M00264-16-R-0050_amend_01.pdf

M5405016RCNAT10

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 modif ication is to provide Government answ ers to Industry submitted questions. See Attachment 03: Questions and

Answ ers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-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-0050

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-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

11-Jul-2016

CODE

COMMANDING GENERAL - REG CON OFFICE NCR

2010 HENDERSON ROAD

DENNIE, MICHAEL

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-0050

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment

1 Contract Security Classification Specification (DD254)

2 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

3 Questions and Answers

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

1. Evaluation Factors for Award

The Government will select the best overall proposal, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. 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 non-price factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offerors:

- Factor 1 Technical Capabilities

- Factor 2 Management Approach

- Factor 3 Past Performance

- Factor 4 Price

In determining the best value tradeoffs, Factor 1- Technical Capabilities, is the most important factor. In evaluating offers, all non-price factors when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 –Price. Factor 4 –Price becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors. Prospective

Offerors are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected for award if a higher rated evaluated priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the

Government.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Capabilities

Technical Approach - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal technical solution, quality of performance measures, and approach to implementation of technical solution. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements for tasks as outlined in the PWS.

1.2 Factor 2 - Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Management, Teaming, and Staffing approach. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s program management team structures, relationships, roles and responsibilities that are clearly defined and established to provide maximum quality performance and minimize risk to performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine whether it demonstrates processes, procedures, and organizational structures that support work in classified/sensitive environments. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for recruiting, staffing and retaining sufficient numbers of personnel to support the requirements of the PWS.

DD Form 254 - The Government will determine Offeror’s security eligibility and ability to satisfy the requirements set forth on the DD Form 254 with security clearance requirements pertaining to the PWS. Evaluation will consider

Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI), Facility Clearance Level (FCL) and Personnel clearances.

Adjectival Ratings for Technical and Management Factors

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies identified by evaluators, the SSEB will assign each technical and management factor an adjectival rating using the following adjectival rating scale:

RATING TECHNICAL RISK AND MANAGEMENT RISK RATING

OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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.

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

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

Proposal is un-awardable.

1.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror on performance under existing and prior Government contracts and or task orders for similar products or services. Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) but no more than six (6) total recent and relevant performance efforts for evaluation and each cited past performance effort shall not exceed nine (9) pages. (Note: Individual task orders under an ID/IQ contract are each considered to be one (1) past / present performance effort.) Information on up to three (3) recent contracts performed by an offeror’s significant teaming partners / subcontractors and significant subcontractors considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and / or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and / or a company who provides a critical portion of the effort required and / or influences the results of performance. The maximum number of past performance efforts submitted by the prime Offeror and its teaming partners may not exceed six (6) total. Therefore, if three subcontractor efforts are submitted, the maximum number of efforts submitted by the prime would be three efforts.

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

Questionnaire (Attachment 3). References other than those identified by offeror may be contacted by the

Government, and the information received from those other references may be used in the past performance evaluation. Offers for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

The Past Performance Evaluation Team may review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. If a PPIRS entry exists for the proposed past performance effort, the information and ratings contained in the PPIRS entry will take precedence for the Past Performance Evaluation Team over any other source of past performance information.

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 Offer must have been performing for at least six (6) months from the date of issuance of this RFP to qualify as a recent effort. Past performance information that is not considered recent and will not be further evaluated. However, if any part of the performance submitted 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. Offeror’s past performance that does not meet the recency timeframe will not be further evaluated.

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 the table below. The Government shall evaluate relevancy by assessing whether the past performance effort proposed is relevant to the Security Factor, Technical Capability Factor, Management Approach Factor, and the Price Factor contained in the RFP. Evaluations will 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 also be used to establish the degree of relevancy, which will inform quality rating for past performance. The following table reflects the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved 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.

Past Performance Quality Assessment - 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. The Government evaluators will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. Past performance efforts that are not deemed both relevant and recent will not be further evaluated for quality. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered. 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.

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 in accordance with the table below. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the

Offeror’s past performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. An excellent recent and relevant past performance that occurred three (3) years ago may not affect the Performance

Confidence Assessment as much as a recent and relevant 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 Definition

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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/Unknown Confident rating

(i.e. the Offeror is evaluated neither positive nor negative) for past performance. Offerors are advised that any contract reference submission that is not relevant or recent will not be further evaluated.

The evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies 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.

1.4 Factor 4 - Price

The cost and price analysis techniques set forth in FAR 15.4 are used to determine whether the offered price is fair and reasonable. The proposed price are reasonable when it is fair to the buyer, fair to the seller, and reasonable considering the market conditions, available alternatives, and price-related factors as determined through one or more of the price analysis techniques. The proposal will also be reviewed for consistency to ensure that all performance, scope, and assumptions proposed in other sections of the proposal are captured in the price proposal section.

The evaluated price shall be used in the trade-off analysis between the price and non-price factors to determine the best value. The evaluated price of the proposal shall be the total price for the base period and all option periods to include the option to extend services (not to exceed 6 months).

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 offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offeror’s 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.

2. Contract Documentation

Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan (Reference Solicitation, FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM – 2.9)

The Government's review of the offeror's Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan(s) will consider:

a) The degree to which the offeror addressed OCI concerns;

b) The offeror's approach for mitigating OCI issues;

c) The offeror's approach to mitigate potential OCIs at the task order level;

d) The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs;

e) The adequacy of its procedures; and

f) Whether or not the offeror's OCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all requirements of this solicitation.

The above elements and the OCI plan will be reviewed. The OCI plan will be evaluated on an acceptable or non-acceptable basis.

(End of provision)

NMCARS 5237 (90)

5237.102-90 Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA)

(a) DoD contracting activities awarding or administering contracts shall incorporate the following Enterprise-wide

Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) standard language into all contracts which include services, provided the organization that is receiving or benefiting from the contracted service is a Department of Defense organization, including reimbursable appropriated funding sources from non-DoD executive agencies where the

Defense Component requiring activity is the executive agent for the function performed. The reporting requirement does not apply to situations where a Defense Component is merely a contracting agent for another executive agency.

Contracted services excluded from reporting are based on Product Service Codes (PSCs). The excluded PSCs are:

(1) W, Lease/Rental of Equipment;

(2) X, Lease/Rental of Facilities;

(3) Y, Construction of Structures and Facilities;

(4) S, Utilities ONLY;

(5) V, Freight and Shipping ONLY.

(b)The standard language to be inserted is:

“The contractor shall report contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) required for performance of services provided under this contract for the MCESG Assignment Tool Support Services via a secure data collection site. Contracted services excluded from reporting are based on Product Service Codes (PSCs). The excluded PSCs are:

(1) W, Lease/Rental of Equipment;

(2) X, Lease/Rental of Facilities;

(3) Y, Construction of Structures and Facilities;

(4) S, Utilities ONLY;

(5) V, Freight and Shipping ONLY.

The contractor is required to completely fill in all required data fields using the following web address https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil.

Reporting inputs will be for the labor executed during the period of performance during each Government fiscal year

(FY), which runs October 1 through September 30. While inputs may be reported any time during the FY, all data shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year. Contractors may direct questions to the help desk, linked at https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

1. Scope

1.1 Mission

In partnership with the Department of State, Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) selects, screens, assesses, trains, and assigns Marine Security Guards (MSG) to provide security services to diplomatic missions overseas in support of the MSG Program. Today, there are over 174 MSG detachments spread across 146 different countries who fall under the administrative control and oversight of 10 commanders. Each of the 174 MSG detachments are led by a staff non-commissioned officer. The planned growth of these detachments will exceed over 200 in the near future. There are approximately

2,000 MSGs assigned to any of the 174 detachments to include a MSG Security Augmentation Unity

(MSAU) located in Quantico, VA. Each MSG receives an initial 8-week training class at the MSG School.

There are five MSG classes held annually which graduates on average 175 MSGs. Normally, each MSG will execute a permanent change of station every 12 months that coincides with their class graduation from

MSG School. On average, each Marine will spend 36 months on the Program.

The purpose of this contract is to outsource the management of the assignment of all MSGs during each class graduation cycle. In close coordination with MCESG staff, the contractor is to provide responsive and developed solutions for the assignment of each MSG. The contractor is to continue to use a previously developed prototype software optimization tool while at the same time provide sound recommendations on improving the overall assignment process.

1.2 Background

MCESG is responsible for assigning MSGs to diplomatic posts five times annually coinciding with the graduation of each class of MSGs. In addition to new graduates, MCESG also assigns all MSGs who have been in their post for one year including MSGs who have been on the Program one or two years to new detachments. The current process of manually assigning MSGs to detachments is extremely time-consuming. The manpower assignment tool provides an automated way of making these assignments using a mathematical model to optimize agreed upon objectives across the entire Program.

1.2.1 Model Design

MCESG assigns MSGs to 174 embassy detachments in 146 different countries across ten regions. Roughly one fifth of the MSGs in the program move during each cycle. The MCESG Assignment Tool is designed to inform senior leaders where each MSG should be assigned.

Assumptions

Assignments will be made for MSG watch-standers and Assistant Detachment Commanders only and not for Detachment Commanders https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil/ https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil/

MSGs change posts only during scheduled cycles

Objectives and Goals

Provide an even distribution of MSG quality (a combination of rank, program experience, MSG rating, and post preference) across all detachments

Staff each detachment to capacity or according to a specified priority level in case of a shortfall in personnel

Maintain a mix of MSG cycles within each detachment (i.e., ensure not too many MSGs moving in and out of a given detachment in single cycle) where possible

Constraints

Number of MSGs assigned to a given detachment cannot exceed the number of MSGs required for that detachment

Total number of MSGs assigned to detachments cannot exceed the total number of MSGs available to move

MSGs moving on second or third rotation may not be assigned to a detachment in the same region as their current or previous post

Adhere to assignment restrictions for individual MSGs due to ethnic, cultural, or family concerns

Adhere to Visa or other diplomatic requirements

MSGs who have been in their post for 12 months and in the ESG program for one or two years must be assigned to a new detachment in the next cycle

1.2.2 Mathematical Formulation

The MCESG manpower assignment tool is a non-linear objective function. The goal of the objective function is to minimize the difference in MSG quality scores across all the regions of the program to achieve an even distribution. To avoid negative coefficients in the objective function, the Sum of Squares is used when formulating the problem as a Quadratic Programming Problem (QPP).

The formulation is as follows:

Let i = individual MSG

Let j = unique detachment assignment

𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 1 if MSG i is assigned to detachment j.

𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 0 if MSG i is not assigned to detachment j.

𝐷𝑗 = MSG demand at detachment j.

𝐴𝑄 = the average quality score for a given detachment.

The quality score is computed through a function that considers certain metrics defined by MCESG senior leaders.

Objective function:

Min 𝑧 = ∑ (𝐴𝑄𝑗 − 𝐴𝑄𝑗+1)2 𝑗

Constraints:

s.t. ∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑗 = 1 , ∀ 𝑖 (MSG constraint)

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑖 = 𝐷𝑗 , ∀ 𝑗 (Detachment demand constraint)

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑗∈𝑆𝑖 = 0 , 𝑆𝑖 = {𝑟 | 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠} (Added during pre-processing)

𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 1 𝑜𝑟 0 (Binary constraint)

1.2.3 Data Requirements

MCESG will provide the following data to assist with the execution of the optimization model:

Detachment Information (for each MCESG detachment)

Unique identification

Number of MSGs in detachment

Region designation

Department of State tier ranking

Priority ranking

Visa requirement and timeline

Required manning level

Marine Security Guard Information (for each MSG and Assistant Detachment Commander)

Unique identifier

Experience on MSG program

Cycle for next move

Rank

Recommendation or evaluation scores

Next post preference

Physical fitness (PFT) scores

Regions of current and previous assignments (where applicable)

Restrictions (countries an MSG may not be assigned to for any reason)

The software program prototype established a baseline working model which has been used for the last three class cycles. The model is Government-owned and will be used in support of future MSG assignments. Specifics on the solver program are provided below.

Mathematical equations that define the objective function and all of the constraints are written in a flat (text) file by Python software

Linux operating system is used to read the text file into the solver

Windows can also be used to run the solver using Python, Matlab, C++, etc. as an interface

The solver is CPLEX

1.3 References:

The guiding documents for work performed under this PWS include the most current versions of the following.

The solver program is based on the following thesis: Sabado, J. (2013) Equitably Distributing Quality of

Marine Security Guards Using Integer Programming. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

Retrieved from https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/32894/13Mar_Sabado_Jonathan.pdf?sequence=1.

1.4 Period of Performance & Location:

The base Period of Performance for the contract is 12 September 2016 through 11 September 2017. There will be four (4) option years for this requirement as well as the option to extend services for up to an additional six months under the authority of FAR 52.217-8. All work shall be performed within

Government facilities at MCESG Headquarters located on Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. All contractor employees performing services on MCBQ, requiring physical access to the installation must be properly screened in accordance with the standards set forth MCBO 4200.03, provided at Attachment 01.

12 September 2016 – 11 September 2017 Base year

12 September 2017 –11 September 2018 Option year 1

12 September 2018 –11 September 2019 Option year 2

12 September 2019 –11 September 2020 Option year 3

12 September 2020 –11 September 2021 Option year 4

12 September 2021 – 11 March 2022 FAR 52.217-8 extension of services

1.5 Security Clearances

Task Requisite Clearance

Task 2.1 Secret

1.6.1 Network Access

The Government will provide contractor personnel with the required access and support for all mandated

Information Assurance (IA) and Cyber Awareness training required in support of this contract to allow establishment of Government IT user accounts and access to Government operated networks. All other training requirements required to attain, or maintain skill levels and qualifications of contractor personnel are the contractor’s responsibility and will not be reimbursed by the Government.

2. Tasks

This PWS identifies Personnel Assignment Tool requirements and support. Task descriptions identify contract deliverables in the form of a fully developed assignment plan during the current assignment cycle.

The contractor shall perform the following tasks using the following Government provided data:

School class graduation

Pertinent information from MSG School (i.e., school detachment commander assessments, class rankings, grades, etc.,)

Current qualifications and physical fitness scores

Height, weight, size (used for equipping)

Gender

Left/right-handed (used for equipping)

Recommendations from region commanding officer and first sergeant

Recommendations from MSAU Commanding Officer and Senior Enlisted Advisor

Ethnicity (used for assignments)

*Additional information may be included in the database based on the advice of the vendor and/or direction of MCESG senior leaders which will directly relate to the assignment of MSGs

2.1.1 2 nd

/3 rd

Post Assignment. Assignment Message. Contractor will deliver a message (Excel spreadsheet) with assignment recommendations for all MSGs at their 1st or 2nd post that are transferring to their 2nd or 3rd post for every class cycle which is five times per year.

2.1.2. Final Assignment Message. Contractor shall provide a final assignment message for every class cycle, which is five times per year.

2.1.3. Draft Messages. Contractor shall provide draft movement messages five times per year to the

MCESG senior leaders and/or the Administrative Section Chief and/or Adjutant.

2.1.4 Brief. Contractor shall develop a power point brief to inform personnel assigned to MCESG, Department of State, or any other agency related to the MSG Program, how the assignment model produces recommendations for assignments. Contractor shall provide recommendations to MCESG senior leaders on ways to improve the assignment of MSGs with every final assignment message.

3. Contract Transition

The incumbent contractor shall maintain full personnel staffing up to the contract end date to support

Government transition to a new contractor in the event of follow-on, competitive award. The transition period, if required, shall commence 30 days prior to the contract end date. During the transition period, the contractor shall turnover such documents, information, and all associated intellectual property, to the

Government if not already delivered

4. Work Hours of Operation

The contractor shall be required to conduct business normally between the hours of 0730-1630 Monday thru Friday except Federal holidays or when the Government facility is closed due to local or national emergencies, administrative closings, or similar Government directed facility closings. The contractor must at all times maintain an adequate work force for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined within this PWS when the Government facility is not closed for the above reasons. Contractor personnel will not work on site for official Federal holidays. If the Government is unexpectedly closed due to inclement weather or for reasons of national or local emergency, the contractor/s are not required to report for duty. However, contractor personnel may be required to adjust their work schedules to accommodate work requirements. Adjustments to contractor work schedules shall not be considered overtime. Overtime may not be worked without prior approval of the Contracting Officer. Government Holidays include:

· New Year’s Day

· Labor Day

· Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday

· Columbus Day

· President’s Day

· Veteran’s Day

· Memorial Day

· Thanksgiving Day

· Independence Day

· Christmas Day

*and any other day determined to be a holiday by the President of the United States.

6. Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

Task Deliverable Performance

Standard

Acceptable

Quality Level

(AQL)

Surveillance Method

2.1.1 Message (excel

spreadsheet) with assignment recommendation for all

MSGs at their 1st or

2nd post that are transferring, to their

2nd or 3rd post

5 times per year, 40 working days prior to

MSG class graduation

95% COR monitoring

2.1.3 Draft message (excel

spreadsheet) with assignment recommendation for all current MSG students

5 times per year, 40 working days prior to

MSG class graduation

95% COR monitoring

2.1.2 Final message (excel

spreadsheet) with assignment recommendation for all current MSG students

5 times per year, 7 working days prior to

MSG class graduation

95 % COR monitoring

2.1.4 Power Point Brief

informing personnel

5 times per year, no later than 10 working

95% COR monitoring assigned to MCESG, Department of State, or any other agency related to the MSG

Program, how the assignment model produces recommendations for assignments. The briefing shall also include any recommendations to

MCESG senior leaders on ways to improve the assignment of MSGs with every final assignment message days after MSG class graduation

AUTHORIZED CHANGES ONLY BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER:

Except as specified herein, no order, statement, or conduct of Government personnel who visit the Contractor’s facilities or in any other manner communicates with Contractor personnel during the performance of this contract shall constitute a change under the Changes clause of this contract.

The Contractor shall not comply with any order, direction, or request of Government personnel unless it is issued in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer, or is pursuant to specific authority otherwise included as a part of this contract.

The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this contract and notwithstanding provisions contained elsewhere in this contract, said authority remains solely the Contracting

Officer’s. In the event the Contractor effects any change at the direction of any person other than the Contracting

Officer, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the contract price to cover any increase incurred as a result thereof. The address and telephone number of the

Contracting Officer are:

NAME: To Be Provided at Award

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE:

EMAIL:

DESIGNATION OF CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR):

The Contracting Officer has designated the person named below as the authorized COR for this Contract:

NAME: To Be Provided at Award

CODE:

ADDRESS:

PHONE:

FAX:

The COR will represent the Contracting Officer in the administration of technical details within the scope of this contract and will perform inspection and acceptance of all deliverables. The COR is not otherwise authorized to make any representations or commitments of any kind on behalf of the Contracting Officer or the Government. The

COR does not have the authority to alter the Contractor's obligations or change the specifications in the contract or issue Task Orders. If, as a result of technical discussions, it is desirable to alter contract obligations or statements of work, a modification must be issued in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer. The COR is responsible for reviewing the invoices submitted by the Contractor and informing the Contracting Officer of areas where exceptions are to be taken. The COR authority is non-delegable. The COR may be personally liable for unauthorized acts.

(End of Summary of Changes)