17-R-0016_Amendment.docx

M00264-17-R-0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

ANSWERS TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

Question:

There is no specific “Security” section in the solicitation. All efforts in support of the T&R Working Groups in the past have been unclassified. Is that the case with this effort? Also, does paragraph 1 under 252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION CONTROLS (DEC 2015) page 24 of 44 apply?

Answer:

Requirements in support of working groups/training will be unclassified. Paragraph 1 under the DFARS Clause 252.204-7008 does apply.

Question:

On page 28 of 44 under paragraph 6.1 states there will be five separate volumes but on page 29 of 44 under paragraph 6.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT it only details Technical Volume (1) and Business Volume (II). We cannot locate the referenced Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). Is it 5 volumes or 2 volumes? If five volumes, what are the page restrictions/directions for each?

Answer:

The contractor will follow the proposal instructions under paragraph 6.3. The proposal shall contain a Technical Volume (1) and Business Volume (II).

Question:

Section 6.1 of the instructions to offerors states that three copies of each volume should be submitted. Section 6.2.2 references an electronic copy. Will we be required to submit three hard copies as well as a CD-Rom copy?

Answer:

The contractor will follow the proposal instructions under paragraph 6.3. The proposal shall contain a Technical Volume (1) and Business Volume (II). The offeror must submit three copies of each volume as well as a CD-Rom copy.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made based on acceptability of the Offeror’s lowest evaluated price; demonstrated responsibility in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and proposal which conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representation and certification, and other information required by this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

2.0 Award Decision: The award decisions will be made as follows:

(1) Step One – Determine Technical Acceptability. The technical evaluation Factor 1 will assess the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirement. The proposal must demonstrate an understanding of the work requirements covered in the PWS, convey a feasible solution to accomplish those requirements, and explain logical interactions to respond to government tasking throughout the performance period. This includes detailed discussions of the roles of the teaming partnerships, and appropriate use of resources to accomplish the intended work set forth in the PWS. The proposal must provide the evaluation panel with sufficient confidence that the Offeror has the capacity to support the identified mission areas, understands the priorities and emerging issues within those areas, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of resources to meet objectives.

The Government will evaluate all technical capability proposals received by the required date/time. The Technical Capability factor will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. If any factor is rated “unacceptable”, the entire proposal is rendered unacceptable, and the proposal will be removed from the competitive range. Only proposals deemed technically acceptable (either initially or as the result of discussions), will be considered for award.

The ratings are defined in the following paragraphs.

1. Acceptable: The proposal clearly meets all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified within the Technical Capability factor: Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all technical proposals are considered to be equal.

1. Unacceptable: Fails to meet all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as factors within the Technical Evaluation Standards. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

3.0 Relative of Importance of Factors.

3.1 Factors 1, Technical Capability, Factor 2, Past Performance will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked. Each factor will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis on the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the Governments minimum requirements.

4.0 Factor 1: Technical Capability

4.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirement. The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s; (1) capability to support the scope requirements of the PWS, and overall program requirements; (2) execution strategy for supporting the complexities and associated risks inherent in the PWS requirements; (3) approach to managing and controlling multiple tasks during task order performance including facility capability and execution strategy in support of simultaneous task orders considering maximum participation and duration; and (4) innovative approaches to providing services required by the PWS. The technical approach must convey feasible solutions to accomplish the requirements for the Government to determine if the Offeror has the capability and capacity to support the identified tasks, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance to meeting the PWS objectives.

5.0 Factor 2: Past Performance

5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance under existing and prior contracts and or task orders for similar products or services. Offeror’s shall provide up to three (3) references supporting the ability to deliver the services required. Offerors are to provide: Customer; Contract/Task Order number; Contract Type; Total Contract Value; Description of Work performed; relevancy pertaining to this requirement; Names; telephone number; and email address for Points of Contact.

6.0 Technical Ratings

6.1 The rating definitions in Table 1, Technical Ratings, will be used in evaluating Factors 1.

Table 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

7.0 Factor 2: Past Performance

7.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror on performance under existing and prior contracts and or task orders for similar products or services. Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) total recent past / present performance efforts for evaluation and each cited past performance effort shall not exceed two (2) pages. (Note: Individual task orders under an ID/IQ contract are each considered to be one (1) past / present performance effort.) Information on 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 three (3) total Past Performance Questionnaires. Therefore, if three subcontractor efforts are submitted, the maximum number of efforts submitted by the prime would be three efforts.

The Offeror must demonstrate sufficient, satisfactory performance history employing management and technical capabilities similar to those required in the execution of this PWS. Discussion should illustrate satisfactory performance of information for the Offeror/prime/subcontractors on contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4). References other than those identified by Offerors may be contacted by the Government, and the information received may be used in the past performance evaluation. Offerors for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor.

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 relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. 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.

With the exception of close-at-hand information and available PPIRS feedback for contracts included in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government’s evaluation will rely strictly on the past performance feedback information that is received from the Offeror, or the reference POC, in one of the three forms listed in section 3 above. While the Government may contact past performance reference POCs in order to obtain any necessary clarification on performance feedback information that the Government has received, the Government will not take additional action to obtain past performance feedback information in cases where no information has been received. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information and feedback remains with the Offeror.

Table 2 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

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

8.0 Factor 3 - Price.

8.1 The PAT will evaluate proposals for completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. Price proposals will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine if they are reasonable and complete. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The Government reserves the right to perform a realism analysis in assessing performance risk or responsibility determinations.

8.2 The Offeror’s total evaluated price for purposes of the best value tradeoff will use the Offeror's proposed price. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

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

9.0 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

9.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan(s) in accordance with paragraph 6.3.3.3.4 contained in addendum to 52.212-1.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMMERICAL ITEMS

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 The Government intends to make a single award, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.2 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.

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 OFFERORS’ 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 logistical 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 13 February 2017 at 10:00 AM EDT. All questions must be submitted electronically via email to the following: jason.r.griffin1@usmc.mil and a copy to christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil.

Due to the firewall on Government networks, 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 2 March 2017 by 10:00 AM EDT. The Offeror’s Proposal shall consist of two (2) separate volumes and must provide (3) copies of each volume. The volumes are Volume I- Technical Volume; Volume II-Business Volume. An electronic copy shall be provided via CD-ROM.

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: Capt Jason Griffin 2010 Henderson Road MCB, Quantico, VA 22134

6.2 Proposal Format.

6.2.1 In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, it is required that all Offerors 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

8.5 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 MS Office compatible files are required for electronic content

NOTE: Your subject line must read “Training & Readiness (T&R) Logistics Support,” RFP M00264-17-R-0016.

6.2.2 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.

6.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT.

The proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

· Technical Volume (I) – NTE 25 pages, including a Letter of Introduction, Table of Contents, Technical Understanding of Requirements, and Past Performance references.

· Business Volume (II) – NTE 15 pages, including a Formal Offer letter, and Section B Price Proposal.

The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability, resources and experience required to perform the requirements in the 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 Offerors understanding of the PWS and the Offerors capability for successful performance. Pricing information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume (I), which shall address only the technical requirements.

A Table of Contents (TOC) should be included. The TOC is included in the page count.

6.3.1 Volume I – Technical Capability/Past Performance: The offeror shall provide at a minimum the following information/documentation that addresses the following:

1. Factor 1 – Technical Capability-The proposal shall clearly address the Offeror’s: (1) capability to support the scope requirements of the PWS, and overall program requirements; (2) execution strategy for supporting the complexities and associated risks inherent in the PWS requirements; (3) approach to managing and controlling multiple tasks during task order performance including facility capability and execution strategy in support of simultaneous task orders considering maximum participation and duration; and (4) innovative approaches to providing services required by the PWS. The technical approach should convey feasible solutions to accomplish the requirements for the Government to determine if the Offeror has the capability and capacity to support the identified tasks, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance to meeting the PWS objectives.

1. Factor 2 –Past Performance – The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) references supporting the ability to deliver the services required. Offerors are to provide: Customer; Contract/Task Order number; Contract Type; Total Contract Value; Description of Work performed; relevancy pertaining to this requirement; Names; telephone number; and email address for Points of Contact.

6.3.2. Volume II – Factor 3- Price: All pricing contained within Section B of the proposal should be addressed and any documentation to support price should be submitted. In addition to entering the FFP in CLINS, the Offeror shall provide the following:

1. A cost breakdown, providing rate categories, base rate, hourly rate, overhead, and G&A – burdened rate that was utilized to derive the FFP pricing.

1. If proposed rates reflect negotiated forward pricing rates, a copy of the current forward pricing rate agreement shall be provided. If the rates are not negotiated forward pricing rates, then the basis of proposed rates shall be explained.

6.3.3 EVALUATION FACTORS VOLUMES.

6.3.3.1 Volume I- Technical Capability/Past Performance

The Technical Capability/Past Performance Volume should be specific and complete. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical factors defined in Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial items. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Content of the Technical volume shall adhere to Table 1 above and shall contain the following:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Past Performance

6.3.3.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Capability. The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirement. The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s; (1) capability to support the scope requirements of the PWS, and overall program requirements; (2) execution strategy for supporting the complexities and associated risks inherent in the PWS requirements; (3) approach to managing and controlling multiple tasks during task order performance including facility capability and execution strategy in support of simultaneous task orders considering maximum participation and duration; and (4) innovative approaches to providing services required by the PWS. The technical approach must convey feasible solutions to accomplish the requirements for the Government to determine if the Offeror has the capability and capacity to support the identified tasks, and can execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance to meeting the PWS objectives.

6.3.3.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate this factor on the Offerors’ relevance of recent corporate experience to the PWS. Experience relative to this task will be assessed by considering aspects such as the following: relevance of the prior efforts to the requirements in this Solicitation based on the degree of similarity between the two, in terms of size, scope, and complexity; quality of the performance on the prior efforts; previous roles of teammates, or subcontractors who will have significant involvement in the proposed effort; quality of services; timeliness of performance; cost control, cost monitoring and reporting; business relations; overall customer satisfaction. In addition to the sources identified by the Offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DOD Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also contact previous customers, and review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases.

6.3.3.2. Volume II- Price.

6.3.3.2.1 Factor 3 – Price. The Offeror shall complete Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN’s) for FFP Training & Education Command (TECOM), Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Training & Education (T&E) Standards Division (MTESD) Logistic Support requirement. Volume II of the proposal shall include a detailed breakdown of fully burdened rates, rate category, total hours for each CLIN, and the total price for each CLIN. Provide prices corresponding to the CLINs in the Schedule of Supplies/Services of the SF 1449 solicitation, to include fully loaded rates, and number of hours (to include supporting material documentation) for your firm fixed pricing.

6.3.3.2.2 SF 1449, Price Proposal corresponding to CLIN structure and supporting materials. Pricing information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume. The fully developed technical solution and corresponding grand total price for each function area established in the CLIN structure of Schedule of Supplies /Services of the SF 1449 in the solicitation should be clearly annotated in the proposal.

6.3.3.2.3 Price Reasonableness and Completeness. The Government will verify that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and prices are presented in a clear and useful format. Note that exceptionally low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a Proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s Proposal. Price submissions should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and be adequate enough to support and sustain a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit.

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal

6.3.3.3 Contract Documentation.

6.3.3.3.1 Representations and Certifications. The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the SF 1449 of the solicitation and all related amendments. Offeror’s shall identify their CAGE and DUNS number and assert that their System for Award Management (SAM) record that verifies status of Central Contractor Registration (CCR), Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) and Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) is active and current in accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items.

6.3.3.3.2 Solicitation/Contract Form. Completion of blocks 30A through 30C of the Standard Form SF 1449 is required. Signature by the Offeror on the SF1449 constitutes a proposal, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

The following must be acknowledged and identified in this volume of each Offeror’s proposal:

· Proposal is valid for 90 days from (Date of Submission);

· Any assumptions or constraints included in Offeror’s proposal;

· Any proposed positions that are contingency hires must include a signed commitment letter of proposal/acceptance

6.3.3.3.3 Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

6.3.3.3.4 OCI Mitigation Plan. The Offeror shall provide an affirmation statement that no OCI exists; or, if applicable, submit an OCI plan that identifies any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) as described in FAR Subpart 9.5 as it relates to this solicitation.

If applicable, the OCI plan shall provide any and all methods to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate present and future conflicts of interest. The Prime Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan should encompass the Prime and all teaming partners. The OCI Mitigation Plan should be specific to OCI as related to the solicitation requirement. Early submissions of the Offeror’s OCI Plan shall be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist cited within this solicitation. Submission of the OCI Plan, if applicable, is also required with the Offeror’s proposal.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf