M00264-18-R-0014_Amendment_0001.pdf

M0026418R0014

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this modification is to make the follow ing changes:

1. Revised RFP document to remove "Draft" w atermark inadvertently included in initial Posting to FedBizOps.

2. Revised RFP (highlighted changes) .

3. Revise PWS (highlighted changes).

4. Provide Questions and Answ ers received on 7 May 2018.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 40

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-May-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X M0026418R0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Apr-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-May-2018

CODE

MCINCR - RCO

2010 HENDERSON RD

KAREN A. CORPORAL

QUANTICO VA 22134

M00264 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0002AA has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095 FOB: Destination

M95450

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0002AB has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0005AB has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0005AC has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0005AF has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for SUBCLIN 0005AK has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0006 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0007 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-JUN-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

CAGE

POP 01-JUL-2018 TO

31-DEC-2018

N/A JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

DIRECTORATE

3097 RANGE RD

QUANTICO VA 22134

MICHAEL DURNAVICH

703-432-0095

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM- INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2015)

NOTE: This effort is being conducted as a full and open competition with a NAICS code of 611430.

1.0 Multiple Offers

The Regional Contracting Office, National Capital Region (RCO-NCR) does not encourage Offerors to submit multiple proposals presenting alternative terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

2.0 Overview

2.1 The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for one 12 month base period, four 12-month option periods. In addition, one six (6) month option period shall be available should FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services be invoked.

The Government is not obligated to exercise an option; however, reserves the right to exercise any or all options at their discretion.

2.2 The Government will award utilizing Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the “best value” to the Government, price, and other factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability Factor 2 – Curriculum Development Factor 3 - Management Capability Factor 4 - Past Performance Factor 5 – Price

2.2.1 Order of Precedence:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Curriculum Development, are of equal importance to each other and each are significantly more important that Factor 3 – Management Capability.

Factor 3 – Management Capability is significantly more important than Factor 4 - Past Performance.

All non-priced factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 – Price.

2.3 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.

3.0 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. Your submission will be screened by the Contracting Officer or a designee upon receipt to ensure completeness and compliance with the instructions contained in the RFP. Elimination of an Offeror is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

3.2 The purpose of this requirement is to provide and present a Non-Lethal Weapons "elective" course. The course is entitled the Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Non-Lethal elective course, and it comprises the bulk of the effort and tasks for this PWS. The Professional Military Education (PME) venues offer a core curriculum for each student. The length of each non-lethal elective course is dependent upon the venue. All instructors shall be affiliated with an accredited University.

4.0 Confidential Information.

4.1 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” (5 USC 552(b)(4)), the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

4.2 The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s)_______.”

4.3 Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Submission of Questions and Proposals

5.1 Questions

5.1.1 All questions must be received by 7 May 2018 at 2:00 PM EST. All questions submitted for this solicitation must be electronically sent to the following e-mail addresses:

karen.corporal@usmc.mil

Please submit questions in the table format below via Microsoft Word.

Solicitation Section Comment/Question

Should any questions be received after the date stated above, the Government reserves the right not to provide an answer. If however, in the Government's opinion, the question(s) cites an issue of significant importance, the Government may provide written responses.

5.1.1.2 Note: Due to the firewall at Marine Corps Installations National Capital Region – Marine Corps Base Quantico, please be advised that it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure all electronic submittals of questions are received by the Contracting Officer within the timeframe given above.

5.2 Proposals

5.2.1 Electronic Proposals are not authorized for this solicitation and will not be considered for evaluation.

Proposals shall be sent via Federal Express, private courier, U.S. Mail, U.S. Postal Service or hand delivered, and must be received at the following address and no later than the date and time cited below:

Quotes must be received at the Regional Contracting Office, NCR no later than date and time cited in Block 8 of this solicitation at the following address:

Regional Contracting Office, NCR

Marine Corps Base (MCB) Attention: Karen Corporal 2010 Henderson Road

Quantico, VA 22134

Late Proposals:

Any proposal, modification, or revision, that is received at the designated Government office after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition; and—

(i) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or

(ii) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of proposals and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals; or

(iii) It was the only proposal received.

If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that proposals cannot be received at the Government office designated for receipt of proposals by the exact time specified in the solicitation, the time specified for receipt of proposals will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume.

To maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the proposal evaluation process, the Offeror must comply with the following instructions for proposal format and content. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

3 volumes will be required for this effort and the following sections shall be clearly labeled and submitted as follows:

Volume I – Technical (4 copies) Volume II – Past Performance (4 copies) Volume III - Business – (Price) (4 copies); and All Volumes – (CD ROM) (1 Copy)

6.0 Proposal Format.

6.1 Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by MS Word 2010 or earlier; or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be unlocked and readable by MS Excel 2013 or earlier.

Note: In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

6.2 In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for quote evaluations, it is required that all Offerors submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified below:

8.5 x 11 inch paper in 3-ring binders (at least 2 inches) for text 11 x 14 inch for foldouts, matrixes, WBS Single-spaced typed lines 1 inch margins on all sides 11 point Times New Roman font Number all pages Headers/footers – ensure the company name and RFQ number is included on each page Graphs and drawings must be clear/legible and may use a smaller font No photographs or hyperlinks are permitted; and Content should utilize Unlocked .doc, .pdf. xls, and .jpg formats.

PLEASE NOTE: Your subject line should read “JPME Non-Lethal Elective Course and Outreach” –

RFP M00264-18-R-0014”.

7.0 Proposal Content

7.1 The proposal shall contain the following volumes/sections:

VOLUME I

Technical – Not to Exceed (NTE) 40 Pages and shall include:

a. Technical Volume Cover Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Vendor POC and Alt POC information – (name, title, tel#, email), Solicitation No.

b. Table of Contents

c. Compliance Matrix

d. Technical Capability (shall reference the Solicitation/PWS)

e. Management Approach (shall reference the Solicitation/PWS)

VOLUME II

Past Performance (II) - NTE 12 pages and shall include:

a. Past Performance Cover Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Vendor POC and Alt POC information – (name, title, tel#, and email), and Solicitation No.

b. Table of Contents

c. List of Agencies that your firm sent Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)(if applicable)

d. Assessment of the PPQ from each agency provided a PPQ. (offerors shall provide the same basic information that is required to be completed on the Past Performance Questionnaire.)

Past Performance submissions shall be from Government Points of Contact (POCs) that can attest to the offerors past performance. If an offeror has no Government POC, they must state that either no Government Past Performance has been completed within the past 3 years or they have no past performance history performing on a Government Contract.

VOLUME III

Price Volume (III) – NTE 50 pages and shall include:

a. Price Cover/Offer Letter with Name of Firm, CAGE code, DUNS code, Tax ID, Statement of

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), Vendor POC and Alt POC information – (name, title, tel#, email), Solicitation No.

b. SF1449 - Section B Cost Proposal,

c. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) - (shall reference the Solicitation/PWS)

d. Supporting material including proposed labor categories, labor hours, and labor rates; and,

e. Backup information and data that will allow evaluators the ability to understand how the vendor’s pricing was developed. (CD Excel spreadsheet data shall be UNLOCKED)

The NTE count does not include the Cover Letters and Executive Statements, Table of Contents, Compliance Matrix, Appendices or Excel Spreadsheets.

Please Keep Cover Letter and Executive Statements to 5 pages or less combined for all three volumes.

If a proposal volume exceeds the above page limitations, all pages in excess of the limitation for each volume will not be considered in order that all proposals are treated equally.

Double sided copies are acceptable; however, will be counted as 2 pages for all Volumes.

7.2 The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability, resources and experience required to perform the requirements in the PWS, including the detailed procedures and methods to be used. All information must be presented in sufficient depth for the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror's understanding of the PWS and the Offeror's capability for successful performance.

Pricing information shall NOT appear anywhere in the Technical Volume (I), which shall address ONLY the technical requirements.

7.3 Offerors are cautioned against general, vague or unsubstantiated statements which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the quotation. Mere statements by the Offeror that it understands a problem and/or can comply with the requirements, and statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof, may be considered inadequate.

8.0 Volume I – Technical

8.1 Technical Approach

The Offeror’s technical quote shall not exceed 40 pages and includes; discussion of Factor (1) Technical Capability and Factor (2) Curriculum Development and Factor (3) Management Capability. Cover Letters and Executive Statements, Table of Contents, Compliance Matrix or Appendices are excluded from the 40 page limit.

The Offeror shall address Factor 1 - Technical Capability, Factor 2 – Curriculum Development and Factor 3 – Management Capability. The Technical Capability, Curriculum Development and Management Capability Information shall include:

The Cover Letter should identify the RFP number, corporate principal submitting the quote, key points of contact within the firm who are authorized to bind the firm, (e.g. contracts, pricing, technical), and a summary of the material content.

A Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix pertinent to the proposal material organization and providing traceability from the Offeror’s submission, to the PWS, to the evaluation criteria, and to other solicitation sections as necessary. Specifically, the Compliance Matrix is a cross-reference table that tells evaluators where they can find responses to specific RFP requirements. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, i.e.

descriptions of previous projects performed for the Government, cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal. Clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential.

8.1.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Capability

The proposal should clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the PWS and these instructions; ensuring their discussion articulates their capability so as to provide continuous quality support to satisfy the PWS. The discussion should provide the evaluators with an understanding of the Offeror’s capacity to support the PWS identified mission areas;

demonstrate an understanding of the priorities and emerging issues within those areas; state the degree of experience in performing the same or similar services; and specify resources available to execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of the staff resources to meet PWS objectives. The discussion should include, describing PWS objectives that can be accomplished by the technical approach; describing the benefits and advantages of that approach; and effectively illustrating the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended PWS .

8.1.1.2 Factor 2 – Curriculum Development

The proposal should clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements for curriculum development outlined in the PWS and these instructions; ensuring their discussion articulates their capability so as to provide continuous quality support to satisfy the PWS. The discussion should provide the evaluators with an understanding of the Offeror’s capacity to support the PWS identified mission areas; demonstrate an understanding of the priorities and emerging issues within those areas; state the degree of experience in performing the same or similar services; and specify resources available to execute a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance and use of the staff resources to meet PWS objectives. The discussion should include, describing PWS objectives that can be accomplished by the technical approach; describing the benefits and advantages of that approach; and effectively illustrating the roles of staff and team resources to execute the intended PWS .

8.1.1.3 Factor 3 – Management Capability

The proposal should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s Technical and Management capabilities suitable to respond to the types of requirements delineated in the PWS. The discussion should provide a comprehensive approach to managing the requirements identified in the PWS; assurance of consistent quality of performance; capacity for handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; compensation plan for professional employees; and ensuring complementary roles between the Contractor’s managers and Government staff. The Offeror should demonstrate its ability to define an effective management of staffing approach complementary to the proposed technical solution set forth in response to the criteria in the PWS. This includes identifying responsibilities and roles of team members in attaining performance objectives; describing the processes and quality measures associated with executing the PWS; and illustrating the roles of staff and team resources relevant to the approach so as to ensure suitable oversight and control of performance execution. Collectively, the integrated approach should demonstrate to the evaluator that the Offeror possesses the capabilities and resources to establish and operate an efficient organization that is both responsive and flexible to meet the requirements. This includes a detailed discussion of the roles of the support team, substantiated performance, and appropriate use of staff resources to accomplish the intended work set forth in the PWS and must include the following information:

Document depth of experience in addressing the types of requirements specifically called out in the PWS. Contractor will be evaluated on the experience, skill, and qualifications of the proposed resources and the project staffing strategy, estimated hours and labor mix, compensation packages and the likelihood that this combination will adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of this contract.

9.0 Volume II – Past Performance

9.1 Factor 3 - Past Performance

9.1.1 Past Performance: Offerors should identify three (3) past performance references reflecting relevant complexity and experience to this acquisition within the last three (3) years.

Past Performance submissions shall be from Government Points of Contact (POCs) that can attest to the offerors past performance. If an offeror has no Government POC, they must state that either no Government Past Performance has been completed within the past 3 years or they have no past performance history with regards to performing on a Government Contract.

Include the following fields:

• Customer;

• Contract/Contract number;

• Contract type;

• Program name;

• Total contract value;

• Description of work performed / relevance to this task, provided in ‘bullet’ format; and

• Names / telephone numbers / e-mail for the PCO and COR.

Offeror’s must identify whether they were the prime or a subcontractor on Past Performance Questionnaire for each submission.

Note: Offerors shall provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to the same three previous references ONLY if there is no Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations completed. If a CPARS evaluation has been accomplished, the government will be able to view it via the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The references shall email the form directly to RCO-NCR at the address provided on the form by the time of solicitation close.

9.1.2 The government may also use other information such as award fee data, and (CPARS), (PPIRS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) data available from Government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

The offeror must demonstrate sufficient, satisfactory performance history employing management and technical capabilities similar to those required in the execution of this PWS. Discussion should illustrate satisfactory performance of both technical and management tasks necessary to meet Government requirements with some degree of assurance based upon recent (e.g., 3 years, or less) performance for comparable work.

Any Offeror that submits any contract reference that is not relevant will receive a “Not Relevant” rating for that contract reference in Past Performance.

Any Offeror indicating that they have no “Past Performance” will receive a “Neutral” rating for Past Performance.

10.0 Volume III – Business Volume

10.1 Factor 4 - Price

10.1.1 The Offeror’s price proposal shall not exceed 50 pages, including a Formal Proposal Letter and Price Proposal consisting of the SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES; Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure (pages 2 through 39 of the SF1449). In accordance with FAR 15.2, the Price Proposal should reflect the Offeror’s best pricing available. Supporting materials shall include proposed labor categories, labor hours, and labor rates.

Price information shall not appear anywhere in the Technical Volume.

10.1.2 Offeror is required to price the proposed CLINs and associated periods of performance in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

The Contractor is required to perform the work when ordered during the scheduled period of performance and it should reflect the Offeror’s most competitive price and terms.

10.2 Completeness. The Offeror must sign the SF1449, acknowledge all amendments, and include the below information in its quote submission. At a minimum, the following areas must be addressed:

• Quote is valid for 90 days from the date of submission

• No exception to any Terms and Conditions has been taken, or if so, clearly stated

• Acknowledge any amendments to the RFP

• A validated registration in the System for Award Management (SAM)

• Signed quote of $XXXXXXX for the proposed performance period; and

• Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) pricing, to include unit and total price.

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION (cont.)

1.0 EVALUATION

This acquisition will utilize the “Best Value” procurement procedure. Award is made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. In the determination of best value, non-price factors and price are separately evaluated, but it is the quote that is found to represent the best overall value to the Government that forms the basis of award.

Thus, a proposal that is not the lowest priced, technically acceptable may form the basis of award, if it is determined that the additional technical is worth its additional cost in relation to the other quotes received.

For “Best Value” evaluation purposes, the more the proposals become technically equivalent, the more the price factor becomes important. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representation and certification, and other information required by this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1 The Government will award firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror, whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Curriculum Development Factor 3 – Management Capability Factor 4 – Past Performance; and Factor 5 – Price

(b) Order of Precedence:

Factor 1, Technical Capability and Factor 2 – Curriculum Development are of equal importance and significantly more important than Factor 3 – Management Capability.

Factor 3, Management Capability, is less important than Factor 1 and 2; however, more important than Factor 4 - Past Performance; and

All non-price factors combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 - Price.

(c) 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.

Note: Although Factor 5 – Price, is the least important factor; however, it becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

(d) The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

EVALUATION FACTORS

1.2 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the PWS ensuring their discussion articulates their capability so as to provide continuous quality support. The evaluation will consider the proposals demonstration of understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and how they will be executed through a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance. The evaluation will consider how the proposals demonstrates handling the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the PWS requirements. The evaluation will consider the identified proposed personnel in direct support of the PWS, showing experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements.

1.3 Factor 2 – Curriculum Development

1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the technical and programmatic requirements outlined in the PWS ensuring their discussion articulates their capability to develop curriculums so as to provide continuous quality support. The evaluation will consider the proposals demonstration of understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and how they will be executed through a comprehensive approach that ensures quality performance. The evaluation will consider how the proposal demonstrates handling the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the PWS requirements. The evaluation will consider the identified proposed personnel in direct support of the PWS, showing experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements.

1.4 Factor 3 – Management Capability

1.4.1 The Offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated management approach’s ability to respond to the types of requirements delineated in the PWS, consistent with their technical approach. The discussion must provide a comprehensive approach to managing work requirements; assurance of consistent quality of performance; capacity for handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; compensation plan for professional employees; and ensuring complementary roles between the Contractor’s Managers and Government Staff. The evaluation will be based on 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, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

1.3.4 Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 2 Curriculum Development and Factor 3 – Management Capability

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

The following Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Quote is unawardable.

Note: A quote that received an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 1 or Factor 2 will result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable”. No further evaluation of the proposal shall be performed and the Offeror will not be considered for award.

1.5 Factor 4 – Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

1.5.1 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency Relevancy (including context of data); and Quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

1.5.2 Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency will be evaluated using “Recent” or “Not Recent”. Identify three (3) past performance references reflecting relevant complexity and experience to this acquisition within the last three (3) years.

1.5.3 Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the SST shall use all four of the relevancy ratings identified below. The SSP shall clearly identify the treatment of relevancy within the past performance evaluation. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

1.5.4 Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. 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. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited;

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

• Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

1.5.5 Past Performance Confidence Assessment

1.5.5.1 .When source selections require a greater level of discrimination with the past performance evaluation, the SSEB shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table 5. For those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the past performance evaluation team may use, as a minimum, “Satisfactory,” “Limited,” “No,” and “Neutral” confidence ratings. The Table 2 ratings may also be used for evaluation of a technical factor or sub factor for “Corporate Experience” that also evaluates past experience.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

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

1.6 Factor 5 – Price

1.6.1 Price will be evaluated for completeness but not rated, to determine fair and reasonableness.

1.6.2 Proposed price is considered in the overall evaluation of “best value” to the Government based upon the anticipated level of competition. The cost of the base period and all option periods will be evaluated but not rated. This solicitation is and should reflect the Offeror’s most competitive cost and terms.

1.6.3 The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed price be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced cost exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.0 REASONABLENESS

2.1 Reasonableness. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions, general economic conditions, and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including the following:

(a) Whether it is the type of price generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the Offeror’s business or of the contract performance

(b) Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.; and

(c) Any significant deviations from the Offeror’s established practices.

2.2 Completeness and Accuracy

(a) The Government will review the cost tables for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the price tables. Offerors proposals will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1) Checking arithmetic in all computations; and

2) Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly.

(b) Options. This effort incorporates four 12-month options in accordance with FAR 52.217-9 – Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. In addition, this effort incorporates a one 6 month option in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. In addition, Option in accordance with 52.217-8 will be evaluated based on the price of the final option period and divided by two.

2.3 Basis of Award

(a) The Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of Technical

Capability; Curriculum Development; Management Approach; Past Performance; and Price as described above.

The Government will employ a “Technical/price” Trade-off analysis of non-price and price factors in evaluating the proposals submitted.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

for

Joint Non-Lethal Professional Military Education (PME) Elective Course Support and

Non-Lethal Education an d Outreach

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Under Secretary of Defense fo r Acquisition Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L) directed the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) serve as the Executive Agent for the Department of Defense (DoD) Non-Lethal Weapons Program (NLWP). The NLWP supports the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Services and Combatant Commanders in non-lethal requirements identification; policy and capability development; strategic communication, education and awareness; and all other matters related to non-lethal weapons. The CMC established the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) with the responsibility to serve as the DoD focal point for all non-lethal (NL) matters. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) is directly managed by the JNLWD.

The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNWLD) requires Non-Lethal instruction services at Department of Defense Professional Military Education venues, Non-Lethal strategic education outreach events, and optional, education related tasks.

The JNLWP facilitates meeting the current and future non-lethal force application and force protection needs of warfighters across the spectrum of operations through identification and understanding of current and projected operational requirements and capability gaps; identifying and developing technologies into operationally suitable and effective less-lethal solutions that are cost effective; facilitating acquisition and fielding of less-lethal capabilities; and advancing Non-Lethal Weapon (NLW) awareness through strategic communications and education.

Historically, the JNLWD has sponsored a Non-Lethal Weapons Joint Professional Military Education (NLW JPME) elective course which was created on behalf of the JNLWP. This elective course has traditionally been offered at Intermediate and Senior Service Colleges, such as the Marine Corps Command & Staff College, the National Defense University, the Air War College, and the Army War College. Each Professional Military Education venue has different elective protocols and criteria. The Contractor shall have a thorough knowledge of each venue's academic requirements and schedules as well as establish and maintain a professional association with each faculty.

The course curriculum also includes a NLW familiarization firing (range event), description of the capabilities and limitations of NLWs across the spectrum of conflict and applicability of NLWs in escalation or continuum of force.

The course shall provide each student with a better understanding of the applicability of NLWs in an operational environment, as well as, considerations to be made during operational planning.

2.0 SCOPE

The scope for this effort shall provide f o r all resources, equipment, supplies, facilities, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the technical and analytical support services in support of the JPME Non-Lethal elective course as defined in this PWS except for any items specified as government furnished property.

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e G o v e r n m e n t w i l l provide a legal representative who will provide a two hour seminar on legal implications and treaty implications of non-lethal weapons for all classes. Coordination between government and contractor wi l l b e r e q u i r e d to schedule this instruction.

3.0 REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall provide and present a Non-Lethal Weapons "elective" course.