Amendment_0001_M00264-16-R-0042_JNTC_Solicitation.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 as follow s:

1) To provide Qustions and Government Responses;

2) Update Sections :

- Instructions to Offerors;

-Evaluation Factors for Aw ard; and

-Correct Travel CLINS

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Jul-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-0042

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jun-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

12-Jul-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-0042

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Travel - In accordance with JFTR- Not to exceed $44,000.

To:

Travel - In accordance with JTR- Not to exceed $44,000..

CLIN 1004

Travel - In accordance with JFTR- Not to exceed $88,000.

Travel - In accordance with JTR- Not to exceed $88,000..

CLIN 2004

CLIN 3004

CLIN 4004

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS&GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES:

M00264-16-R-0042 JNTC PROGRAM SUPPORT

Question 1: In regards to the subject solicitation, can you please tell me if there is an incumbent for this effort? If so, can you provide the contract number that the effort is being performed under?

Answer 1: Affirmative, there is an incumbent by the name of CORPS SOLUTIONS, LLC and the current contract # is M00264-13-T-0139.

Question 2: Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number

M0026416R0042 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

Answer 2: This is not a new requirement. Solicitation # M00264-16-R-0042 contains requirements similar to the current contract along with a few additional requirements. Current contract # is M00264-13-T-0139.

Question3: Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

Answer 3: Affirmative, there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement. Incumbent is CORPS SOLUTIONS, LLC and contract # is M00264-13-T-0139.

Question 4: RFP 6.2.5.1 explains that the contractor is responsible for obtaining and paying for MCEN seats. Is there a labor category that is considered key?

Answer 4: No there is no labor category. It will be a monthly fee. Based on historical data, the cost is approximately $117.00/month (~1400.00/year) for each MCEN seat.

Question 5: RFP 6.2.5.1 explains that the contractor is responsible for obtaining and paying for MCEN seats. What is the cost associated with a MCEN seat?

Answer 5: Based on historical data, the cost associated with a MCEN seat is approximately

$1400.00/year per seat.

Question 6: RFP 6.2.5.1 refers to contractor provided computers. In order to avoid redundant cost in the offeror’s proposed solution would the Government provide historically, how many seats are furnished with Government computer? RFP 9.1 Page 33

Refers to Past Performance Questionnaires, will the Government accept CPARs in lieu of

Past Performance Questionnaires?

Answer 6: Historically, computers/MCEN seats are not furnished. Offerors’ proposals should plan for all contractor support needing both computers and MCEN seats. The government will not accept CPARS in lieu of Past Performance Questionnairs. Please follow Instructions to

Offerors-Commercial Items, 52.212-1 Addendum-Instructions, Conditions and Notices to

Offeror.

Question 7: Throughout the Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Factors for Awards sections of the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Government mentions Key Personnel and the requirement for Letters of Commitment, but we are unable to find guidance in any section of the RFP that identifies which positions are considered Key Personnel and for whom must we submit Letters of Commitment. Would the Government identify which positions are considered Key Personnel and confirm that Letters of Commitment are required for Key Personnel only?

Answer 7: “Key Personnel” and Letters of Commitment have been removed.

Question 8: RFP Paragraphs 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 identify support required for nine locations. Paragraph 6.2.5 identifies government provided spaces and equipment. There appears to be a disconnect between support required by paragraphs 5.1.1 thru 5.1.3 and the seats available in paragraph 6.2.5. Specifically, paragraph 6.2.5 shows two computer seat/desk spaces for MAWT-1 and one computer seat/desk for MCMWTC, yet the requirements appear to establish a requirement for two computer seat/desks at

MCMWTC, and one for MAWT-1. Can you please confirm that paragraph 6.2.5 is correct, or provide the correct information?

Answer 8: Computer seat/desk spaces are considered nothing more than a work stations. The

MCEN seats are the responsibility of the contractor to pay for (para: 6.2.5.1 of the solicitation).

The computer, if not provided by the government, is also the responsibility of the contractor to pay for and it must be MCEN compatible. Paragraph 6.2.5 is correct. Para: 5.1.1 – 5.1.3 are overarching support required at designated areas and para: 6.2.5 is the number of recommended computer seat/desk spaces (with a contractor paid for MCEN seat and computer (if applicable)) to support requirements. It is annotated in the solicitation that support is needed at both

MAWTS-1 and MCMWTC (para: 5.1.1) and the exact number of seats/spaces is called out in para: 6.2.5.

Question 9: RFP 7.1 states “d. Backup information and data that will allow evaluators the ability to understand how the vendor’s pricing was developed. (CD Excel spreadsheet data shall be UNLOCKED)” Will the Government please clarify for this Firm Fixed Price proposal submission, what backup data is required?

Answer 9: The Government requires all information regarding how offerors arrived at their pricing.

Question 10: Q1. 5.5 - Security. Could the Government please confirm as to whether both billets at MAWTS-1 require a TS clearance?

Answer 10: Only one of the two billets at MAWTS-1 will require a TS clearance.

Question 11: Q2. 6.1 - Proposal Format.

The RFP stipulates, "The Offeror is required to provide one (1) original and three (3) copies of the technical volume," however there are a total of three (3) volumes (Technical, Past Performance, and Business). Could the Government confirm which of the following is required? An original of each volume and three (3) copies of each volume or an original of each volume and three (3) copies of only the technical volume?

Answer 11: Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with Instructions to Offerors- 52.212-1

Addendum-Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offeror, paragraph 6.1, which has been updated.

Question 12: Q3. Section B - CLINs 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004.

Will the Government consider revising the description of these CLINs to read, "Travel - In accordance with JTR," and not "Travel - In accordance with JFTR." As the JFTR does not apply to contractors.

Answer 12: The subject CLIN descriptions have been updated.

Question 13: Q4. 6.2.5.1.

The Government stipulates that, "The contractor should also provide a contractor provided computer should their seat/desk space not come furnished with a computer."

Could the Government confirm that if the contractor should be required to provide their employees with a computer, must it be MCEN IA certified? If so, will the Government provide the locations to where computers will be required, as costs associated with procuring and configuring the computers to run on the MCEN must be factored into an

Offeror's pricing.

Answer 13: Contractor computers must be MCEN certified if government computers are not made available. Because para: 6.2.5.1 stipulates, “ The contractor should also provide a contractor provided computer should their seat/desk space not come furnished with a computer” and this follows the previous sentence in para: 6.2.5.1 that stipulates “The contractor is responsible for obtaining and paying (if applicable) for their own,” it is reasonable to conclude that it is the contractors responsibility to also pay for a MCEN certified computer if one is not provided.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212-2 Addendum – Evaluation – Commercial Items

1 General:

1.1 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate Proposal:

- Factor 1 Technical Capability;

- Factor 2 Performance Execution and Management;

- Factor 3 Past Performance; and

- Factor 4 Price

1.2 In determining the best value, Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management, are equal in importance to each other and each are significantly more important that

Factor 3 – Past Performance. All non-price factors are individually, and when combined are significantly, more important than Factor 4 – Price.

1.3 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 evaluated priced proposal 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.

The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

1.4 The Government intends to evaluate Proposals and award a Contract without discussions with

Offeror’s. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

2 Volume I – Technical

2.1 Factor 1. Technical Capability.

2.1.1 The Proposal will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements described the PWS and how well the proposal articulates the

Offeror’s capability to perform all of the tasks outlined in the PWS so as to provide continuous quality support.

The Proposal evaluation will consider the Offeror’s capacity to support the identified mission areas and understanding of the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, and approach to ensuring quality performance and use of staff resources to meet objectives identified in the PWS to execute the intended strategy.

2.2 Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management.

2.2.1 The Proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed performance execution and management approach demonstrates an understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the desired outcomes set forth in the PWS and are consistent with the technical approach.

2.3 Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management

2.3.1 The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will assign Factor 1 and Factor 2 an adjectival rating from the Table below that best describes their consensus evaluation of the factor being evaluated, and will identify each Proposal ’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

2.3.2 Strength is defined as an aspect of the Proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance of capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during Contract performance.

2.3.3 Weakness is defined as a flaw in the Proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

2.3.4 Deficiency is a material failure of a Proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates and exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The Proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies. 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 no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Proposal has one or more weaknesses, which are

2.3.5 A Proposal that receives a final “Unacceptable” rating from the TEP for Factors 1 or 2 will result in the entire Proposal being determined to be “Unacceptable”. The Proposal may not be considered for award.

3 Volume II – Past Performance

3.1 Factor 3. Past Performance.

3.1.1 Past Performance information will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the current contract successfully. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in terms of quality of relevant services rendered in the offeror’s past performance will be considered. The comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the contracting officer’s responsibility determination. Any Offeror that submits any contract reference that is not relevant (similar in size and scope) will receive a neutral rating for that contract reference in Past Performance.

3.1.2 There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation:

3.1.2.1 The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired. Recent efforts are those that have been performed during any portion of the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of the RFQ, 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 the RFP. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be further 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.

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 Contract / contract in accordance with the relevancy definitions in the table entitled Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The

Government will evaluate relevancy by assessing whether the past performance effort proposed is relevant to the Technical Factors 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.

The following table reflects the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition 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.

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.

3.1.2.2 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror’s performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, all aspects of the performance that related to this procurement may be considered. The quality assessment may consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, CPARS/PPIRS/ FAPIIS 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 the table entitled Past Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

The following table reflects the Past Performance Quality Assessment:

Past Performance Quality Assessment:

Quality Assessment Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

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

Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the

Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

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

MARGINAL (M)

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

UNSATISFACTORY(U)

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

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

3.1.2.3 As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments, the Government evaluators will assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating per the table entitled Past Performance

Confidence Assessment. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

"Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. An excellent recent past performance that occurred three (3) years ago may not affect the Performance Confidence Assessment as much as a recent effort that occurred within the last year and has an unsatisfactory performance. Also, an example of favorable recent and relevant performance of a prime Offeror will have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners / subcontractors, joint venture and / or significant subcontractor(s).

The following table reflects the Past Performance Confidence Assessment:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Proposal r 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 Proposal r 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 Proposal r 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.

3.1.3 If a Offeror submits a no record of past performance certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive an neutral rating (i.e. the Offeror is evaluated neither positive nor negative) for past performance. Proposals are advised that any contract reference submission that is not relevant will receive a neutral rating for that contract reference in Past Performance.

3.1.4 In addition to the sources identified by the Offeror, the Government may review CPARS, PPIRS, or

FAPIIS 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.

3.1.5 The evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the performance of tasks detailed in the PWS.

4 Volume III – Business Volume

4.1 Factor 4 – Price

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s Proposed prices, but this factor will not be given an adjectival rating. Proposal will be evaluated on completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. Evaluation of the

Proposal d prices for the services will be based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and may also be based on a comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate

(IGCE) along with any other relevant price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b).

4.2 Reasonableness

4.2.1 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 a Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

4.3 Completeness and Accuracy

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 computations; and

2) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly

5. Notification of Award

A written notice of award or acceptance of a Proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful

Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the Proposal, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal specified expiration time, the Government may accept the proposal, whether or not there are exchanges after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Instruction to Offerors– Commercial Items

52.212-1 Addendum – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offeror

1. Multiple Offers

1.1 The Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region does not encourage contractors to submit multiple proposals presenting alternative terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

2. Overview

2.1 The Government intends to make a single award, hybrid contract containing Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost

Reimbursable TRAVEL CLINs for one, (6) month base period, plus four (4), twelve (12) month option periods, as a result of the solicitation. The cost reimbursable TRAVEL CLINs shall be for non-labor costs and travel directly associated with performance of this Contract. Under no circumstances will the final performance period extend beyond 60 months.

2.2 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose Proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate Proposal:

- Factor 1 Technical Capability;

- Factor 2 Performance Execution and Management;

- Factor 3 Past Performance; and,

- Factor 4 Price

2.2.1 In determining the best value, Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and

Management, are equal in importance to each other and each are significantly more important that Factor 3 – Past

Performance. All non-price factors, individually, and when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4

– Price.

2.3 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

3.1 The Proposal must be prepared in accordance with these instructions. Failure to do so may result in the

Offeror’s submission being determined 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 Proposal (RFP). Elimination of a Proposal is at the sole discretion of the Contracting

Officer.

3.2 The purpose of this procurement is to obtain functional Support Services, Research Support Services, On-site

Support and Programmatic Support Services for the Marine Corps Joint National Training Capability (JNTC)

Program.

4. Confidential Information

4.1 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 Proposal/proposals submitted to federal agencies. If a 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” (5

USC 552(b)(4)), the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

4.1.1 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) _______.”

4.1.2 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

5.1 Questions

5.1.1 All questions must be received by July 1, 2016 at 11:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). All questions submitted for this solicitation must be electronically sent to the following e-mail addresses:

joy.hughes@usmc.mil and carbon copy (cc) christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil

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

5.2 Proposal

5.2.1 Electronic Proposals are not authorized for this solicitation and will not be considered for evaluation.

Proposal must be received no later than, July 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the Proposal evaluation process, all Proposals must comply with the following instructions for Proposal format and content. Proposal that do not comply with these instructions may be considered non-responsive and may render the Proposal ineligible for award. For each Proposal submission, provide (1) Original Technical Volume, (3) Technical Volumes, (3) Past Performance Volumes, and (1) Original

Business Volume.

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

Regional Contracting Office, NCR

2010 Henderson Road

Attention: Joy Hughes

Marine Corps Base (MCB)

Quantico, VA 22134

6. Proposal Format

6.1 In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all Proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Adobe Acrobat

Reader (PDF). Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by Adobe Acrobat Reader (PDF) MS Excel

2007 or earlier. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence. (1) Original Technical Volume, (3) Technical Volumes, (3) Past Performance

Volumes, and (1) Original Business Volume.

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

6.1.2 In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for Proposal evaluation Offeror’s should submit their

Proposal in accordance with the format and content specified.

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

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

Single-spaced typed lines;

1 inch margins on all sides;

11 point Times New Roman font;

Headers/footers – ensure the company name and RFQ number is included on each page of the

Original Volumes. On the redacted version of the technical volume, the Header/footer shall contain the RFQ number and Proposal r Code;

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

PLEASE NOTE: Your subject line should read “TECOM Joint National Training Capability,” RFQ

M00264-16-R-0042”.

7. Offeror Content

7.1 Each Proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

Technical, Volume (I)–Not to Exceed (NTE) 50-pages and shall include:

a. Technical Volume Cover Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Solicitation Number, and Vendor POC and

Alternate POC information (name, title, telephone number, email);

b. Table of Contents;

c. Compliance Matrix;

d. Technical Capability and Performance Execution and Management Information (shall reference the

Solicitation/PWS).

Past Performance, Volume (II) – NTE 15-pages and shall include:

a. Past Performance Cover Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Solicitation Number, and Vendor POC and

Alternate POC information (name, title, telephone number, email);

b. List of Agencies that your firm sent Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ); and,

c. Self – Assessment of the PPQ (Per listed firm).

Business, Volume (III)-NTE 30-pages and shall include:

a. Formal Proposal Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Solicitation Number, and Vendor POC and

Alternate POC information (name, title, telephone number, email);

b. SF1449 pages 3 through 24 - Price Proposal;

c. Supporting material including proposed labor categories, labor hours, and labor rates; and,

d. Backup information and data that will allow evaluators the ability to understand how the vendor’s pricing was developed. (CD Excel spreadsheet data shall be UNLOCKED)

The NTE count does not include the Cover Letters and Executive Statements or Table of Contents.

Please Keep Cover Letter and Executive Statements less than 5 pages combined. 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 Proposal are treated equally.

7.2 The Offeor shall demonstrate the ability, resources, and experience required to perform the requirements in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS), including the detailed procedures and methods to be used. All information must be presented in sufficient depth for the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the PWS and the Offeror’s capability for successful performance. Pricing Information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume (I), which shall address only the technical requirements.

8. Volume I – Technical

8.1 Technical Approach

8.1.1 The Offeror’s technical Proposal shall not exceed 50-pages and include the Compliance Matrix, discussion of

Factor (1) Technical Capability and Factor (2) Performance Execution and Management and Letter of Commitment

(if required). Title pages and executive summaries (to include company’s mission statement) are excluded from the

50-page limit.

The Offeror’s shall address Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2 - Performance Execution and Management

Information. The Technical Capability and Performance Execution and Management Information shall include:

The Cover Letter should identify the RFP number, corporate principal submitting the Proposal, 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.

A Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix pertinent to the Proposal ’s material organization and providing traceability from the Offeror’s submission, to the PWS, to the evaluation criteria, and to other solicitation sections as necessary. Specifically, the Compliance Matrix is a cross-reference table that tells evaluators where they can find responses to specific RFP requirements.

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 offeror unless physically incorporated in the Proposal . Clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential.

8.1.1.1 Factor 1. Technical Capability

The Proposal should clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the PWS and these instructions; ensuring their discussion articulates their capability so as to provide continuous quality support. The discussion should provide the evaluators with the Offeror’s capacity to support the identified mission areas, understanding of the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, degree of experience in performing the same or similar services, and resources available to execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of the staff resources to meet PWS objectives. The discussion should include, describing contract level performance objectives that can be accomplished by the technical approach; describing the benefits and advantages of that approach; and effectively illustrating the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended strategy.

8.1.1.2 Factor 2. Performance Execution and Management

The Proposal should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s management approach suitable to respond to the types of requirements delineated in the PWS, consistent with their technical approach. The discussion should provide a comprehensive approach to managing Contract performance-based work requirements; assurance of consistent quality of performance; capacity for handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; and ensuring complementary roles between the contractor’s managers and Government staff.

The Offeror’s should demonstrate its ability to define an effective management approach complementary to the proposed technical solution set forth in response to the criteria in the PWS. This includes identifying responsibilities and roles of team members in attaining performance objectives; describing the processes and quality measures associated with executing the strategy; and illustrating the roles of staff and team resources relevant to the approach so as to ensure suitable oversight and control of performance execution. Collectively, the integrated approach should demonstrate to the evaluator 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.

9. Volume II – Past Performance

9.1 Factor 3. Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance Proposal shall not exceed 15-pages, not including Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ). The Proposal should address the quality of an offeror’s recent (performed within three (3) years of the RFQ issued date) and relevant (similar in size and scope) past performance based on the input received from the Proposal r, its references and other reliable sources contacted by the Government. Offeror’s that have no record of past performance (i.e. new businesses) must submit a signed and dated past performance certification statement to that effect. 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 three (3) years. Include the following fields:

Customer;

Contract/Contract Number;

Program name;

Period of Performance;

Contract type;

Total contract value;

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

Names/Telephone numbers/e-mail for the Procuring Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s

Representative, Government Project Manager, or other Point of Contact with technical knowledge of the past performance sufficient to complete the PPQ.

The PPQ is included as an attachment to the RFP. The Offeror’s shall provide a copy of the PPQ to each of their listed references with instruction to return to joy.hughes@usmc.mil no later than July 21, 2016 at 11:00 a.m

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

The Government may request additional past performance information from others using a PPQ. The Government may also use other information such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), DoD Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS) data available from Government sources to evaluate a Offeror’s past performance.

The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

10 Volume III – Business Volume

10.1 Factor 4. Price

10.1.1The Offeror’s price proposal shall not exceed 30-pages, including a Formal Offeror Letter and Price Proposal consisting of the SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES; Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure (pages 3 through 24 of the SF1449). In accordance with FAR 8.405-4, the Price proposal should reflect the Offeror’s best pricing available. Supporting materials shall include proposed labor categories, labor hours, and labor rates. Pricing information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume.

10.1.2 Offeror’s are only required to price the base and option year CLINs. The prices for all option items will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government makes no guarantee that the option periods will be exercised. It will be the Government’s unilateral right to exercise any option periods and, once option periods are exercised; the Contractor is required to perform the work when ordered during the scheduled period of performance of the Contract.

mailto:joy.hughes@usmc.mil

10.1.3 The corresponding grand total price for each function area established in the CLIN structure, including the

Travel as detailed in paragraph 10.1.5 of these instructions, should be clearly annotated in the Proposal . The price

Proposal should avoid ambiguities of inclusion, exclusion, or content.

10.1.4 During contract performance, the Contractor will be paid on a cost reimbursable basis, the reasonable, allowable, and allocable costs that have been previously approved by the contracting officer or their designee for travel and other direct costs. For evaluation purposes of this solicitation, the Proposal shall utilize the following data in the pricing of cost reimbursable Travel CLINS:

Reimbursable Cost-

Not To Exceed

(NTE)

Six Month

Base

Period

Option

Year 1

Option

Year 2

Option

Year 3

Option

Year 4

Travel $44,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000

10.2 Completeness. The Offeror’s must sign the SF1449, acknowledge all amendments, and include the below information in its Proposal submission. At a minimum, the following areas must be addressed:

Proposal is valid for 90 days from the date of submission;

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

Acknowledge any amendments to the RFP;

A validated registration in the System for Award Management (SAM);

Signed Proposal of $XXXX for the one (6) month base period and four (4) one year option periods provided; and, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and Sub-CLINs pricing, to include unit and total price.

(End of Summary of Changes)