M00264-17-R-0038_Amendment.docx

M0026417R0038

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: Are the Master Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix exclusive of the page limit?

Answer: The Master Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix are exclusive of the page limit.

Question: Is it the Government's expectation that the Offeror provide the technologically advanced learning opportunity? Is it the Government's expectation that the Offeror provide the faculty and staff development?

Answer: The contractor shall perform Tasks 4.1.1-4.1.5 for the 7 topic areas. This means that the tasks they perform in 4.1.1-4.1.5 are in support of TECOM implementing the initiatives listed in 4.1.6. which were selected out of the TSP LOE 5. TECOM is implementing these initiatives in 4.1.6, not the contractors. The contractors are in support of TECOM G-3/5/7 in our role as the integrator of these efforts.

Question: Given the expected Level of Effort (LOE) for this requirement, and the specific socioeconomic categories provided in the DON small business (SB) objectives, would the Government consider reducing or removing some or all of the numerous SB and socioeconomic goals in order to allow Offerors more flexibility in developing staffing and management plans? 6.3.2.1.2 Answer: The Government will not reduce or remove the small business and socioeconomic goals.

Question: Will the Govt please confirm that past performance contracts submitted may be finished and completed as long as they were active within the previous three years.

Answer: The past performance contracts submitted can be completed but must have been active within the previous three years.

Question: On page 41 of 59 of the RFP, Paragraph 4.1 of Addendum 52.212-2 states that the technical evaluation will include, “The Offeror’s detailed approach to successfully perform PWS paragraph 4.1 through 5.9 requirements.” However, paragraph 5 of the PWS stops after 5.3. Will the government please clarify if there are additional requirements after 5.3 or if this statement is an error?

Answer: There are no additional requirements after PWS paragraph 5.3.

Question: Will the government please clarify if any subcontracting goals will be part of the evaluation of offerors’ proposals.

Answer: Evaluation criteria for subcontracting goals have been added. See section 5.1 of Evaluation Factors for Award.

Question: RFP page 22, paragraph (b) states “Contracting Officer check as appropriate.” Since none of the clauses 1 – 62 are checked on page 22 – 26, would the government please confirm none of the clauses listed are applicable for this RFP or was this an inadvertent oversight on the part of the government? If an oversight, will the government please issue an amendment to the RFP which shows the correct clauses?

Answer: All applicable clauses within FAR 52.212-5 have been checked and are provided within the amendment.

Question: RFP page 26, paragraph (c) states “Contracting Officer check as appropriate.” Since none of the clauses 1 - 10 are checked on page 26, would the government please confirm none of the clauses listed are applicable for this RFP or was this an inadvertent oversight on the part of the government? If an oversight, will the government please issue an amendment to the RFP which shows the correct clauses?

Answer: All applicable clauses within FAR 52.212-5 have been checked and are provided within the amendment.

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

2.0 Evaluation Criteria

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

3.0 Relative of Importance of Factors.

3.1 In evaluating, Factor 1, Technical Approach, and Factor 2, Management Approach are equal in importance to each other and are each, individually, slightly more important than Factor 3, Past Performance. All non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4 Price. Although price is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors. Prospective Offerors are forewarned that a quotation meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher evaluated priced Offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government.

4.0 Factor 1: Technical Approach

4.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and clear articulation of their capability to provide continuous quality support to TECOM’s Force Development Strategic Plan requirement. The Government will evaluate the following to the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s technical capability to perform the PWS requirements:

· The Offeror’s detailed approach to successfully perform PWS paragraph 4.1 through 5.9 requirements.

· Proposed schedules, processes, procedures, or similar which are relevant to understanding the proposed technical approach.

· Relevant knowledge, education, work experience (in terms of the scope, and complexity) and accomplishments of the personnel that will be assigned to perform each PWS task including management personnel.

· A Staffing Matrix that addresses each PWS task and includes supporting rationale for the proposed staffing shall clearly track from the position to the applicable task(s). The matrix addresses the following:

1. The proposed labor categories assigned to the task, and

1. the proposed labor hours allocated to each proposed labor category for the individual task,

1. the proposed total labor hours allocated to the individual task, and

1. the minimum qualifications for the labor categories associated with each PWS task

The completed staffing matrix shall be included as an appendix to the Offeror’s Proposal and will not be included in the non-price Volume I page count. All supporting rationale for proposed staffing shall be included in the non-price Volume I, vice the appendix, and shall clearly track to applicable tasks and personnel in the staffing matrix.

5.0 Factor 2: Management Approach

5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, and emerging issues, and their ability to provide the management techniques, controls, management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach. At a minimum this shall include the following to the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s approach to the management of its staff and personnel while performing the PWS requirements:

· A Project Management Plan that clearly describes the labor categories, labor mix, personnel responsibilities, communication and coordination plans to perform the PWS tasks. Describe the minimum labor qualifications for each PWS task, along with rationale supporting the qualifications. The minimum labor qualifications will be incorporated into the contract and will serve as minimum staffing qualification requirements for the PWS tasks.

· Subcontracting and teaming arrangements, including the portions of the PWS to be assigned to subcontractors and teammates, the offeror’s plan for managing these arrangements, and an explanation on why this constitutes an optimal arrangement.

· Its management structure, organization, assignment of functions, duties, responsibilities, internal management procedures, lines of authority, and the proposed interface between the Government and the Offeror.

· An Organization Chart of its corporate structure and the project team that will perform the PWS requirements (including subcontractors) with position titles and the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) proposed for each position. Identify which personnel are current employees of the Offeror or its subcontractor and teammates and which personnel are not current employees.

· The availability of personnel for this effort associated with the positions in the Organization Chart that are not current employees.

· A detailed description of the Offeror’s Quality Assurance plan and processes, clearly articulating how the Offeror will leverage the plan and execute the processes to ensure successfully performance of PWS tasks including, the Offeror's ability to identify, prevent, and ensure that issues will be corrected and will not arise in the future.

· A plan for continuation of services at an acceptable quality level during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary and involuntary termination from employment.

Subcontracting Plan. The technical approach must demonstrate an understanding of the TECOM work requirements covered in the PWS, convey a feasible solution to accomplish those requirements, and explain logical interactions to respond to government taskings throughout the performance period. The Offeror shall demonstrate specific capabilities (corporate/subcontractor/staff) and relevant experience to perform all tasks outlined in the PWS. The response should clearly identify roles and responsibilities of team members and key individuals, as well as effective quality and management controls to ensure technical performance consistency under a performance-base business model. Resumes are not required for proposed staff. For non-managerial, technical staff a matrix, or WBS staff summary is sufficient for performance assessment.

6.0 Technical Ratings

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

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

Table 1 Technical Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 Factor 3: Past Performance

7.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror on performance under existing and prior contracts and or 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. (Note: Individual task orders under an ID/IQ or BPA contract are each considered to be one (1) past / present performance effort.) Information on 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 Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) for up to 3 Government contracts performing work similar to that addressed by the PWS and performed within the last 3 years. The Offeror shall send the PPQ to each of the Offeror’s Government Points of Contact (POCs) and track the completion and submission of the form to the Government by the submission deadline. Completed PPQs must be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist, at jason.r.griffin1@usmc.mil, and the Contracting Officer, at christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil, directly from the Government POCs.

The Offeror shall send a summary of each contract for which a PPQ was sent to a prior Government customer. 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 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. The summaries provided shall not exceed two pages each and shall address the following:

· The 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;

· The quality of the performance on the prior efforts; and

· Previous roles of the personnel, Teammates, or Subcontractors who will have significant involvement in the proposed effort.

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.

7.1.1 Past Performance Recency Assessment.

Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three (3) years from date of issuance of this RFP, including those efforts currently being performed. For those efforts currently being performed, the Offeror must have been performing for at least six (6) months from the date of issuance of this RFP. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be further evaluated. However, if any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract / contract 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.

7.1.2 Past Performance Relevancy Assessment.

If the Government evaluators consider the Offeror’s past performance reference to be recent, then the Government will assess the relevancy of the referenced past performance task order / contract in accordance with the Past Performance relevancy definitions in Table 2. The Government shall evaluate relevancy by assessing whether the past performance effort proposed is relevant to the Technical factors and the Cost / Price factor contained in the RFP. Evaluations do not assess an overall relevancy rating at the Factor level. Further, the Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy and quality of past performance.

Table 2: PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

7.1.3 Past Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government evaluators will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered. The quality assessment may consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels in Table 3 – Past Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 3: PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

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

7.1.4 Performance Confidence Assessment.

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments, the PPET will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating per Table 4. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. An excellent recent past performance that occurred three (3) years ago may not affect the Performance Confidence Assessment as much as a recent effort that occurred within the last year and has an unsatisfactory performance. Also, an example of favorable recent and relevant performance of a prime Offeror will have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners / subcontractors, joint venture and / or significant subcontractor(s)

Table 4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

(ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR THE PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR)

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

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

8.0 Factor 4 - Price.

8.1 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.

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.

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

9.0 Options.

9.1 The price for the base period, and four (4) – twelve month option periods in accordance with FAR 52.217-9 will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (July 2009). The Government may determine that a Proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of the option to extend shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The solicitation will require Offerors’ proposals to price the option to extend, which will be included in the overall evaluation of proposals for award in accordance with FAR 17.2. By inclusion of FAR clause 52.217-9 in the solicitation, the Government will have unilateral right to extend the contract beyond the initial performance period, should the option year be required.

10.0 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

10.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan(s) in accordance with paragraph 6.3.2.4.5 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) contract, for one (1) twelve (12) month base period plus four (4), 12 month option periods.

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 Contracting Officer (KO), 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 KO 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 OFFEROR 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 KO 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 KO. The purpose of this procurement is to provide technical services and support to integrate simulation into training, leveraging modern immersive training and simulation technologies.

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 31 May 2017 by 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 19 June 2017 by 10:00 AM EDT. The Offeror’s Proposal shall consist of five (5) separate volumes and must provide (3) copies of each volume. The volumes are Volume I- Executive Summary; Volume II-Technical/Management, Volume III- Past Performance, Volume IV-Cost/Price and Volume V- Contract Documentation.

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

Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region Room 224 Attention: 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 in 3-ring binders for text;

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

Single-spaced typed lines;

1 inch margins on all sides;

11 point Arial font;

Headers/Footers – ensure the company name and RFP number is included on each page;

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

No hyperlinks or external materials are permitted.

NOTE: Your subject line must read “Force Development Strategic Plan,” RFP M00264-17-R-0038.

6.2.2 In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all Proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Content should utilize .doc, .pdf, .xls, and .jpg formats to the degree possible. Test and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Word 2003 or earlier. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2003 or earlier. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

6.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT.

6.3.1 Volume I Executive Summary

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

6.3.1.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire Proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial items evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the Proposal.

6.3.1.2 Table of Contents & Compliance Matrix

Include a master table of contents of the entire Proposal. This section is pertinent to the Proposal’s material organization and providing traceability links throughout the Offeror’s Proposal, to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), to the evaluation criteria, and to other solicitation sections as necessary. The Compliance Matrix may be presented as an 11 x 14 foldout.

Table 1-Proposal Organization

Technical/Management

6.3.2 EVALUATION FACTORS VOLUMES.

6.3.2.1 Volume II- Technical

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management 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/Management volume shall adhere to Table 1 above and shall contain the following:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Management Approach

6.3.2.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Approach.

The Proposal shall clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and clearly articulates their capability to provide continuous quality support to TECOM’s Force Development Strategic Plan requirement.

At a minimum, this shall include the following to the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s technical capability to perform the PWS requirements:

· The Offeror’s detailed approach to successfully perform PWS paragraph 4.1 through paragraph 5.3 requirements.

· Proposed schedules, processes, procedures, or similar which are relevant to understanding the proposed technical approach.

· Relevant knowledge, education, work experience (in terms of the scope, and complexity) and accomplishments of the personnel that will be assigned to perform each PWS task including management personnel.

· A Staffing Matrix that addresses each PWS task and includes supporting rationale for the proposed staffing shall clearly track from the position to the applicable task(s). The matrix addresses the following:

0. The proposed labor categories assigned to the task, and

0. the proposed labor hours allocated to each proposed labor category for the individual task,

0. the proposed total labor hours allocated to the individual task, and

0. the minimum qualifications for the labor categories associated with each PWS task

6.3.2.1.2 Factor 2 Management Approach.

The Proposal shall clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, and emerging issues, and their ability to provide the management techniques, controls, management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach. At a minimum this shall include the following to the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s approach to the management of its staff and personnel while performing the PWS requirements:

· A Project Management Plan that clearly describes the labor categories, labor mix, personnel responsibilities, communication and coordination plans to perform the PWS tasks. Describe the minimum labor qualifications for each PWS task, along with rationale supporting the qualifications. The minimum labor qualifications will be incorporated into the contract and will serve as minimum staffing qualification requirements for the PWS tasks.

· Subcontracting and teaming arrangements, including the portions of the PWS to be assigned to subcontractors and teammates, the offeror’s plan for managing these arrangements, and an explanation on why this constitutes an optimal arrangement.

· The management structure, organization, assignment of functions, duties, responsibilities, internal management procedures, lines of authority, and the proposed interface between the Government and the Offeror.

· An Organization Chart of its corporate structure and the project team that will perform the PWS requirements (including subcontractors) with position titles and the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) proposed for each position. Identify which personnel are current employees of the Offeror or its subcontractor and teammates and which personnel are not current employees.

· The availability of personnel for this effort associated with the positions in the Organization Chart that are not current employees.

A detailed description of the Offeror’s Quality Assurance plan and processes, clearly articulating how the Offeror will leverage the plan and execute the processes to ensure successfully performance of PWS tasks including, the Offeror's ability to identify, prevent, and ensure that issues will be corrected and will not arise in the future.

· A plan for continuation of services at an acceptable quality level during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary and involuntary termination from employment.

In accordance with FAR 19.704(a)(9), Subcontracting Plan Requirements, the offeror shall be required to submit small business subcontracting plans with their proposal. The target for this requirement’s contract Subcontracting Plan is the same as the small business participation goals established for the Department of the Navy (DoN). The DoN small business subcontracting goal is 30%. Other subcontracting goals are as follows: Small disadvantage Business 8(a) 15%, Small Business Disadvantage Veteran Owned Business 10%, Women owned Small Business 5% and Hubzone 3%. Significant emphasis will be placed on the Contractor’s small business subcontracting plan to assure that the contract provides reasonable goals for every socioeconomic category and that every effort is made to achieve and exceed those goals. The Contractor’s small business subcontracting plans will be review carefully to measure the Contractor’s attainment of small business objectives.

6.3.2.2 Volume III - Past Performance

Factor 3: Past Performance. Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its Proposal, containing past performance information. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. The Offeror shall provide the following Past Performance Information:

· For up to 3 Government contracts performing work similar to that addressed by the PWS and performed within the last 3 years, the Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

· The Offeror shall send the PPQ to each of the Offeror’s Government Points of Contact (POCs) and track the completion and submission of the form to the Government by the submission deadline.

· Completed PPQs must be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist, at jason.r.griffin1@usmc.mil, and the Contracting Officer, at christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil, directly from the Government POCs.

· The Offeror shall send a summary of each contract (up to 3) for which a PPQ was sent to a prior Government customer.

· The summaries provided shall not exceed two pages each.

· Summaries shall address the following:

· The 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;

· The quality of the performance on the prior efforts; and

· Previous roles of the following, who will have significant involvement in the proposed effort:

· Personnel,

· Teammates or Subcontractors.

6.3.2.2.1 Relevant Contracts

Past and Present Performance Information for the Offeror/prime/subcontractors for up to three (3) recent (active within the past 3 years from the date of this solicitation) contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The total of Past and Present Performance Information references will not exceed three (3) references. Total page count for this Past Performance volume is annotated above in Table 1. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. The Government uses degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, exerted in Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Items, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Definitions. The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant recent efforts for the second aspect of the past performance evaluation using Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Items, Past Performance Quality Assessment ratings and definitions. Finally, the past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are identified in Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Items.

6.3.2.2.2 Specific Content

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. 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; and previous roles of personnel, teammates, or subcontractors who will have significant involvement in the proposed effort. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex requirement, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical/management factors used to evaluate the Proposal.

6.3.2.2.3 Organizational Structure Change History.

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this Proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offerors, your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6.3.2.3 Volume IV- Price.

6.3.2.3.1 Factor 4 – Price.

The Offeror shall complete Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN’s) for FFP Training & Education Command (TECOM) Force Development Strategic Plan support services. Volume IV of the Proposal shall include a detailed breakdown of labor categories, fully burdened labor rates, number of hours for each labor 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 Labor categories, fully loaded rates, and number of hours (to include supporting material documentation) for your firm fixed pricing.

6.3.2.3.2 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.

6.3.2.3.3 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.

6.3.2.3.4 Price Information.

Pricing will be incorporated into Schedule of Supplies/Services of the SF 1449 upon contract award.

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.

6.3.2.4 Volume V- Contract Documentation.

6.3.2.4.1 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.

6.3.2.4.2 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 180 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

6.3.2.4.4 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.

6.3.2.4.5 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.