M0026418R0001-02.docx

M0026418R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

ANSWERS TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

Q1: Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number M0026418R0001 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number.

Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

A: This is not a new requirement. The current contract number is M00264-17-P-0127.

Q2: In reference to the upgrades listed on page 17 in section 4.1.1 and page 74 in section 1.3, are upgrades based on web applications?

A: M-SHARP 2.0 is and will continue to be a web based application. The deployable solution is going to be a desktop application.

Q3: In reference to the Software Development Manager Description of required experience, is C# the development language along with the .Net API?

A: The Program Office is unable to specify a single language for the M-SHARP program. However, M-SHARP is developed on a Microsoft platform. As it's a Microsoft IIS platform based web portal it is compatible with specific languages used by Microsoft such as C++, .NET Framework, and HTML. Microsoft software languages like M#, F#, and C# are very similar to C++. As it's a web portal it could also use elements of JS or CSS programming to support styling and other elements of the portal.

Q4: Based on the Surveillance list in Attachment 2—QASP M-SHARP, how is the software verified and validated? This is for clarification since testing in not listed in the attachment.

A: Per QASP surveillance of Contractor performance may be carried out by demonstration (carried out by operation and relies on observable functional operation), analysis (The quality of performance can be determined from government or contractor task-based or Management Information System (MIS) reports, contractor ISO 9000 techniques and procedures, or from government observation of completed tasks), or inspection (sampling)…any of which will validate performance.

The PWS also requires the Contractor to provide a Quality Management Plan (PWS 3.4) with minimum requirements including “key project deliverables and processes to be reviewed for satisfactory quality level”, and a “Plan for reporting quality control and assurance problems”).

PWS 4.1.6.2, page 22 requires the Contractor to “create, maintain, and update all programmatic and system specific documentation…including ‘test plans’”; page 24, PWS 4.2.5, “the Contractor shall provide a method by which the government COR and users can verify application functionality”.

Q5. Does the installation require stepping through an installation wizard such as InstallShield Express 2013? (Reference page 74, section 1.3)

A: The offeror can use any DOD approved software.

Q6. What Information Assurance cyber security certifications are required for the IA personnel required in section 4.1.5?

A: IA Personnel certifications should be compliant with DOD 8570.01-M.

Q7. Are the help desk personnel located at each of the MCAS required to be IA WorkForce certified? At what level are they to be certified? How long do they have to attain that certification level?

A: Depends on job function. If working on system would require to be 8570 compliant.

Per 8570, (C2.3.9.) Contractor personnel supporting IA functions in Chapters 3, 4, 10, and 11 shall obtain the appropriate DoD-approved IA baseline certification prior to being engaged. Contractors have up to 6 months to obtain the rest of the qualifications for their position outlined in AP3.T1.

Q8. Is there a current list of “bugs” and future capabilities that we can review? (Reference page 74, section 1.3)

A: The government will not be providing information on current “bugs”. Future capabilities are defined in the PWS.

Q9: Can we review the current M-SHARP source code in total or in part? The 4.1.1 Current Capability statement lists many “capabilities” that are also listed in the PWS as new development requirements (ie. T&R Builder, EATF, etc.). If the government does give access to the source code, would the government agree to the applicable amount of time to review the source code via an extension to the submission date? (Reference page 17, section 4.1)

A: The government will not be providing the source code prior to award.

Q10: Can the government provide the current M-SHARP design document?

A: The government will not be providing the design document prior to award.

Q11. For each of the tasks listed in the PWS, does the government have an estimated level of effort (number of lines of source code to create, man months required, etc.)?

A: The proposed level of effort to execute the requirements of the PWS is at the discretion of the offeror.

Q12. For PWS 4.3.2.7 and 4.3.2.8 statements, it states that the contractor will design, develop and implement a System Interface Agreement (SIA). Does this task include developing and implementing the solution from the SIA?

A: Yes.

Q13. For PWS 4.3.2.9, it states that the interface shall be designed, developed and implemented. Is it accurate to say that an SIA is not required for this task?

A: A SIA will be required.

Q14. For PWS 4.3.3.3 statement, it states that the contractor will design, develop and implement a System Interface Agreement (SIA). Does this task include developing and implementing the solution from the SIA?

Q15. For PWS 4.3.3.4 statement, it states that the SIA will be designed, developed and implemented, but does not state that the interface shall be delivered. Is the intent for this task any different than the previous SIA tasks?

A: Same intent. Refer to response to Q 12-14. The Interface and SIA will be required.

Q16. Under section 4.1.6.1 Server and Database Replication, is it the intent of the government to have the contractor provide two server clusters to meet this requirement or will the government provide the server clusters? What are the minimum technical specifications for each server cluster?

A: The clusters are Government owned and provided.

Q17. Is the offeror limited to 3 total past performances? Does a Sub-contractors past performance count towards the offerors total or is the sub also allowed to submit up to three PPs.

A: Refer to 5.3.2.2.1 in the RFP. “Offerors must provide Past and Present Performance Information on a minimum of one (1), and no more than three (3) recent (active within the past 3 years from the issuance date of this solicitation) contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort.”

“Information on recent contracts performed by an Offeror’s teaming partners or subcontractors considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a subcontractor and/or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, provides a critical portion of the effort required, and influences the results of performance.”

Q18. Is MSHARP currently accessed from MCEITS or from INNOVA Systems servers?

A: This is a government owned system, accessed and housed through MCEITS

Q19. Is the online support accessed from MCEITS of from INNOVA Systems servers? Will the current online support application be transferred at the time of contract award? Will the offeror be required to construct their own online support portal from scratch?

A: The online support is accessed from MCEITS. Yes, the application will be transferred at the time of award; therefore, the contractor will not be constructing its own online support portal from scratch.

Q20. When do the current Authority to Operate and Certification and Accreditations expire? This information will allow the offeror to develop a realistic timeline with these factors in mind.

A: Currently going through re-accreditation through the Marine Corps Compliance and Authorization Support Tool (MCCAST).

Q21. What is the defined current level of helpdesk required for this program? Tier 0 through Tier 3. What is the requirement for the offeror and where must each Tier reside—MCAS locations, contractor locations, other government locations?

A: 4.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.2 define the level of support and the locations of the customer support reps. The expectation is for access to the support web page with help files and 24/7 trouble ticket submission. During working hours at the prescribed locations above, the customer has the ability to call their local customer support representative for assistance with the expectation for in-person assistance if needed. Customer support representative can escalate for further assistance as required.

Q22. On Pages 3 – 12 SF 1449 is it the intent of the Govt for the Contractor to fill in both the Price per Unit and the total CLIN price.

A: Yes, that is the Government’s intent.

Q23. Page 10 -11 CLINs 2003 - 2006 reference PWS 4.4.3.X. Please clarify the correct numbering sequence.

A: Government to revise. CLIN 2003 references PWS 4.3.3.1; CLIN 2004 references PWS 4.3.3.2; CLIN 2005 references PWS 4.3.3.3; and CLIN 2006 references PWS 4.3.3.4.

Q24. Page 38 CLIN 1002 has a POP of 2021. Please clarify if the date should be 2020.

A: Government to revise. CLIN 1002 has a POP of 01 JUL 2019 – 30 JUN 2020.

Q25. Page 75 5.1 Volumes listed are different from Volumes listed on pages 76 – 83

A: Government to revise. Page 80 5.1 should read Volume IV – Small Business Participation and Volume V – Price.

Q26. Section 5.2.1 refers to a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS); however, there is no mention of a WBS anywhere else in the RFP. Section 5.3.1.2 mentions a requirement for Compliance Matrix traceability to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Should WBS in Section 5.2.1 be PWS?

A: Government will revise. See 5.2.1 under 5.2 Proposal Format.

Q27. Can the headers/footers be within the 1” margin?

A: Yes, see Instructions to Offerors, p. 81 paragraph 5.2.1.

Q28. Section 5.3.1.2 refers to a master table of contents of the entire proposal in Volume I. Should Volumes II-V have a table of contents for each respective volume? If so, is it included in the page count?

A: Each Volume shall have a Table of Contents included and yes, it is included in the individual Volume Page Limit.

Q29. Section 5.3.2.1 refers to a resume appendix and resumes of key personnel and section 5.3.2.1.1 refers to key personnel resumes in matrix form. Are these the same or should there be a key personnel matrix in the technical capability section and a separate appendix with the key personnel resumes?

A: The resume appendix and key personnel resumes in matrix form are the same.

Q30. Section 5.3.2.2 refers to a Consent Letter and Client Authorization letters. Are these the same?

A: Yes, Government will revise.

Q31. On Page 83, 5.3.2.4.2 states “Price submissions must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness” and in section 5.3.2.4.4 it states “All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation…”. Given the 25 page limit on the cost volume (Vol V) is it the Government’s intent that the offeror’s supporting indirect rate information is not required but only fully loaded rate/labor category information as required in 5.3.2.4.1? Also can the Government be more specific and name the types of supporting documentation (Section 5.3.2.4.4) required for this bid.

A: See 5.3.2.4.1 Factor 5 – Price. “Volume V 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.”

Q32. Would the government consider paying the below cost of living expenditures for personnel supporting M-Sharp in OCONUS locations? This will ensure that all bidders equally compensate their employees for OCONUS duty and any costs not incurred won’t be included on the overall pricing.

A: No.

Q33: There is a conflict between the volume names in sections 5.1 and 5.3 of the instructions. (Section 5.1 names Volume IV - Cost/Price and Volume V - Contract Documentation, whereas section 5.3 names Volume IV - Small Business Participation and Volume V - Price. Is section 5.3 the correct description of the proposal volumes?

A: See answer to Question 25.

Q34: Regarding: "Locations: Contractor personnel supporting the above listed MCASs shall share the task of servicing, on an as needed basis, Marine Forces Reserve units and all active reserve units not physically located at a major MCAS." Is the intent of the customer to eliminate the customer support billet dedicated to 4MAW at New Orleans and have all reserve support to be assumed by other support reps serving active duty units in CONUS?

A: The proposed level of effort to execute the requirements of the PWS is at the discretion of the offeror.

Q35: Formatting issue: Should 4.1.5.2.1 Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Analysis really be numbered 4.1.5.2?

Q36: Formatting issue: Should 4.1.5.2.6 Information Systems Security Analysis really be numbered 4.1.5.3?

Q37: Formatting issue: Should 5. Deliverables Management really be numbered 6?

A: It is number 6, Government will revise.

Q38: Formatting issue: Should 6. Data Rights really be numbered 7?

A: It is number 7, Government will revise.

Q39: In the On-site Support, Locations section of PWS 4.1.3.1, what is the personnel requirement for coverage (e.g., one representative per station or one representative covering multiple stations)? Do the work spaces described in 9.1 correspond to those described in 4.1.3.1 (Locations)?

A: The proposed level of effort to execute the requirements of the PWS is at the discretion of the offeror.

Q40: Do 11"x14" foldouts count as one page in the page count.

A: Yes

Q41: The Interface with SHARP feature is listed as an Option Year 1 requirement in PWS section 4.3.2.8, and as an Option Year 2 requirement in PWS section 5. Is the Interface with SHARP feature required for delivery in Option Year 1 or Option Year 2?

A: Option year 1

Q42: Should a requirement drop out or become impossible to work due to administrative issues or a lack of government coordination in reference to any of the interfaces, will the contractor lose the amount estimated for costs of that requirement or will the government provide substitute work or an additional requirement to take its place and as such keep the overall cost of the proposed FFP contract the same?

A: The Government does not anticipate changes to the current PWS. Issues involving changes to the scope of work after award will be resolved under the terms of the awarded contract

Q43: The solicitation seems to conflate price reasonableness with price realism. It states in the proposal instructions under the heading “Price Reasonableness and Completeness” (Section 5.3.2.4.3) that “that exceptionally 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.” Section 8.1 states that price will be evaluated for “completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness.” Will the government please clarify whether it intends to conduct a price realism evaluation as contemplated by FAR 15.404-1(d)?

A: See paragraph 8.1 p. 78, “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 not be conducting a price realism evaluation.

Q44: Can the government specify a preferred cost rate basis for fully burdened labor rates?

A: No, that is the responsibility of the contractor.

Q45: Volume V Price: Price Page count: Does the 25 page count limit apply to the price/cost narrative portion only or is it also meant to include the spreadsheets for defining each CLIN costs/price and total costs/price? If it is meant to include spreadsheets and narrative, and per above, reasonableness and realism of costs must be demonstrated, will the government consider increasing the page count?

A: The Government maintains a 25 page count limit for Volume V Price and will not increase the page count.

Q46: Please clarify if all volumes go on one (1) CD for proposal submission?

A: Yes, see paragraph 5.2.2 p. 81, “In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD.”

Q47: Please clarify what is included in Volume IV and Volume V.

· Section 5.1 lists Volume IV as Cost/Price and Volume V as Contract Documentation.

· Section 5.3 lists Volume IV as Small Business Participation and Volume V as Price.

A: See answer to Question 25. See Table 5.3.

Q48: Please confirm that the subcontractors “Consent Letters” are outside of page count for Volume III.

A: They are included in the page count.

Q49: Will the Government accept CPARS in lieu of PPQs?

A: No

Q50: Please confirm that Sections I-III of the PPQ are outside of page count for Volume III.

A: Sections I-III of the PPQ are included in the page count, see Instructions on Attachment I, Past Performance Questionnaire.

Q51: Please clarify if Key Personnel resumes are included in the page count for Volume II.

A: No, they are not included in the Page Count.

Q52: Are the OCI Plan, Transition Plan, and ECS Plan in the page count for Volume II?

A: They shall be included in the Page Count.

Q53: What is the historical level of effort on maintenance and enhancements?

A: The proposed level of effort or personnel required to execute the requirements of the PWS are at the discretion of the offeror; historically approximately 50% of total contract effort. Historical data is for informational purposes only and that actual effort required by the contractor may differ. It is the contractor’s discretion to propose an approach that meets requirements.

Q54: Will the Government clarify whether the reference to 11x14 foldouts was supposed to read 11x17 foldouts?

A: Yes, 11 x 17 paper is correct. Government will revise.

Q55: Is there a specific version of MS Office that the contractor is required to use to submit deliverables?

A: See RFP 5.2.2 MS Word 2013 or earlier.

Q56: Page 20, Section 4.1.4 states “The contractor shall ensure all government or non-government web sites to interface with M-SHARP are in compliance with the applicable security protocols for M-SHARP access”. Is this requirement currently met with existing interface partners?

Q57: Page 22, Section 4.1.6.2 lists various documents that the contractor is responsible for creating, maintaining and updating. These documents are not referenced in the Deliverables table. What are the delivery expectations of these deliverables?

A: Para 4.1 requirements are identified in para 5 deliverables as “ongoing throughout period of performance”.

Q58: Throughout Sections 4.1.5.2.1 – 4.1.5.3.2 the PWS references MCEITS but in Section 4.1.6.1 the PWS states that the contractor is responsible for server and database replication. Is M-SHARP currently hosted by MCEITS and if not, with this award is M-SHARP moving to MCEITS? It is unclear between the various sections.

A: MCEITS

Q59: Is there a CDRLs table/document which specifies the deliverables, delivery time and possibly format or DID for documents generally referred to in Section 5? The existing table does not provide specifics on deliverables such as meeting agendas, meeting minutes, transition plan, etc.

A: CDRLS are not provided for this requirement. Deliverables are identified within the appropriate section of the PWS and/or within the deliverables chart (para 5); Distribution, Media and Format on page 23, para 7.3. Guidelines for “draft” transition plan documentation are identified under para 13. Further specifics on reporting format and/or content will be provided by the government after award.

Q60: Is the Government’s definition of a subcontractor / teaming partner in RFP 5.3.2.2.1 the same as 5.3.2.2? Are we expected to provide a consent letter for all teaming partners, or only those who provided 20% or greater of the support, provided a critical portion of the support, and impacted performance?

A: Yes. A consent letter shall be obtained for each submission in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2.2.

Q61: Per Section 5.3.2.2.1 on page 79, “(Note: Individual task orders under an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract or blanket purchase agreement (BPA) are each considered to be one past/present performance effort.)” We have several candidate references that are performed for a single customer against an overarching statement of work, but for flexibility and efficient allocation of funds, the Government has established an IDIQ or BPA contract structure. For example, one contract has a base year PDSS task order, an option year task order, and multiple task orders for software development ECPs. Does the Government mean to exclude these types of single-award / unified scope contracts? Please confirm that the Government is trying to exclude large IDIQs and GWACs such as Seaport-e or CIOSP3 where vendors perform multiple task orders with diverse scope for many different customers.

A: No, the Government is not excluding. As noted in Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1, Relevant and Recent Contracts Past Performance, individual task order’s under IDIQ and BPAs are considered one past/present performance effort.

Q62: Please provide current Help Desk metrics, such as the average number of tickets, emails, and phone calls per week by category (enhancement requests, problems/anomalies, account requests, training requests, etc.).

A: Information varies by location and cannot accurately be provided.

Q63: The PWS states, “ … the Contractor shall provide … access to a web based Customer Support Request Form (ticketing system) …”. What ticketing system is currently in use on the M-SHARP program? Is there a current backlog of tickets? If so, what is the distribution of those tickets?

A: The ticketing support system is already in use. The contractor will not have to create one he will only have to maintain the current system. Current status and distribution of tickets cannot be provided.

Q64: The PWS does not specify Service Levels for Help Desk support. Please provide key performance indicators, such a response time, resolution time, first call resolution rate, etc.

A: Government will revise. See Help Desk Support paragraph under PWS 4.1.3.2 Online Support.

Q65: Do RFP sections 5.3.2.2.1 and 5.3.2.2.4 require separate written responses? Or is the “summary” required with the PPQ the only written portion of the three recent and relevant contracts?

A: A summary shall be submitted on each contract for which a PPQ was sent to a prior Government customer. See 5.3.2.2.4 for requirements.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Feb-2018 12:00 PM to 21-Feb-2018 12:00 PM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 2003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Publication Library IAW PWS 4.4.3.1.

To:

Publication Library IAW PWS 4.3.3.1.

CLIN 2004

Scheduling/Logger Enhanced Functionality IAW PWS 4.4.3.2.

Scheduling/Logger Enhanced Functionality IAW PWS 4.3.3.2.

CLIN 2005

Interface with MCTIMS IAW PWS 4.4.3.3.

Interface with MCTIMS IAW PWS 4.3.3.3.

CLIN 2006

Interface with DRRS-MC 4.4.3.4.

Interface with DRRS-MC 4.3.3.4.

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1002 has been changed from:

POP 01-JUL-2019 TO

30-JUN-2021

TRNG ED COMMAND

2079 BARNETT AVE

QUANTICO VA 22134

LINDA GISOLO

703-784-2192 FOB: Destination M95430

POP 01-JUL-2019 TO

30-JUN-2020

TRNG ED COMMAND

2079 BARNETT AVE

QUANTICO VA 22134

LINDA GISOLO

703-784-2192 FOB: Destination M95430

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

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

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 The Government intends to evaluate proposals for a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to the Government. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in, “FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—Commercial Items,” in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment. In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines they are necessary (FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price or cost and technical standpoint. In the event issues pertaining to the solicitation cannot be resolved to the PCO’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 PCO 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 PCO 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.

The Government will award a contract to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. The Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be impractical in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions. Additionally, the Government may reject proposals that are impractical when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

2.0 Relative Importance of Factors.

2.1 Evaluation factors are as follows: Factor 1, Technical Capability & Staffing Plan; Factor 2, Management & Quality Processes; Factor 3, Past Performance; Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan; and Factor 5, Price. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. When combined, all non-price factors are significantly more important than Factor 5, Price. Although price is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly important when offers receive similar ratings for the non-price factors. Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan will be reviewed to determine if it is acceptable/unacceptable; unacceptable plans render the entire proposal unawardable. Prospective Offerors are forewarned that a proposal 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.

3.0 Factor 1: Technical Capability and Staffing Plan

3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal as to how well it demonstrates the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS); ensuring its discussion is not a reiteration and acceptance of the requirements from the PWS but rather a clear articulation of their ability to provide continuous quality support to the TECOM M-SHARP Program. Documentation must include how the offeror proposes to handle the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the PWS requirements; Key Personnel resumes, in matrix form, to show related experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements; a staffing plan, definitive enough to provide the Government a clear understanding of how the Offeror intends to staff the requirement, use of team members, and integration of responsibilities to execute a performance-based solution; and innovative approaches in providing services required by the PWS.

4.0 Factor 2: Management and Quality Processes

4.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal as to how well it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to effectively manage performance of the solicited effort at an acceptable quality level. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS and the management techniques, controls, management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach. This shall include contract/subcontractor management; quality management and processes; 90 day transition plan; OCI Mitigation Plan; Essential Services Plan; the recruiting and hiring process; and ability to provide an active, responsive staffing vacancy-filling system to ensure adequate manning throughout the contract period.

An unacceptable OCI Mitigation and Essential Services Plan will result in an overall factor 2 rating of unacceptable.

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

1. The degree to which the offeror addressed OCI concerns;

1. The offeror's approach for mitigating OCI issues;

1. The offeror's approach to mitigate potential OCIs at the contract level;

1. The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs;

1. The adequacy of its procedures; and

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

4.1.2 Essential Contractor Services

The Government's review of the offeror's Essential Contractor Services plan will address the requirements of DFARS provision 252.237-7024.

5.0 Technical Ratings

5.1 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.

5.2 The combined technical/risk ratings below includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1 Technical Ratings

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Note: Any offeror who receives a rating of Unacceptable on any Technical factor or subfactor cannot receive an award and a proposal receiving a rate of Unacceptable on any Technical factor or subfactor will not be further evaluated.

5.3 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.

6.0 Factor 3: Past Performance

6.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror on performance under existing and prior contracts and/or task orders for similar products or services. 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 a "Neutral 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 reference POC, in one of the three forms listed in this paragraph. 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.

6.1.1 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 task order / 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.

6.1.2 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 size, scope and complexity of the work 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 RATINGS

6.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment.

Prior to assigning an overall confidence rating, the Government will establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The Government will not assign separate quality assessment ratings.

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating per Table 3. 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 3 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.

7.0 Factor 4-Small Business Participation Document.

7.1 Large business offerors will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment they demonstrate for this acquisition. In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), Evaluation factors and significant subfactors, and DFARS 215.305, Proposal Evaluation, will be evaluated on the basis of:

(1) The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in proposals;

(2) The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (enforceable commitments, such as established relationships, will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(4) The extent of utilization of Small Business firms on prior contracts;

(5) The total contract dollar value the offerors propose in terms of small business participation;

(6) The extent of participation of Small Business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the offeror provides detailed explanations and supporting documentation of the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof, for this acquisition.

7.1.2 The Small Business Participation Document shall be evaluated using the acceptable/unacceptable ratings in the areas provided in table below.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

8.0 Factor 5 - Price.

8.1 The Price Analysis Team 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 prices are presented in a clear and useful format.

8.2 In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, the Offeror's total evaluated price for purposes of the best value tradeoff will be the Offeror's proposed price for the base period, and two 12-month option periods. As stated in the solicitation instructions, the Government will evaluate the potential option to extend services by adding six months of the offeror’s final option period prices to the offeror’s total evaluated price. The Government may determine that a Proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise options.

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.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, for one (1) twelve (12) month base period plus two 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.

1.3 The objective of this requirement is to continue execution of efforts to deploy and support M-SHARP and implement new and enhanced functionality of the application by July 2020 and beyond to fully support the Fleet Marine Forces, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) and Aviation Training System (ATS) needs of Marine aviation, allow more simulator and ground utilization, increase functionality on multiplatform based systems, and increased security and current functionality. M-SHARP application increased functionality and sustainment will allow for ground and other units to use and build on current capabilities. Sustained development and support of a user friendly, web-based and stand-alone application and are paramount to ensure M-SHARP remains a viable and authoritative resource for US Marine Corps Aviation flight hour and sortie based training data. The scope of this effort entails technical, analytical, and programmatic support to implement and sustain mission capabilities. Specifically: (1) continue the development of M-SHARP through sustainment of current capabilities and development of additional needed functionalities; (2) continue building, fielding, and supporting an integrated web-based and stand-alone (deployable) application for the Units; and (3) provide the Higher Headquarters (HHQ) elements with reporting services necessary for the collection of data required to justify budgetary decisions. TECOM requires services that will be able to respond to these challenges and support these requirements with a comprehensive, flexible solution in a streamlined manner.

2.0 DISCREPANCIES.

2.1 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.

3.0 OFFEROR GUIDANCE

3.1 The Proposal must be prepared in accordance with these instructions. Failure to do so may result in the Offeror’s submission being determined 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.

4.0 SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS

4.1 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 16 January 2018 by 12:00 PM EDT. All questions must be submitted electronically via email to the following: judith.campbell@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.

5.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

5.1 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 21 February 2018 by 12:00 PM EDT. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) separate volumes and must provide (5) copies of each volume. The volumes are Volume I - Executive Summary; Volume II - Technical/Management, Volume III - Past Performance, Volume IV – Small Business Participation and Volume V - Price.

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 private courier (e.g. FedEx, UPS), 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: Judith M. Campbell 2010 Henderson Road MCB, Quantico, VA 22134

5.2 Proposal Format.

5.2.1 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 17 inch for foldouts, matrixes;

Single-spaced typed lines;

1 inch margins on all sides;

11 point Arial font;

Double sided pages

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 smaller than 8 pt. Arial);

No hyperlinks or external materials are permitted.

NOTE: Your subject line must read “Marine Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program

(M-SHARP), RFP M00264-18-R-0001.”

5.2.2 In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Content must utilize .doc, .pdf, .xls, and .jpg formats to the maximum degree possible. Test and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Word 2013 or earlier. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2013 or earlier. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

5.3 Proposal Content.

Table 1-Proposal Organization

5.3.1 Volume I Executive Summary

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

5.3.1.1 Narrative Summary

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

5.3.1.2 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),…