices within each volume?

Answer: Please refer to paragraph 6.3.1.2- Information is included in Volume I. Please see paragraph 6.3.1. The Table of Contents (TOC) is required for every volume but only need one copy of the Matrix in original volume.

7 33 6.3.2.1.1 Factor 1-

Staffing and

Management Plan

The Government has requested a resume for all personnel- do the resumes count towards the 25 page limit for the Staffing and

Management/Technical Volume (Volume II)? If not, should they be included as attachments to Volume II?

Answer: Resumes do not count toward the 25 page limit and can be included as attachments to Volume II.

8 34 6.3.2.2 Volume III-

Past Performance

In this section, the Government references an Attachment with a

Sample Teaming Consent Letter and Attachment 7 for a Sample

Past Performance Client Authorization Letter; can the Government please provide those two referenced Attachments? Are there additional Attachments 1-6?

Answer: This paragraph will be removed. There are no additional attachments 1-6.

9 35 6.3.2.4.2

Solicitation/Contra ct Form

Do the referenced commitment letters for contingency hires count as part of the total Volume V page count?

Answer: Letters of commitment for contingency hires do not count toward the 25 page limit and can be included as attachments to Volume II.

10 35 6.3.2.4.2

Solicitation/Contra ct Form

Are LOIs required for current employees?

Answer: In accordance with paragraph 6.3.2.4.2, any proposed positions that are contingency hires must include a signed commitment letter of proposal/acceptance. Letters of

Intent are not required for current employees.

11 35 6.0 Instructions for

Submission of

Proposal Section

6.3.2.4 Volume V

– Contract

Documentation

The Government has requested the Offeror complete blocks 30A through 30C of the Standard Form SF 1449. Does the

Government also want Block 17A completed by the Offeror?

Answer: Completing Block 17A at this time is not necessary.

12 35 6.0 Instructions for

Submission of

Proposal Section

6.3.2.4.2

Solicitation/Contra ct Form

The Government has requested the Offeror complete blocks 30A through 30C of the Standard Form SF 1449. Does the

Government also want Block 17A completed by the Offeror?

Answer: See answer to question number 11.

13 35 6.3.2.3.4 Price

Information

The second to last sentence of first paragraph states: The total evaluated price will consist of the proposed price for the base period, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period.

Q: Is it the government’s intent to have an additional 6-month option after the base and two-year option periods, and if so, will there be a separate CLIN for the 6-month option?

Answer: The Government intends to evaluate an additional 6-month option in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. A new CLIN will be added.

14 38 Evaluation Factors for Award Factor

4: Price Section

3.4.2

This section states that the Government will evaluate burden rates(s) identified for travel CLINs to determine whether the burden rate is fair and reasonable. Does the Government want

Offerors to add the appropriate burden based on DCAA approved rates on top of the Government plug or does the Government want

Offerors to not exceed the $20,000 plug provided in CLINs 0004, 1004 and 2004?

Answer: The Government wants offerors not to exceed the plug numbers provided for the travel CLINs.

15 In two places that the government mentions résumés ((Section 6.3

Proposal Content, specifically Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 –

Staffing and Management Plan (subsection 6.3.2.1.1 on p.33):

“The Offeror shall provide qualified staff (attach resumes of all personnel)…” and in Evaluation Factors for Award, specifically

Factor 1 (Section 3.1.2 on p.37): “…Offeror’s submission of resumes for personnel.”)) is the government’s intent that Offerors must provide résumés for all personnel being bid, just key personnel, or is the entire staffing plan beholden to the Key

Personnel clause per 48 CFR 952.215-70 - Key Personnel (not cited anywhere in the RFP)?

Answer: Resumes for all personnel are required.

16 The government is requiring a resume be included for all personnel (6.3.2.1.1). Since this is requested under Volume II—

Technical, is it the government’s intent to count these resume’s against the authorized 25 pages?

Answer: Resumes do not count against the 25 page limit.

17 There is no indication in the RFP of a submission deadline by gov’t POCs for Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). While

Offeror’s can request submission to meet the RFP deadline, we have no way to force that issue, especially with the short time frame for submitting in response to this RFP. Will PPQs submitted after the deadline for RFP submission still be considered valid in Source Selection considerations?

Answer: PPQs are due by the closing date of the RFP. Any PPQs received after the RFP will receive a neutral rating.

18 Some very specific technologies are called out in the RFP, specifically, LISTSERV (C-5.2.8 and C-5.3.7, pgs.14/15), the list under C-5.3.1 (p. 15) and a similar listing in C-6.3.1 (pgs. 16/17).

Are those technologies (integrated as they are in the LMS currently operated only by the incumbent) the only acceptable technologies, or can experience with other (and in some cases more modern/advanced) capabilities substitute to validate technical acumen with the kinds of technologies necessary to operate effectively in support of MCCLL?

Answer: MCCLL-LMS is an accredited Marine Corps

Information System and the COTS software components of

LMS are provided the government. Any changes to software components of the system will require accreditation review.

There is no intent to change the software components. Any suggested or recommended changes to the software components will be evaluated by the Government on a case by case basis. Experience with similar COTS components will be evaluated on a case by case basis for their applicability to

MCCLL LMS.

19 Given the DASN (AP) memo dated 4 JAN 2016 that addresses the requirements of FAR 52.22-46 (to include the full text insertion into the RFP); it is not clear on how the government intends to evaluate against this provision. Can you provide clarification on how the government is going to evaluate this criteria? Answer:

Clause added in full text. Please see paragraphs 6.3.2.3.5 under “Instructions to Offerors” and 3.4.3 under

“Evaluation”.

20 The suspense currently allows 12 full business days and a total of

18 calendar days (including Saturdays and Sundays). By the time the potential offerors questions are answered it appears there will be approximately 7 days remaining available. Was it the

Government’s intent to require such an extensive (5 Volume) response in such a collapsed timeline?

Answer: The Government requires proposals in the format described in the solicitation by the date and time listed in the solicitation in order to meet the agency’s minimum needs.

21 16 C-6.1 Will submitted writing samples count towards the Volume II page limit?

Answer: No, writing samples will not count toward the

Volume II page limit. Writing samples should be submitted as attachments to the resumes of the individual personnel proposed by the offeror.

22 16 C-6.1 The Government states “Writing samples submitted by proposed candidates will be strongly considered.” Does this apply to all analysts and not just the senior editor as discussed in the sentence before?

Answer: It applies to all analysts.

23 32 6.2.1 If using 11x14 inch paper for the Compliance Matrix and Work

Breakdown Structure, will each 11x14 sheet of paper count as one page towards the page limit?

Answer: Yes.

24 33 6.3.2.1.1 Do resumes count towards total volume page limit? If each resume is (1) page, that leaves (10) pages to respond to both Factor-I and

Factor-II of Volume II.

Answer: No, resumes do not count toward page limit.

25 33&37 6.3.2.2 & 3.3

When are PPQs due to the Government, from the assessor?

Answer: PPQs are due by the closing date and time of the RFP.

26 33

6.3.2.2

The Government requires the offeror to submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

The Government states to “See Attachment __ for a sample

Teaming Partner Consent Letter and Attachment 7 for a sample

Past Performance Client Authorization Letter.” The Government did not provide the referenced attachments. Could the Government please provide the referenced attachments?

Answer: Please refer to the answer for question number 8.

27 34 6.3.2.2.1 The Government requires offerors to “Submit information using the format contained in Attachment __ Past and Present

Performance Information.”

The Government did not provide the referenced attachment. Will the Government provide the referenced attachment?

Answer: This will be revised.

28 32 6.2.2. The Government requires offerors, in addition to the paper copies, to submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD.

Does the Government want: One (1) CD per binder volume containing only the information included in the binder volume the

CD is submitted with, One (1) CD per volume containing ALL proposal volumes in electronic format, or one (1) CD for all binder volumes combined containing all proposal information?

Answer: Please submit 1 CD per offer

29 35 6.3.2.3.4 Will the Government provide an Option CLIN for the 6 Month

Option Period?

Answer: Yes

30 There are references to Attachment __ for a sample Teaming

Partner Consent Letter and Attachment 7 for a sample Past

Performance Client Authorization Letter. Will the Government provide these attachments?

Answer: This paragraph will be removed.

31 The Contractor shall maintain the currency of their employees by providing initial and refresher training as required to meet the

PWS requirements. What specific initial and refresher training is required?

Answer: This generally applies to all personnel, and specifically applies to certification requirements listed in paragraph C-6.3.2 – Information Assurance Requirements.

32 The Contractor will provide a monthly performance report by the

5th of each month… Does the Government have a specified format and schedule for all required reports?

Answer: There is no specified format. It is due on the 5 th of each month.

33 The Contractor shall develop and maintain a corresponding Work

Breakdown Structure consistent with program objectives, … Does the Government require a copy of the Work Breakdown Structure and if so, when is it required to be delivered to the Government?

Answer: Yes, the Government requires a copy of the Work

Breakdown Structure to be included with proposals. It is due on the RFP due date.

34 LMS will be utilized as the information system and data repository to support the process of developing MCCLL lessons learned reports. Will the Government provide training on the use and operation of the LMS?

Answer: Yes, MCCLL provides Marine Corps Lessons

Learned program indoctrination training of 3 days for incoming personnel.

35 The resume/experience of the Senior Editor shall include published works and executive level editing experience. Writing samples submitted by proposed candidates will be strongly considered. Do the resumes count against the page limit of

Volume II? Does the writing samples submitted count against the page limit of Volume II?

Answer: Resumes and writing samples do not count against page limit. Writing samples can be attached to resumes.

36 32 6.2 This section states that we should use the Subject Line: “Analyses, Records/Data Management and Software/Server Lifecycle

Maintenance Support Services, RFP M00264-16-R-0031.” As this is a hard copy submission, where does the Government want this subject line to be used?

Answer: As a header in each of the volumes.

37 33 6.3.2.2 Volume III Past Performance and Section M (RFP 38 and 40)

Question: Section L under Past Performance does not reference

Past Performance questionnaires. Are Past Performance

Questionnaires required? If so, will the Government accept

CPARs in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires?

Answer: PPQs are requested. Section 6.3.2.2, Volume III-

Past Performance has been revised.

38 34 6.3.2.2 Volume III Past Performance Question: This section references

Attachment 7 Past Performance Client Authorization letter. Will the Government please provide this attachment?

Answer: Please refer to the answer for question number 8.

39 34 6.3.2.2.1 Volume III Past Performance Question: This section references

Attachment __Past and Present Performance Information. Will the

Government please provide this attachment?

Answer: This section has been corrected to read Past

Performance Questionnaires are due by the RFP due date and time.

40 34 6.3.2.2.1 Volume III Past Performance Question: This section references

Attachment __ for a sample Teaming Partner Consent Letter. Will the Government please provide this attachment?

Answer: Please refer to the answer for question number 8.

41 35 6.3.2.4.2 This section states “The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.” Does this only refer to Volume V Contract

Documentation? Does this reference only apply to the SF 1449?

Does the Government desire 1 Original and Two copies of this volume per Section L references that the contractor shall provide three copies of each volume?

Answer: The “original” copy refers to Volume V. Yes, the

Government desires original and 2 copies of each offeror’s complete submission. This is inclusive of the SF1449.

42 33 6.3.2.1.1 This section states “The Offeror shall provide qualified staff

(attach resumes of all personnel),” is this an accurate requirement?

If so, are all positions considered to be “key?”

Answer: Resumes are required for all personnel.

43 33 6.3.2.1.1 This section states “The Offeror shall provide qualified staff

(attach resumes of all personnel),” As resumes are required for

ALL positions, will the Government please provide the historical level of effort that this contract has been performed at?

Answer: This information is presented in PWS paragraphs

C2.1, C2.2, and C2.3

44 Are there any key personnel requirements for this solicitation?

Answer: No.

45 The Government states that “A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past

Performance Questionnaire.”

In the PPQ template provided on pages 42 through 47 the instructions state “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.”

Sections I and II of the PPQ do not include the point of contact

(assessor) information, however, Section III does. Does the

Government want offerors to submit copies of sections I, II, and

III to satisfy the requirement in section 3.3.2?

If so, will these count towards the past performance page limit of

30 pages?

Answer: Relevant contract references respond IAW with data provided in the “Instructions” of the PPQ. This does not count against the page count limit. PPQs should be sent to the contracting directly from the references.

46 Are resumes required for all 15 positions outlined in the proposal?

Answer: Resumes are required for all positions

47 Do the resumes count towards the page count of the submitted proposal (i.e. Volume II- Staffing and Management/Technical section)?

Answer: Resumes are not included in the page count limitation.

48 The Government states that “A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire.”

In the PPQ template provided on pages 42 through 47 the instructions state “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.”

Sections I and II of the PPQ do not include the point of contact (assessor) information, however, Section III does. Does the Government want offerors to submit copies of sections I, II, and III to satisfy the requirement in section 3.3.2?

If so, will these count towards the past performance page limit of 30 pages?

Answer: Please review the entire PPQ and the asessor can provide their information on the form.

Additionally, the PPQ does not count towards the past performance limit.

49 Background: New corporate entities may not have been performing on contracts for a long enough time to qualify for the PP requirement on this solicitation.

However, their corporate officers may have been involved in multiple like programs similar in content, scope and size with previous companies.

Question:

For new Corporate Entities: can new corporate entities submit data on prior contracts involving performance of its officers and employees as a past performance reference?

We have been allowed to use this clause on other bids in the Veteran’s Administration.

Answer: Please review under Evaluation, Section

3.3. (Factor 3: Past Performance) and under

Ratings ( 5.2-5.5).

50 It appears the short fuse on the opportunity is driving us and others away from submission. Is there an operational requirement to issue a short suspense?

Answer: The Government requires proposals in the format described in the solicitation by the date and time listed in the solicitation in order to meet the agency’s minimum needs.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

AWARD

1. Technical Requirements

1.1 The Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of Staffing and

Management Plan; Technical Capability; Past Performance; and Price as prescribed in Section M-3 of this proposal.

Within the best value continuum, the Government may employ a Price/Technical Tradeoff analysis of price and non-price factors in evaluating the proposals submitted. See M-2 below.

1.2 Proposals will be assessed for how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the proposal requirements and the risks associated with the Offeror’s approach. Determining how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the proposal requirements will be accomplished in two (2) steps. First, a determination will be made if the Offeror’s proposal meets the proposal requirements. Next, the discriminators will be identified for the proposal reflecting the unique strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of each proposal. In addition, the Government will examine the impact of each discriminator and assess its relative value to the Government.

2. Basis for Award

2.1 Unless all proposals are rejected, the Government will award a FFP contract resulting from this proposal to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price/cost and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers.

2.2 The following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1, Staffing and Management Plan; Factor 2, Technical Capability; Factor 3, Past Performance; and Factor 4, Price.

2.3 In determining the best value, Factors 1, Staffing and Management Plan, and Factor 2, Technical Capability, are equal in importance to each other and each is significantly more important than Factor 3, Past Performance. Factor

3, Past Performance is slightly more important than Factor 4, Price. All non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4, Price.

2.4 Prospective Offeror’s are forewarned that a proposal meeting proposal 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. If proposed prices are considered unreasonable, greater risk will be assessed, and the Government may infer a lack of understanding of the requirements. 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.

2.5 The government intends to evaluate proposals and award a FFP contract upon initial proposals, therefore, the

Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The contract resulting from this proposal will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the proposal requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the government.

2.6 Options. The price for the base period and option years will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option price is significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Note: Pursuant to FAR Clause 52.215-1, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

3. Factors

3.1 Factor 1: Staffing and Management Plan

3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the demonstrated management approach suitable to respond to the types of requirements described in the PWS, consistent with their technical approach. This includes at a minimum, clearly identify roles and responsibilities of team members, as well as effective quality and management controls to ensure technical performance consistency under a performance-based business model. The discussion must provide the evaluation panel with sufficient confidence that the Offeror understands the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and has the management techniques, controls, subOfferor’s management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

3.1.2 The Government will evaluate the level of understanding demonstrated by the Offeror’s submission of resumes for personnel. For personnel, the Government will evaluate the education, experience, and expertise proposed and the degree to which those areas demonstrate an ability to successfully complete the PWS requirements and delineated in paragraph C-6, Knowledge, Skills and Qualifications.

3.2 Factor 2: Technical Capability

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical capabilities to assess how well they may be expected to perform the contract based on their demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS); ensuring their discussion articulates their capability so as to provide continuous quality support. The discussion must be able to demonstrate that the Offeror has the capacity to support the identified demonstrated 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. The Offeror will be evaluated on their ability to adequately identify a suitable level of technical understanding of the issues. This includes, at a minimum, describing contract level performance objectives that can be accomplished by their technical approach; describe the benefits and advantages of that approach; and effectively illustrate the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended strategy.

3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance

3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s on performance under existing and prior contracts and or task orders for similar products or services. Offeror’s 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 / subcontractor and significant subcontractor’s considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor’s 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’s and its teaming partners may not exceed six (6) total. Therefore, if three subcontractor’s efforts are submitted, the maximum number of efforts submitted by the prime would be three efforts.

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

Performance Questionnaire. References other than those identified by Offeror’s may be contacted by the

Government, and the information received may be used in the past performance evaluation. Offeror’s 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 PPET will perform past performance evaluations on all quotations received, in accordance with the SSP. 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.

3.4 Factor 4: Price

3.4.1 The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposed prices, but this factor will not be given an adjectival rating.

Proposals will be evaluated on completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. Evaluation of the proposed prices for the services will be based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the proposal and may also be based on a comparison to the IGCE along with any other relevant price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-

1(b). All option period pricing to include the extension of services in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 will be considered in the evaluation.

3.4.2 The Government will evaluate burden rate(s) identified for travel CLINs to determine whether the burden rate is fair and reasonable.

3.4.3. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46 , the Government will evaluate the submitted total compensation plan which shall demonstrate and indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitability qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.

4. Completeness and Accuracy

4.1 The Government will review the pricing tables for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the pricing tables. The Offeror’s proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1) Checking arithmetic in all B-Table computations; and

2) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly

4.2 The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

5. Ratings

5.1 The rating definitions in Table 1 will be used in evaluating Factors 1 and 2 and Table 2 and 3 will be used to evaluate Factor 3. A proposal that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for any Factor will not be considered for award. No further evaluation of the proposal shall be performed. (I.e. price proposals) and the Offeror will not be considered for award. 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.

Color Rating Description

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.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and

Green Acceptable 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. Proposals “unawardable”.*** see note below Table 1

***A proposal that receives a final “Unacceptable” rating from the source selection authority for any Factor will result in the entire proposal being determined to be “unacceptable.” The proposal will not be considered to be in the competitive range, and no discussions will be conducted with the Offeror. No further evaluation of the proposal shall be performed and the Offeror will not be considered further for award.”

5.2 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’s 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.

5.3 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 02: 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.

5.4 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 03 – Past

Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 03: 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 Offeror’s 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 Offeror’s 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 Offeror’s 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 Offeror’s has not yet identified corrective actions. The

Offeror’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 Offerors’ corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

5.5 Performance Confidence Assessment:

As a result of the recency, 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’s will have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners / subcontractor, joint venture and / or significant subcontractors

Table 04 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’s 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’s 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’s will successfully perform the required effort.

No

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the Offeror’s 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.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR’S-COMMERICAL ITEMS

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 The Government intends to make a single award, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for one (1) twelve

(12) month base period and two (2), One (1) year option periods.

1.2 Each Proposal 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.

2.0 POINT OF CONTACT.

2.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), assisted by the Contract Specialist, is the sole point of contact for this procurement. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialist. Written requests for clarification must be sent to the Contract Specialist at the address located in Block 9 of the SF1449 solicitation.

3.0 DISCREPANCIES.

3.1 If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

4.0 PROPOSAL GUIDANCE.

4.1 The proposal must 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.

The Offeror’s submission shall be screened by the PCO 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 PCO. The purpose of this procurement is to provide continued services to support operational goals of the Marine Corps Lessons Learned Program.

Services include 1) Analyses Support; 2) Records/Data Management Support; and 3)

Software/Server Lifecycle Maintenance Support.

5.0 SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS.

5.1 All electronic submittals of questions are to be received by the Contracting Office by the stated time and date.

All questions must be received no later than 20 April 2016 by 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). All questions must be submitted electronically via email to the following: joy.hughes@usmc.mil and cc: Ms. Christa

Eggleston-Scott, christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil.

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 Office at the email addresses identified and in the timeframe given above.

6.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

6.1 Electronic proposals are not authorized for this solicitation and will not be considered for evaluation. The

Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). Proposals must be submitted and received no later than 4 May 2016 by 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The

Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) separate volumes and must provide (3) copies of each volume. The volumes are Volume I- Executive Summary; Volume II-Technical/Management, Volume III- Past Performance, Volume IV-Cost/Price and Volume V- Contract Documentation.

Proposals that do not comply with the instructions herein may be considered non-responsive and may render the proposal ineligible for award. Proposals shall be sent via Federal Express, private courier, or hand delivered, to the following address and must be received prior to the cutoff date/time to:

Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region

Room 224

Attention: Joy Hughes

2010 Henderson Road

MCB, Quantico, VA 22134

6.2 Proposal Format.

mailto:joy.hughes@usmc.mil mailto:christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil

6.2.1 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. The proposals shall be prepared in the following format:

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;

Graphics and drawings must be clear / legible and may use a small font;

No hyperlinks or external materials are permitted.

NOTE: Your subject line must read “Analyses, Records/Data Management and Software/Server Lifecycle

Maintenance Support Services, RFP M00264-16-R-0031.” and placed as a header in each of the volumes.

6.2.2 In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on one (1) CD per offer. Content should utilize .doc, .pdf, .xls, and .jpg formats to the degree possible. Test and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Word 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.

6.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT.

6.3.1 Volume I - Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

6.3.1.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be…