M00264-18-R-0012_Amendment_2.docx

M0026418R0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFERORS

1. Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

1.1 The Government intends to issue a single award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract, with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINS for service requirements under this solicitation. Each Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the Offeror's response to the requirements of this solicitation. Use of general or vague statements such as "standard procedures will be used" will not satisfy this requirement. Unnecessary elaboration or presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror's lack of understanding. Elaborate artwork and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired.

1.2. Offerors must submit an offer/proposal and other information in strict accordance with these instructions. Failure to do so may result in the Offeror's submission being determined as unacceptable and ineligible for award. Each Offeror’s submission shall be screened by the Contracting Officer or a designee upon receipt to ensure compliance with the instructions contained in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Elimination of an Offeror is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

1.3. The scope of this effort comprises courseware services in four (4) distinctive task areas. The task areas for this effort are (1) Initial Project Assessment, (2) Front End Analysis, (3) Courseware Product Design and (4) Courseware Product Development and Deployment.

The contract award shall be made in accordance with the following information contained in FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM and FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM. Each Offeror must submit a proposal including information pertaining to Mandatory Requirements, Technical Capabilities, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's understanding of the contract and Performance Work Statement requirements, and each Offeror's ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal.

1.4 QUESTIONS: Offeror’s may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements. All questions must be received by: 12:00 PM EST April 13, 2018. All questions shall be submitted via email to the contracting officer and contract specialist. Questions shall be submitted electronically to Christian Hernandez Soto, Contracting Officer at christian.hernandezsoto@usmc.mil, Radhiyah Smith, Contract Specialist at radhiyah.smith@usmc.mil, and Sgt Tyler Sullivan, Contract Specialist at tyler.w.sullivan@usmc.mil.

2. Instructions for Submission of Proposals

Offerors shall submit hard copy versions of the proposal and a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal. Proposals shall be submitted no later than the time and date as stated in block 8 of the SF1449 Solicitation. All documentation shall be provided in Microsoft Word format. All documents requiring signature shall be provided in PDF. Pricing information shall be provided in Microsoft Word and Excel format (completed pricing template and basis of estimates). In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the proposal evaluation process, all Offeror’s shall comply with the following instructions for proposal format and content. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions may be considered non-responsive and render the Offeror ineligible for award.

Proposals shall be delivered to the following address:

ATTN: Christian Hernandez Soto United States Marine Corps Marine Corps Installations National Capital Region-Regional Contracting Office 2010 Henderson Road Quantico, VA 22134

2.1. Proposal Format

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, it is required that all Offeror’s submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified. The electronic proposal shall be prepared so that if an evaluator prints the proposal it meets the following format requirements:

· 8.5X 11 inch paper

· Single-spaced typed lines

· 1 inch margins on all sides

· 12 point font, Times New Roman for text material. For graphics, figures and exhibits, contractor is allowed to use no less than 10 point font and no more than 12 point font Times New Roman.

· Single sided pages

· Graphs, drawings and “Screen Shots” of pictures depicting an element(s) of the proposed approach must be clear and legible.

· No photographs or hyperlinks are permitted.

· Microsoft Office compatible files are required

2.2. Proposal Content

Each proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

Volume 1 Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements Volume 2 Factor 2 – Technical Capabilities Volume 3 Factor 3 – Management Approach Volume 4 Factor 4 – Past Performance Volume 5 Factor 5 – Price

Pricing information may not appear anywhere in the proposal other than Volumes 1 and 5 as specified below.

The Offeror shall provide the following number of hard copies.

The electronic version of proposal shall be provided under a Compact Disc. All volumes shall be saved under the Compact Disc. No other electronic device other than a CD will be accepted.

Each hard copy version of the proposal shall be provided in separate documents (i.e., binders) and marker “Original” or “Copy”.

2.2.1. The Offeror shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements of the PWS and provide a proposal in accordance with these instructions and the evaluation criteria in FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM.

2.2.2. All information must be presented in sufficient depth for the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror's understanding of the PWS and capability for successful performance. The proposal should demonstrate this understanding and capability in a concise, logical manner and should not contain superfluous material not directly related to this solicitation.

2.3. Volume 1 – Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements

2.3.1 The following are Mandatory Proposal Requirements as stated in the solicitation.

Sub-factor 1- Responsibility Determination Sub-factor 2- Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) plan submission Sub-factor 3- Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting

2.3.2 Sub-factor 1- Responsibility Determination

2.3.2.1 Offer Letter - The Offer Letter shall include a summary of the proposed price by CLIN including a total proposed price for this effort, a summary of the small business participation, Data Rights Assertion Listing, and the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan proposed, if applicable. The Offer Letter shall be signed by an authorized company official and include the following:

1. The Solicitation number.

1. Company Information. Provide the name, address, DUNS number, CAGE Code, and telephone number of the Offeror.

1. Authorized Personnel. Provide the name, title, telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of the company/division point of contact that can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

1. Terms of any express warranty.

1. “Remit to” address, if different than mailing address.

1. Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments (if applicable).

1. Agreement with terms. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the RFP. Offerors are to clearly detail any exceptions taken and the rationale for the exceptions taken to the RFP. Please note that exceptions taken to the RFP may render the proposal unacceptable to the Government.

1. Identify any enclosures being transmitted.

1. State the length of proposal validity (at least a minimum of 60 days).

2.3.2.1

2.3.2.2 Standard Form (SF) 1449 - Complete Blocks 17a and 30a-c of Page 1 of the Solicitation (signed and dated). Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the offer.

2.3.2.3 FAR 52.212-3 - A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 52.212-3(b) for those representations and certifications that the Quoter shall complete electronically), FAR 52.209-5, and DFARS 252.209-7992 DEV. Offerors who have completed the representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) do not need to submit a separate copy. Instead, they shall include a statement stating their representations and certifications are up to date in SAM.

2.3.2.4 Data Rights Assertion Listing

The Offeror shall provide a Data Rights Assertion Listing for both non-commercial and commercial components, items, and processes (CIPs), and software. The Contractor shall use the format described under subsection (e) of DFARS 252.227-7013.

2.3.3 Sub-factor 2- Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) plan submission

The Offeror shall submit its OCI Mitigation Plan (if applicable) that addresses all actual or potential conflicts of interest in adequate detail for the Contracting Officer to determine whether an OCI exists or has been mitigated. The Offeror shall describe how the OCI Mitigation Plan was developed and the company's approach to avoiding, mitigating, or neutralizing any identified OCI risks. If an Offeror determines that an actual or potential OCI does not exist, the Offeror shall include a statement to that effect as part of its proposal, and does not need to submit an OCI Plan.

To facilitate resolution of any potential or actual OCIs, Offerors are encouraged to submit their OCI Plans in advance of the proposal submission due date. The OCI Mitigation Plan shall specifically address the OCI disclosures required in this section, and explain how the prime will fully avoid, neutralize, or mitigate any OCIs, as indicated in FAR 9.5. As part of its OCI Mitigation Plan, the Offeror must identify which contracts or subcontracts it will continue to support and those it intends to terminate or allow to lapse to eliminate any conflicts of interest. The OCI Mitigation Plan shall also address other OCI resolution and mitigation measures to include the divestment of business units.

2.3.4 Sub-factor 3 - Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting

Since this effort is set aside to small businesses, a subcontracting plan is NOT REQUIRED from small business concerns and will not be evaluated. Although a subcontracting plan is not required, Offerors are required to submit a small business participation plan articulating performance under a small business set aside. Offeror shall comply with FAR 52.219-14(c)(1) criteria, which requires at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel (i.e., labor) shall be expended for employees of the prime contractor. In order to evaluate compliance, the offer will provide a breakdown of small business participation. The breakdown shall identify the small businesses proposed, their socioeconomic classification, and amounts.

The Contractor shall use the following template to depict this information:

Breakdown of Small Business Participation

Company Name Company Address Company CAGE Code

Performed (PWS references)

Total

2.4 Volume 2 - Factor 2 - Technical Capabilities

2.4.1 The Offeror's technical volume submission shall include all relevant supporting information required or specified in the Solicitation. This Volume shall be limited to twenty (20) pages, single sided, not including exhibits and attachments. Offeror’s shall submit the following information:

2.4.1.1 Technical Approach - The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the proposed technical approach for each task/deliverables set forth under the PWS. The proposal should demonstrate an understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements covered in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal should sufficiently describe how the Offeror will comply with Government tasking and requirements throughout the performance period.

2.4.1.2 Labor Skillset - The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the labor skillset considered to meet the nature, complexities and technical needs of this effort.

2.4.1.3 Initial and Sample Task Orders- The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the proposed technical approach for each task/deliverables set forth under the PWS. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of how it plans to meet the objectives of each task order by the delivery date. This information shall be provided as an attachment to the volume. The attachment shall not exceed ten (10) pages. The 20 page count limit on the technical volume is not affected by the pages included in the attachment.

2.5. Volume 3 - Factor 3 - Management Approach

2.5.1 The Offeror's and management volume submission shall include all relevant supporting information required or specified in the Solicitation. This Volume shall be limited to twenty (20) pages single sided, not including exhibits and attachments. Offeror’s shall submit the following information:

2.5.1.1 The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the ability, resources and experience required to perform the requirements in the Solicitation, including the detailed procedures and methods to be used. The Offeror’s proposal should demonstrate an understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements covered in the Solicitation. The proposal should be sufficiently complete to demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with Government tasking and requirements throughout the performance period. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, (i.e., team structure used under previous contracts) cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal. Clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential.

2.5.1.2 Management - The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the management plan approach to address managing the magnitude and complexity of work detailed in the PWS. The proposal shall describe the Offeror’s corporate experience and management structure to successfully perform all tasks required in the PWS. The proposal shall describe the Offeror’s ability to identify and implement cost efficiencies on the contract and manage personnel. The proposal should provide sufficient information that demonstrates the Offeror's ability and resources for meeting the services requirement tasks being completed.

2.5.1.3 Teaming - The Offeror shall provide a description of the teaming approach to be used in the overall operational concept for this contract. The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s approach for communicating, coordinating, resolving problems and working successfully as part of the overall team. The proposal should clearly describe and define the Offeror’s team structures, relationships, roles and responsibilities that establish how the proposal provides for maximum quality performance and how the approach minimizes risk to performance. The Offeror shall disclose the percentage of work planned to be assigned to small businesses.

2.5.1.4 Staffing - The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the staffing plan approach used to provide a fully qualified work force to include identification of primary point of contacts at contract award as well as the Offeror’s ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets and security clearances to perform all PWS requirements and how they correlate to the capability requirements of the PWS.

2.5.1.5 Quality Control Plan - The Offeror shall develop an effective quality control plan (QCP) to ensure services are performed in accordance with this PWS. The Offeror shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. The Offeror’s quality control program is the means of assurance that the work complies with the requirements of the contract. The QCP shall depict the procedures for each deliverable listed in the PWS. The QCP is to be delivered with the Offeror’s proposal as an attachment under this volume.

2.6. Volume 4 - Factor 4 - Past Performance

This section shall not exceed nine pages. The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) page count applicable to the volume. The Offeror's Past Performance volume shall include sections that address the following:

2.6.1. The Offeror must provide a matrix with a minimum of three contract references but no more than six that will be able to provide information regarding the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last three years in regard to the following areas: (1) Customer Satisfaction, (2) Timeliness, (3) Technical Success, (4) Quality, and (5) Cost Control. (Note: Individual task orders under an ID/IQ contract are each considered to be one past / present performance effort.) The reference information must be current to facilitate the evaluation process. Information on up to three 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.

If the Offeror does not have relevant past performance experience within the last three years, then the Offeror must make an affirmative statement to this effect.

A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire. Referenced points of contact other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government, and the information received from those other references may be used in the past performance evaluation.

Of the objectives referenced under the PWS, the Offeror shall submit no more than two contract references where the they functioned as a Sub-Contractor in the provided contract reference. For each relevant task identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire shall be used to collect data from the references.

For each of the Past Performance Information (PPI) identified, the Offeror shall:

1. Describe how the work was/is similar to the CDET IMI support service requirements in terms of the scope, magnitude, and complexity;

1. Identify a current Point of Contact (POC) (e.g. Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, or Government Program Manager), Name of contracting agency, agency representative, telephone number, email address:

1. Include type of contract, dollar value, brief description of work performed, problems encountered during contract performance and corrective actions taken.

1. Provide copy of the Performance Work Statement of the referenced contracts.

1. Provide the POC with a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire; and

1. Request that the POC submit the completed questionnaire to the Government in accordance with the instructions on the questionnaire.

1. The Offeror and any Sub-Contractors should complete all applicable items of the Past Performance Questionnaire prior to providing it to each POC.

2.7. Volume 5 - Factor 5 – Price

2.7.1 General Information: The Offeror shall provide sufficient price information to allow the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price. A summary sheet with the Offeror’s total price shall also be included in the price proposal. The price proposal shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with no macros. Price narrative shall be provided in Microsoft Word format.

The Offeror shall submit price narratives using Microsoft Word format and numerical price data using Microsoft Excel 2007 or later on a Compact Disc. The proposed price information shall be in unprotected spreadsheets that disclose the formulas and depict how the figures were computed. All price models submitted must be consistent with the Offeror’s estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formula reflected in the paper copy of the proposal.

The Price Volume shall be divided into sub-volumes/tabs based on the required support areas as follows:

· Sub-Volume A: Completed Deliverables Unit Pricing Matrix and Basis of Estimates

· Sub-Volume B: Sample and Initial Task Order pricing

Due to the competitive nature of this procurement, the Government is not requesting submission of certified cost or pricing data under this solicitation in accordance with FAR 15.4. The Offeror shall not submit certified cost or pricing data substantiating the cost elements being proposed. If adequate competition is not obtained or should a situation develop that the Government will require submission of information other than cost or pricing data, the Offeror should be prepared to submit the cost or pricing data within five business days after being requested by the Government.

The Offeror, subcontractor, interdivisional transfer, or any other business entity associated with the proposal may submit their sealed proposal directly to the Government or the Offeror.

The proposal is solicited on an “all or none” basis. Failure to submit an offer for all requirements of the PWS shall be cause for rejection of the offer. Non-compliance with any of the provisions herein may lead the Government to determine that an Offeror’s proposal is non-compliant and may result in removal from the evaluation.

The Government provided supplemental information under this solicitation to allow contractors to obtain understanding of CDET’s curriculum development needs. This information is provided as a “Bidder’s Library Reference Material” for the RFP and is available on the FBO announcement for this RFP.

2.7.2. Instructions for Sub-Volume A: Deliverables Unit Pricing Matrix and Basis of Estimate

Unit prices proposed for this effort shall be fully loaded (cost and profit). Unit prices shall be based on the unit measurement (e.g., Level of Interactivity) applicable to each deliverable. Unit prices shall be proposed for each ordering period. Offeror shall complete the Deliverables Unit Pricing Matrix, which is provided under the Pricing Template of the Solicitation. The awardee’s proposed unit prices will be agreed as firm fixed price, be included in the contract and will serve as the basis for task order pricing.

As part of the Price Volume narrative, the Offeror shall provide a description of what comprises the unit prices proposed. This includes, but is not limited to information such as labor category and labor mix used in their approach, tooling, materials, etc.

Offerors shall submit a basis of estimate (in Microsoft Excel format) depicting the resources considered for execution of the technical approaches proposed as it relates to each of the deliverables listed on the Deliverables Unit Pricing Matrix. Bases of estimate shall include:

8. Labor categories and fully loaded labor rates for all deliverables.

8. Mapping of proposed labor categories against the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics. This information is available under the following link: https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/major_groups.htm

8. Other Direct Costs- Offeror shall disclose any non-labor expenses considered in the proposed unit prices.

Travel cost will be evaluated and agreed at the task order level once the specific travel requirements are identified. Travel pricing is not required for this evaluation.

2.7.3. Instructions for Sub-Volume B: Sample and Initial Task Order Instructions This solicitation includes requirements for sample task order and Initial Task Order (task order 0001). The initial task order (Task order 0001) will be awarded in conjunction with the IDIQ contract. The task orders (sample and initial) characterize an adequate representation of the IDIQ, which will be used in determining best value under the IDIQ contract. If necessary, the total price proposed under the task orders will be used to conduct trade-offs.

The minimum amount guaranteed will be awarded under the Initial Task Order (TO 0001). The Offeror shall provide a price proposal for task order 0001 based on the unit prices proposed under the Deliverables Unit Pricing Matrix. Rates per unit proposed at the task order must match the rates included under the master IDIQ.

Discounted rates shall not be proposed under the task orders. The Offeror shall include a total amount capturing the total price proposed at the task order and an aggregated total proposed price consisting of the total price proposed for the Sample and Initial Task Order (Sample TO price + Initial TO price = aggregated total proposed price).

(End of provision addendum)

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

52.212-2 ADDENDUM TO EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. Evaluation Factors for Award

The Government will select the best overall proposal, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offerors:

Volume 1 Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements Volume 2 Factor 2 – Technical Capabilities Volume 3 Factor 3 – Management Approach Volume 4 Factor 4 – Past Performance Volume 5 Factor 5 – Price

Factor 1 will be evaluated using pass/fail criteria. A “Fail” rating under any Factor 1 sub factor renders the entire proposal ineligible for award.

In determining the best value tradeoffs, all non-price factors when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 –Price. Factor 2 – Technical Capability is the most important factor. Factor 3- Management Approach is the second most important factor. Factors 2 and 3 are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Past Performance. All non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than Factor 5 – Price. Although Factor 5 – Price, is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

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

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

1.1 Factor 1 – Mandatory Criteria

The Contracting Officer will assign either a “Pass” or “Fail” rating when evaluating whether the Offeror has satisfied these requirements stated above under “Mandatory Requirements.”

Upon validating the mandatory requirements have been met, the Government will proceed to evaluate proposals in accordance with the remaining factors stated in this section

1.1.1 Sub-factor 1- Representation and Certification

Representation and Certification Rating

1) The Solicitation number.

2) Company Information.

3) Authorized Personnel.

4) Terms of any express warranty.

5) “Remit to” address, if different than mailing address.

6) Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments (if applicable).

7) Agreement with terms.

8) Identification of any enclosures being transmitted.

9) State the length of proposal validity.

10) Completed Standard Form (SF) 1449

11) Completed copy of all solicitation representations and certifications.

12) Data Rights Assertion Listing

1.1.2 Sub-factor 2- Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) plan submission

The Government's review of the Offeror's OCI Mitigation Plan(s) 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 task order 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.

The OCI plan will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

OCI Rating Scale

1.1.3 Sub-factor 2- Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting The following rating scale will be use to evaluate Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting:

Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting Rating Scale

1.2 Factor 2 - Technical Capabilities

1.2.1 Technical Approach - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical solution, the quality of its performance measures, approach to implementation and labor skills considered in the technical solution. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements for each objective, task and deliverable as outlined in the PWS.

1.3 Factor 3 – Management Approach

1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed execution methods to be used, Management, Teaming, and Staffing approach. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s program management team structures, relationships, roles and responsibilities are defined and whether the approach establishes and provides for maximizing quality performance and minimizes risk to performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine whether it demonstrates processes, procedures, and organizational structures that support work in classified/sensitive environments. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for recruiting, staffing and retaining sufficient numbers of personnel to support the requirements of the PWS. The staffing plan will also be evaluated for its completeness regarding how well the qualifications, knowledge, and skills of proposed personnel correlate to the capability requirements of the PWS.

1.4 Adjectival Ratings for Factors – Technical Capabilities and Performance Execution and Management Approach

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies identified, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating using the following adjectival rating scale:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

1.5 Factor 4 - Past Performance

The Government will conduct a structured past performance evaluation that examines each offeror’s demonstrated record of recent past performance on similar contracts to determine its relevance to the Government’s current needs, the quality of that performance, and the degree of confidence the Government places in each offeror’s ability to meet the solicitations requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy and quality for each reference to arrive at an overall Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors are advised that any contract reference submission that is not relevant or recent will not be evaluated further.

Referenced points of contact other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government, and the information received from those other references may be used in the past performance evaluation. 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 Government may review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to Past Performance Confidence Assessments. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. If a PPIRS entry exists for a referenced past performance effort provided by the Offeror, the information and ratings contained in the PPIRS entry will take precedence over any other source of past performance information.

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

1.5.1 Past Performance Recency Assessment - Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three 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 months from the date of issuance of this RFP to qualify as a recent effort. However, if any part of the performance submitted falls within the recency timeframe, the contract / task order in its entirety may be evaluated. For each instance of an Offeror’s past performance that meets the recency timeframe, Government evaluators will then assess relevancy of that instance of past performance. Offeror’s past performance that does not meet the recency timeframe will not be further evaluated. Evaluations will not assess an overall recency rating at the Factor level since the rating will be for each past performance reference.

1.5.2 Past Performance Relevancy Assessment - If the Government evaluators consider the Offeror’s past performance to be recent, then the Government will assess the relevancy of the past performance in accordance with the Past Performance relevancy definitions in the table below. The Government shall evaluate relevancy by assessing whether the past performance effort is relevant to the Technical Capability Factor, Management Approach Factor, and the Cost/Price Factor contained in the RFP. Evaluations will not assess an overall relevancy rating at the Factor level since the rating will be for each past performance source identified in the proposal. Further, the Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources may also be used to establish the degree of relevancy, which will inform the quality rating for past performance. Aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support provided, complexity of effort, dollar value, contract type, and, where applicable, the degree of subcontracting/teaming. The following table reflects the Past Performance Relevancy Rating and Definition:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

1.5.3 Performance Confidence Assessment - The Performance Confidence Assessment will consist of the results of the recency and relevancy information obtained from the proposed past performance sources proposed. The Government will account for quality as part of the overall confidence assessment. The Government will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the table below. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. An excellent recent and relevant past performance that occurred three years ago may not affect the Performance Confidence Assessment as much as a recent and relevant effort that occurred within the last year and has an unsatisfactory performance. Also, an example of favorable recent and relevant performance of a prime Offeror will have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners / subcontractors, joint venture and / or significant subcontractor(s).

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

If an Offeror submits a no record of past performance certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating for past performance.

1.6 Factor 5 – Price

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

The evaluated price shall be used in the trade-off analysis between the price and non-price factors to determine the best value. The evaluated price of the proposal shall be the total price proposed for the sample and initial task orders.

1.7 Evaluation of Task Orders

The Governments evaluation of the Offeror’s Sample and Initial Task Order proposals are included in the Technical Capability and Price Factors.

The Government will evaluate future task order proposals by conducting the evaluation using the Technical Capability Factor and the Price Factor described in this Addendum in the decision to award future task orders. For price purposes, the Government will verify that the price quoted at the task order complies with the applicable unit price(es) set forth in the master ID/IQ contract.

(End of provision Addendum)

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement For The College Of Distance Education And Training (CDET) Interactive Multimedia Instruction Services

1. Background The Marine Corps College of Distance Education and Training (CDET), Marine Corps University (MCU)/Education Command (EDCOM) is located at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, VA. CDET is responsible for designing, developing, and implementing electronic learning solutions through the use of information technologies that meet critical instructional needs across the United States Marine Corps (USMC) training and education (T&E) continuum. The CDET, in close collaboration with sponsors of Marine Corps T&E programs, develops innovative technology-enabled solutions that increase readiness by providing learning opportunities and support to Marines, anytime, anywhere. CDET’s Digital Content Department (DCD) provides the Marine Corps with an e-learning design and development capability to satisfy unmet or emerging T&E requirements. The CDET DCD maintains a standing capability to produce new or updated e-learning across the following primary content categories: Ground Combat; Combat Service Support; Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4); Aviation Combat and Support; Professional Military Education; Annual Compliance and Common Skills; and a range of annual training requirements. DCD-produced e- learning products are used as stand-alone programs, as part of resident or online instructor- or leader-led T&E, and for on-the-job learning or performance support. E-learning product sizes range from discrete multimedia training aids to complete courses of instruction.

The DCD’s primary design and development focus is Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) for delivery via the Marine Corps Distance Learning Network (MarineNet), which hosts, delivers, and tracks Marine Corps web-based courses. IMI developed for MarineNet delivery shall conform to the MarineNet Courseware Development Technical Standards, which includes the applicable version of the Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM). However, standalone versions, deliverable via CD or DVD are also produced, and DCD anticipates future requirements that include production for delivery via mobile devices. Unless specifically exempted as a national security system (as defined in the National Defense Authorization Act (Clinger-Cohen Act) for fiscal year 1996, Section 5142 (40 USC 1452)), products shall comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or an alternative shall be provided that allows access to the information needed. Unless specifically waived or expanded, DCD develops e-learning products that are compatible with the Marine Corps hardware/software baseline and deliverable via the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN).

2. Scope The scope of this effort is to provide analysis, planning, design, and development products to the Marine Corps College of Distance Education and Training (CDET), Education Command (EDCOM) in support of their mission to provide effective interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) and related digital products and electronic learning (e-learning) initiatives to the Marine Corps. The Contractor shall support the CDET Digital Content Department (DCD) product development mission by producing instructional products with varying levels of complexity, length and user interactivity in an online courseware format. Key knowledge areas to support this requirement include all phases of e-learning product design and development, comprising e-learning feasibility analysis, instructional design, multimedia design and development, courseware programming, and coordination/liaison with Operating Forces (OPFORs) and other CDET customers. Delivered products align directly to these knowledge areas and include the production and delivery of initial project assessments, project front end analysis, design products, final development (courseware) products, and the deployment of products on the MarineNet family of systems.

3. General Information:

3.1 Ordering Period

This contract consist of a five (5) years Ordering Period from the contract award date.

0. Type of Contract:

This contract is a single award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract consisting of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) for performance tasks listed in the PWS.

0. Place of Performance For this requirement, place of performance is expected to be primarily at contractor site. CDET offices, located on Marine Corp Base (MCB) Quantico, will provide three (3) Marine Corps Enterprise Network testing stations on premises for contractor quality control personnel to utilize for review purposes, inspection and acceptance.

0. Security Requirements The security clearance classification for this requirement is UNCLASSIFIED. Contractor personnel shall possess the appropriate qualification to access the base for meetings and inspection of deliverables. Contractor shall possess the requirements to obtain a Common Access Card. All contractor personnel assigned assigned to work on this contract shall be a US Citizen.

Common Access Card (CAC): Contractor personnel may need access to the USMC network for delivery of the courseware product. As such, personnel assigned to execute work aboard Marine Corps facilities are required to possess a CAC. Upon award of the contract the Field Security Office (FSO) will coordinate with the COR of the contract and provide a list of all contractor personnel (name, Social Security Number, date of birth and an email address) assigned to work on this contract.

0. Travel The Contractor may be required to travel to CONUS and OCONUS locations in support of this contract to fulfill the requirements contained in this PWS. All travel transactions will be accounted for under a separate line item under the contract. Travel transactions will be defined and agreed at the task order level as a FFP.

0. Special Qualifications The Contractor shall be responsible for employment, training, guidance, and supervision of qualified personnel performing under this PWS. The Contractor shall accomplish the assigned services by employing and utilizing qualified personnel possessing an appropriate combination of education, training, and experience to successfully accomplish the services in this PWS as indicated below:

TABLE 1 Education, Training, and Experience

Skillsets, Knowledge, and Experience Necessary to Meet Requirements

1. Knowledge and experience with the following:

- Multimedia instructional design concepts, principals, and tools

- Lectora Inspire, Adobe Captivate, and similar courseware development software and tools

- QuestionMark Perception assessment generation software and tools

- Adobe Creative Cloud or equivalent Adobe application suites

- Authoring languages such as Java, JavaScript, XML, HTML5, ActionScript, and CSS

- Development and manipulation of audio, video, animations, and still images

- 3D modeling programs and 3D HTML5 gaming engines such as 3ds Max, Daz 3D, and PlayCanvas

2. Experience conducting learning analysis to identify T&E gaps that can effectively and efficiently be remediated via technology-based learning

3. Demonstrated track record of creating course structure and content that meets the needs of adult learners in an electronically delivered distance learning environment

4. Experience with eLearning development standards, SCORM (including…