M67854-14-R-4950_E-LMR_WRI_Amendment_3_RFP.pdf

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 amendment is to:

(1) Extend the proposal due date until 09:00 am EST 16 May 2014.

(2) Incorporated an updated Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(3) Incorporated Government response to all Request for Clarifications (RFCs).

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 19

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-May-2014

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 M67854-14-R-4950

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Mar-2014

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 X is extended, 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

05-May-2014

CODE

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND, CTQ

ATTN: TOMMY KING

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134-5050

M67854 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M67854-14-R-4950

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENTS:

(1) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

(2) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

(3) Department of Defense Contract Security Classification specification (DD254)

(4) System Design Specification (SDS)*

(5) Price Summary

(6) GPAT Template

(7) Government Furnished Information (GFI) listed in Section 8.1 of the PWS (EMC2 installation surveys reports;

U.S. Navy lease agreements; Communication Infrastructure Analysis Methodology Report; Estimated Quantities of SUs; DoDAF products; and any existing drawings)*

(8) Incorporated Government response to Request for Clarifications (RFCs) posted to FedBizOpps.Gov 24 April

(9) Incorporated Government response to Request for Clarifications (RFCs) posted to FedBizOpps.Gov 5 May 2014

* The SDS - Attachment (4) and the GFI listed in Section 8.1 of the PWS - Attachment (7) are available via request.

Please send request via e-mail to Tommy King or Sandra Driver at MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL, with the subject line:

M67854-14-R-4950 Request for SDS/GFI.

An updated PWS, Attachment (1) hereby replaces the PWS provided with the initial RFP.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

ATTACHMENT 1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2008)

52.212-1 Addendum INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PROPOSAL THAT DOES NOT

SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS.

Proposals shall be valid for a period of (120) one hundred twenty days from date of submission.

The Government intends to award a multiple award IDIQ contract resulting from this RFP. The principal objective of the source selection process is to conduct an impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of each offeror's proposal and select the offeror(s) who best meets the Government's needs, as defined in the solicitation. Awards will be made to the offeror(s) that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines to be the most advantageous to the Government representing the best value, technical capability, past performance, price, and other factors considered.

Requests for Clarification (RFCs)

(a) All RFCs are due by 10:00 A.M. (EDT) on March 31, 2014. Please use a table format for your comments similar to Table 1.

Table 1. Example RFC format.

Comment Number

Solicitation Section

Document/Page/Paragraph/Line Number Comment/Question

Information shall be sent via email (Microsoft (MS) Office 2003 or newer compatible format) to Tommy King or Sandra Driver at MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL.

(b) Electronic submission of requests for clarification is the only acceptable method of submission. The Government will not provide any information concerning requests for clarification in response to telephone calls, written, or faxed copies from Offerors.

(c) Should any RFC 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 RFC cites an issue of significant importance, the Government may provide written responses to all Offerors via FEDBIZOPS.

Intent to Submit Proposal Notification

Please provide by 10:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the next business day following issuance of the RFC responses, an email notification of your intent to bid. Additionally, please provide your Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, Tax Identification Number (TIN), and Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) information and point of contact (POC) information including name, phone number, street address and email address.

Submission of Proposals Proposals are due by 09:00 A.M. (EDT) on May 16, 2014. Offerors shall prominently mark all containers used for delivery of proposals with the following statement:

“REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – SOLICITATION M67854-14-R-4950”

For FEDEX, UPS, etc:

Marine Corps Systems Command – M67854 2200 Lester Street Quantico, VA 22134 Attn: Tommy King or Sandra Driver, PMM-110, Code 2.4

(703) 784-6720 or 6719

For Hand Delivery:

Marine Corps Systems Command – M67854 1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101 Stafford, VA 22554 Attn: Tommy King or Sandra Driver, PMM-110, Code 2.4

(703) 784-6720 or 6719

For those proposals being hand delivered to the above address, the following additional instructions apply: Notify the Contract Specialist by email that you intend to deliver the proposal and an approximate time for delivery to ensure someone is available to receive it. When arriving at the front of the building, please call Tommy King at

(703) 784-6720 or Sandra Driver at (703) 784-6719. The Contracting Officer or representative will arrive in the lobby to receive the proposal and issue a receipt.

Content and Organization of Proposals

(a) To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of six (6) separate parts; Part I - Technical Approach, Part II - Management Approach, Part III–Sustainment Approach, Part IV-Past Performance Information, Part V - Price Proposal and Part VI - Contractual Documents.

(b) Proposals shall be prepared using “Arial” or “Times New Roman” 11 point font. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font style not less than 8 point. Foldouts are allowed, Margins shall be 1 inch on all sides (excluding headers and footers). All material submitted may be single-spaced. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror and solicitation number in the header or footer.

(c) The Offeror shall structure its proposal into two volumes: a Technical Volume and a Price Volume, as detailed in Tables 2 and 3. Proposals not following this format will be considered unacceptable. Price information of any kind shall ONLY be included in the Price Volume.

(d) The Offeror shall submit eight (8) hard copies of the Technical Volume and one (1) hard copy of the Price Volume all in separate, appropriately sized three-ring binders. The Offeror shall submit two (2) electronic copies of the Technical Volume CD-ROM and two (2) electronic copies of the Price Volume CD-ROM using MS Office 2003 or newer suite of applications (with the exception of the required signed pages, in which PDF documents are acceptable) submitted on CD-ROM, formatted for a personal computer. Price breakdown will include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulae intact. Contractor WBS will be in pdf format. In the event that there is a conflict between the written hard copy of the proposal and the electronic copy of the proposal, the written copy will take precedence.

(e) The Offeror shall structure its proposal as described in the following tables. The Offeror shall insert its company’s name in the filename. Examples below are for the 'ABC Company.' The Offeror shall use a standard page and line numbering system to facilitate proposal references. The Offeror shall number consecutive pages within sections; partial pages are equivalent to a whole page for page count purposes. Charts, graphs and other insert materials shall be page numbered as part of the page numbering system. All lines of text shall be consecutively numbered within sections.

Table 2. Technical Volume

Part

Title Maximum Pages

File Naming Structure

ES Executive Summary 2 Pages ABC-ES.doc AL Acronym List No limit ABC-AL.doc I Technical Approach

Sect. 1

Technical Approach

25 Pages ABC-PartI- Sect1.doc

Sect. 2

Deliverable Items List

5 Pages ABC-PartI- Sect2.doc

Part

Title Maximum Pages

File Naming Structure

Sect. 3

Contract Work Breakdown Structure

No limit (foldouts allowed)

ABC-PartI- Sect3.doc

Sect. 4 Quality Assurance Program Plan

5 Pages ABC-PartI- Sect4.doc

Sect. 5 System Performance Verification Methodology

No limit ABC-PartI- Sect5.doc

II Management Approach

Management Approach

10 pages ABC-PartII-

Staffing Plan 1 page per person

ABC-PartII-

Sect. 3 Management of Subcontractor Personnel

5 Pages ABC-PartII-

III

Sustainment Approach

20 pages total for Part III, including Sections 1-7

Warranty ABC-PartIII-

Sustainment Plan ABC-PartIII-

Sect. 3 Sustainment Engineering and Logistics Assessment Report

ABC-PartIII-

Sect. 4 Sustainment Engineering Services

ABC-PartIII- Sect4.doc

Sect. 5

Maintenance ABC-PartIII- Sect5.doc

Sect. 6

Support ABC-PartIII- Sect6.doc

Sect. 7

Optional Extended Warranty ABC-PartIII- Sect7.doc

IV Past Performance Information

Recent and Relevant Past Performance Information

Required 3 past performances 1-page limit each

ABC-PartIV-

Table 3. Price Volume

Part Section Title Maximum

File Naming Structure

V Sect. 1 Price Proposal No limit ABC-PartV-Sect1.xls

VI Sect. 1 Signed SF1449 2 ABC-PartVI-Sect1.xls Sect. 2 Completed Representation &

Certifications – Commercial Items (If applicable)

No limit ABC-PartVI-Sect2.xls

Sect. 3 Subcontracting Plan/Commercial Plan (Large business)

No limit ABC-PartVI-Sect3.xls

Sect. 4 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d)

VPAT

No limit ABC-PartVI-Sect4.xls

The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

The Government will strictly adhere to the evaluation criteria contained in FAR 52.212-2 Addendum as part of this solicitation. Offerors are responsible for generating their best proposal efforts. Ensure each section of the proposal adequately contains all the information necessary for evaluation. Proposal parts shall address the following information:

Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content

Executive Summary. Provide an Executive Summary that describes the Offeror’s solution demonstrating a clear understanding of the Enterprise Land Mobile Radio (E-LMR) Western Region Infrastructure (WRI) Project and the objectives in the PWS.

Acronym List. Provide a list of all acronyms used in the proposal.

Part I: Technical Approach

The Offeror shall provide a sound Technical Approach, demonstrating appropriate use of corporate resources, providing a partnering approach with the Marine Corps for the E-LMR WRI effort.

Section 1. Technical Approach (General). The Response shall be detailed enough to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed based on the stated objectives.

(a) The Offeror shall provide a proposed schedule for delivery of E-LMR WRI systems to installations, outlined in Section 3.2.1 of the PWS.

(b) Risk Management. The Offeror shall submit a risk assessment for the Technical Approach. The analysis shall identify risk factors and include a recommendation to mitigate the impact of the identified risks.

(c) Ability to Execute. Describe how the proposed solution and approach supports the following:

1. The Offeror shall provide any available certifications (i.e. J/F-12, APCO P25 Compliance Assessment Program, Safety, EMI, and reliability predictions – MTBF etc.). The Offeror shall verify compliance with the Operational Readiness and Net Ready Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs) found in the SDS. These documents will not count against the page limitation in Table 1 and shall be included in the Technical Volume as appendices.

2. The Offeror shall fully define the Radio Frequency Sub-System (RFSS) and its sub-components in their proposed solution. Additionally the Offeror shall provide a specific definition and comprehensive description of a redundant, distributed RFSS configuration that will meet the system reliability and readiness requirements of the E-LMR (Slice) SDS (Ao of 99.9% T - 99.99% O).

3. The Offeror shall describe their ability of their solution to interoperate with current and past LMR technology from multiple original equipment manufacturers.

4. Training Strategy (PWS 3.7) - The Offeror shall describe how the training program will be provided and how its training approach supports the operation and preventive maintenance concepts of the proposed solution.

5. The Offeror shall demonstrate and explain the value of any additional elements that are incorporated into the program to improve supportability and reduce life-cycle cost.

6. The Offeror shall identify any ENERGY STAR qualified, FEMP designated, low standby power, and EPEAT registered products to be purchased and used under this contract.

Section 2. Deliverables List. Provide a comprehensive Deliverables List package tailored to the proposed solution for each installation.

Section 3. Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). Provide a CWBS in PDF format with appropriate level detail to provide the Government the ability to understand how the Offeror intends to manage the proposed effort with visibility of tasks, activities, schedule, and list of deliverables.

Section 4. Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). The Offeror shall prepare a QAPP to describe a holistic approach to quality for all aspects of the PWS objectives. Describe the strategy and methods the project will deploy to ensure the following:

(a) The project is being managed, developed, and deployed in a sound, reasonable way.

(b) The project's deliverables are of acceptable quality before they are delivered to the project's clients.

(c) Based on the Government’s requirements, the proposal shall describe the quality performance measures and metrics that will be used for the establishment and performance of the PWS objectives. Indicate where the “bar” is set for performance and the process for determining key measures and metrics. The proposal shall include the rationale for the selected measures and how the metrics represent a sound basis for task order performance.

(d) Describe the process for capturing, analyzing and reporting the quality performance measurements and metrics.

(e) Describe your approach to improving performance continuously, including identification of new and revised performance measures and metrics as well as corrective actions for substandard performance.

Section 5. System Performance Verification Methodology. The Offeror shall identify the methods by which system performance is verified to be in accordance with SDS requirements during the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and each Site Acceptance Test (SAT). One or more of the five verification methods in PWS Section 3.5 shall be selected for each applicable SDS requirement using a compliance matrix outline format as shown in PWS Table 3-8. Two matrices shall be provided; one for FAT and one for SAT.

Part II: Management Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a sound Management Approach, demonstrating appropriate use of corporate resources and providing coordination with the Marine Corps for the E-LMR WRI effort.

Section 1. Management Approach (General). The Offeror shall fully describe the overall management concept, organizational structure, and proposed interfaces with the Government that will be employed for this E-LMR WRI effort. The Offeror shall provide organization charts and its detailed approach that show the proposed management structure, teaming relationships, subcontractors and organizational elements. The Offeror shall provide detailed information concerning the various methods and/or techniques to be used in planning, scheduling, processing, controlling and completing the PWS tasks.

(a) Initial Staffing Plan. The Offeror shall provide an Initial Staffing Plan that identifies the number of personnel along with the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications proposed to complete the requirements of this effort.

(b) Project Management. The Offeror shall describe its approach for maintaining project schedule, operating within approved budgets, meeting project milestones, providing early notification of potential problems, utilizing management metrics to track progress and trends, providing deliverables on-time, and maintaining ongoing operations in an effective manner.

(c) Management Innovation. The Offeror shall describe any proposed management innovations that would result in project benefits, such as enhanced customer service, process improvements, accelerated schedules, cost reductions, and/or increased reliability. A summary of these features shall be provided in a table with their potential measurable and subjective benefits.

(d) Configuration Management. The Offeror shall provide its approach to comprehensive configuration and data management for contractor managed and Government managed items. The Offeror's approach to processing changes in a timely manner shall be included.

(e) Risk Management. The Offeror shall submit a risk assessment for the Management Approach. The analysis shall identify risk factors and include a recommendation to mitigate the impact of the identified risks.

Section 2. Key Personnel. At a minimum, the following billets shall be Key Personnel; the Offeror’s (1) Program Manager, (2) Information Assurance Manager, and (3) Delivery Location Site Manager(s).

The Government will evaluate, at a minimum, the billet description submitted with the proposal, of the proposed Key Personnel. The billet description will focus on qualifications intended for those key billets.

Section 3. Management of Subcontractor Personnel. The Offeror shall provide a description of the organizational structure of the team members (subcontractors), along with organizational charts, which identifies the size, scope and structure of the Offeror’s implementation/integration/operations organization. Include a description of the core capabilities provided by each of its teaming partners (subcontractors). The Plan shall illustrate the method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s). Large Business Offerors who have an already approved commercial subcontracting plan for small businesses shall provide the document for review. A Small Business Subcontracting plan is required from Large Business Offerors.

Part III: Sustainment Approach.

Section 1. Warranty

The Offeror shall describe how a warranty will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the

PWS. Section 2. Sustainment Plan

The Offeror shall provide a sustainment plan identifying the proposed Land Mobile Radio (LMR) operation and maintenance practices to ensure that the E-LMR WRI will meet the system reliability and readiness requirements of the E-LMR (Slice) SDS (Ao of 99.9% T - 99.99% O). The operations and maintenance practices shall address the following:

(a) Preventive and corrective maintenance events; and

(b) Operations and maintenance practice to ensure the most cost-effective support is performed on in-service systems. Additionally, the Offeror shall identify their staffing approach for personnel required to meet the system reliability and readiness requirements of the E-LMR (Slice) SDS.

Section 3. Sustainment Engineering and Logistics Assessment Report

The Offeror shall provide a detailed technical assessment of the proposed E-LMR system over its projected life-cycle in terms of technology obsolescence, product roadmaps, and anticipated development for all major components and accessories in the E-LMR system. The Offeror shall include a projection of industry trends and future developmental technologies that will overcome any identified end of life or obsolete equipment. The Offeror shall recommend alternatives that address issues of interoperability, technology insertion, integration, modernization and systems engineering necessary to implement these alternatives. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit a recommended course of action, cost estimates, and technical justification for consideration and approval of sustainment engineering actions.

Section 4. Sustainment Engineering Services

The Offeror shall describe how sustainment engineering services will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the PWS.

Section 5. Maintenance

The Offeror shall describe how maintenance will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the

PWS.

Section 6. Support The Offeror shall describe how support will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the PWS Section 3.9.6.

Section 7. Extended Warranty The Offeror shall describe how an extended warranty will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the PWS.

Part IV: Past Performance Information (PPI) Recent and Relevant Past Performance Information. The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. To demonstrate past performance, the Offeror shall identify a minimum of three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts performed for Federal, State, County, or Municipal agencies or commercial customers within the past five (5) years, and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation.

Relevant contracts include E-LMR system installation, service implementation and integration of three (3) or more of the proposed products.

Relevance is demonstrated by similarity in product base, prior subcontractor partnerships/teaming agreements, size, scope, complexity, and cost/price as it relates to the magnitude and complexity of the this requirement.

Ensure that accurate and concise information is provided for each reference including:

(a) Title of Contract, Contract Number, and Sponsoring Organization.

(b) Type of Contract, Contract Value, Award and Completion Date.

(c) Brief description of the services performed, problems identified and corrective action taken, awards/recognition received.

(d) Cure/Show Cause notices received, and reasons.

These previous contracting efforts shall be for work done by the prime and subcontractors. For each contract effort, identify the Program Manager (PM) and the Contracting Officer Representative. Provide the current address, phone number, and email address for each customer POC. The Government may use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror. Past performance information can be obtained from any other sources available to the Government. These sources may include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with PMs, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Part V: Price Proposal.

Pricing Information. The Offeror shall provide pricing information in Attachment 5, Price Summary. All CLINs shall be priced.

The Offeror shall include sufficient detail with the price proposal. An Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency between proposed performance, the technical proposal, identified personnel resources, and cost/price must be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature of these techniques and their impact on cost or price shall be explained; or, if a corporate policy decision has been made to absorb a portion of the estimated cost, that must be stated in the proposal.

Proposal backup shall include high-level labor manning, labor categories and hours, material and equipment cost. Price proposal shall be entered on the spreadsheet file, Attachment 5, readable in MS Office Excel format. Offerors shall not alter the format of the spreadsheets except that column(s) and row(s) may be widened or added as needed. The Offeror shall provide an individually-priced list of all hardware/software to include price per item, quantity of item, and total price, see Attachment 5 to RFP. The contracting officer must be able to determine that all aspects of the requirements have been considered in the proposal and that the price is justifiable for the work required (i.e., "reasonable").

Part VI: Contract Information.

Section 1. Completed and Signed SF 1449. The offeror shall include a completed SF1449, properly executed and signed by an official authorized to commit the offeror. The submission of all of the items in accordance with the instructions will, upon acceptance by the Government, contractually bind the Government and the Offeror to the terms and conditions of the model task order.

Section 2. Section K, Representations and Certifications. The Offeror shall submit properly executed Reps&Certs in accordance with the Clause 52.212-3, Section 3. Subcontracting/Commercial Plan (Large Businesses). A Subcontracting Plan must be submitted by all Large Business Offerors. Failure to submit a Plan may result in the Offeror’s proposal being UNACCEPTABLE.

Offerors may submit previously approved Commercial Plans, but the Government reserves the right to in accordance with DFARS 219.705-4 challenge any plan that doesn’t include positive goals. In addition, the offeror shall submit a Subcontracting/Commercial Plan including assurances that the Offeror will (1) submit the Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) and Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR) under the eSRS and (2) ensure that its subcontractors agree to submit ISPs and SSRs at all tiers in the eSRS.

Section 4. Section 508 Deliverable Requirements. The Government has determined Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) to be relevant to this requirement. Offerors shall provide as part of its proposal the Government Product/Service Accessibility Template (GPAT) at Attachment 6 to this RFP.

Offerors may use the GSA Buy Accessible Wizard at http://www.buyaccessible.gov/ to assist with preparation of the GPAT document.

http://www.buyaccessible.gov/

ATTACHMENT 2 - EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a 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:

See addendum below:

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Jan 1999) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Each Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best price and technical position. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later deemed necessary. Any Offeror that is rated “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” in any evaluation criterion will not be considered for contract award.

In order for a proposal to be considered acceptable under the terms of this RFP, the Offeror’s proposal MUST meet all Marine Corps Systems Command and PWS requirements. Unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient.

The Government may award to other than the lowest-priced Offeror or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to award one or more contracts to the most qualified Offeror(s) resulting from this RFP:

(a) Whose proposal is technically acceptable.

(b) Whose offer is deemed responsive to the solicitation requirement.

(c) Whose overall offer represents “Best Value” to the Government.

In making its “Trade Off” determination, the Government will consider all non-price factors, combined, to be of significantly greater importance than evaluated price.

Evaluation Areas and Factors

General. The Government will apply the following evaluation factors and elements to identify the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. The proposals will be evaluated against the Government’s requirements using five factors.

Technical Approach, Management Approach and Sustainment Approach are of equal importance, and are more important than Past Performance. Technical Approach, Management Approach, Sustainment Approach and Past Performance, when taken together are significantly more important than Price.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Sustainment Approach Factor 4 – Past Performance Information Factor 5 – Price Proposal (evaluated but not rated)

Procedures. The Price Volume will be evaluated separately from the Technical Volume, but not rated. An adjectival rating and risk assessment will be used to establish technical merit and performance risk for the Technical Volume, Management Volume and Sustainment Volume.

Adjectival Rating: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will use four (4) adjectival ratings of

Exceptional, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable for the Technical Approach, Management Approach and Sustainment Approach. The proposal rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation standards and the solicitation requirements.

Technical Approach, Management Approach and Sustainment Approach Ratings:

Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the RFP’s requirements through a qualitative assessment of a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, omissions and/or risks. The adjectival ratings listed below will be applied ONLY at the Factor level; they will NOT be applied at the element level. Note: Technical ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offeror received the same technical factor rating(s), the fact that the rating is the same does not indicate the proposals are technically equal or the same;

qualitative distinctions may exist even between proposals that receive the same factor rating(s).

Table 4, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach to and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach to and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet one or more requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach to and understanding of one or more requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet multiple requirements or contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions.

Strength (S): A proposal element that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, or provides an approach directly related to the requirement reasonably thought to exceed the minimum requirement.

Significant Strength (SS): A proposal element that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, or provides an approach directly related to the requirement reasonably thought to exceed the minimum requirement.

Weakness (W): A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness (SW): A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency (D): Material failure in a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Omission (O): Information requested in the RFP that was not provided in the proposal. An omission of requested data that renders the proposal impossible to evaluate may result in the proposal being deemed unacceptable. A minor data omission is not necessarily a deficiency.

Risk (R): A proposal element that has the potential to cause a disruption of schedule, an increase in cost, or a degradation of performance.

Past Performance Information: The Government will identify and assess the relevancy and recency of each of the Offeror’s Past Performance exemplars utilizing the following definitions:

Assessment Definition

Very Relevant/High

Present/past performance effort involved the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. This includes examples of integration of all products proposed for E-LMR, Federal IA requirements, integration with legacy equipment, multi-team/multi-site employments.

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

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

The Government will assign a single, overall Past Performance Confidence rating as defined below, based on an analysis of the relevance and the quality of the evaluated past performance information.

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.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown 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.

Source Selection Criteria – Basis for Award

Ratings: In the evaluation scheme described in this RFP, there are no sub-factors. Accordingly, ratings will be applied at the Factor Level as described below.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate whether the metrics proposed are acceptable, realistic, measureable, and provide an adequate qualitative or quantitative basis upon which to measure performance.

Section 1. Technical Approach (General). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach which includes all documents in Attachment 1- Instruction to Offerors to determine whether it fully addresses each of the Government’s stated PWS objectives, SDS requirements and provides a detailed, comprehensive, well-articulated, reasonable, understandable, feasible/realistic approach. Included in that evaluation is an assessment that the proposal can be implemented within the stated parameters (resources, schedule, and price) and that provides sufficient confidence that the initial design approach proposed and experience offered will meet the stated objectives.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed schedule for delivery of E-LMR WRI systems to installations, outlined in the PWS and their ability to deliver no later than 12 months from date of award.

(a) Risk Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's risk assessment for the Technical Approach.

The analysis includes all risk factors and the proposed mitigations.

(b) Training Strategy. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed training program and how well it supports the operation and maintenance concepts of the system.

(c) Supportability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed support plan to minimize the life-cycle cost and value of any additional elements that are incorporated.

(d) Energy Efficiency. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for use of energy efficient products as part of the proposed solution with an emphasis of the following areas:

1. Identification of all ENERGY STAR, FEMP designated, low standby power, and EPEAT registered products to be used and installed in the performance of this information technology contract; and

2. The Offeror’s proposed past performance experience with the use of ENERGY STAR, FEMP designated, low standby power, and EPEAT registered products in information technology.

3. Use of any other technology or design that further reduces the energy requirements or carbon footprint for the proposed solution.

(e) Interoperability with existing LMR. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed methods of integration with legacy equipment and how well it supports the operations, reliability, and maintenance concepts of the system.

Section 2. Deliverables List. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed comprehensive Deliverables List package tailored to the proposed solution for each installation.

Section 3. Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed CWBS in PDF format with appropriate level detailed to provide the ability to understand how the Offeror intends to manage the proposed effort with visibility of tasks, activities, schedule, and list of deliverables.

Section 4. Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed QAPP to describe a holistic approach to quality for all aspects of the PWS objectives. Which should describe the strategy and methods the project will deploy to ensure the following:

(a) The project is being managed, developed, and deployed in a sound, reasonable way.

(b) The project's deliverables are of acceptable quality before they are delivered to the project's clients.

(c) The proposals describe the quality performance measures and metrics that will be used for the establishment and performance of the PWS objectives. Indicate where the “bar” is set for performance and the process for determining key measures and metrics. As well as ensure proposal shall include the rationale for the selected measures and how the metrics represent a sound basis for task order performance.

(d) Offeror’s describe the process for capturing, analyzing and reporting the quality performance measurements and metrics.

Section 5. System Performance Verification Methodology. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed methods of verifying system performance to determine the degree to which proposed compliance matrix methods are valid and cost effective for FAT and SAT. Valid methods provide suitable metrics or evidence that a particular SDS requirement has been satisfied.

Factor 2 – Management Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Management Approach to determine the degree to which it presents a sound management approach; demonstrates appropriate and realistic use of corporate resources; describes a partnering approach with the Marine Corps for the effort; and provides personnel with the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications.

Section 1. Management Approach (General). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management concept, proposed organizational structure, and interfaces with the Government that will be employed for this E- LMR WRI effort. Along with the Offeror’s teaming and subcontractor arrangements will be evaluated. The Offeror’s organizational structure, identification of clear lines of authority, and rationale for approach to planning, controlling, and reporting contract activities will be evaluated. The Offeror's approach to efficiently and proactively managing the effort and proposed methods of providing Government visibility into work by the Offeror and its team members (if any) will be evaluated. The Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the need to provide quality products and perform the mission in an integrated, effective, and efficient manner across all team members and subcontractors will be evaluated. The Offeror’s approach and methods to fulfill the PWS, the activities that will be performed in the accomplishment of the PWS, and the methods and/or techniques used in planning, scheduling, processing, controlling and completing the PWS will be evaluated.

(a) Initial Staffing Plan. The Offeror’s approach to developing an Initial Staffing Plan that provides personnel with the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications to complete the requirements of this effort will be evaluated.

(b) Project Management. The Offeror’s approach for maintaining project schedule, operating within approved budgets, meeting project milestones, providing early notification of potential problems, utilizing management metrics to track progress and trends, providing deliverables on times, and maintaining ongoing operations will be evaluated.

(c) Management Innovation. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for any proposed management innovations that would result in project benefits, such as enhanced customer service, process improvements, accelerated schedules, cost reductions, and/or increased reliability.

(d) Configuration Management. The Offeror’s approach to performing configuration and data management processes will be evaluated. The Offeror's approach to processing changes in a timely manner will be evaluated.

(e) Risk Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's risk assessment for the Management Approach. The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s ability to identify risk factors and recommend mitigation efforts.

Section 2. Staffing Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing plan to ensure that they have identified their particular requirements and qualifications for the following positions: (1) Program Manager, (2) Information Assurance Manager, and (3) Delivery Location Site Manager(s). In each case, the proposed qualifications, experience, certifications (if any) and educational of each position shall be provided. Do not provide resumes for a specific individual.

Section 3. Management of Subcontractor Personnel. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of the organizational structure of the team members (subcontractors), along with organizational charts, which identifies the size, scope and structure of the Offeror’s implementation/integration/operations organization. To include their description of the core capabilities provided by each of its teaming partners (subcontractors). The Plan shall illustrate the method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s). Large Business Offerors who have an already approved commercial subcontracting plan for small businesses shall provide the document for review. A Small Business Subcontracting plan is required from Large Business Offerors.

Factor 3 –Sustainment Approach

Section 1. Warranty

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's warranty performance system that details a concise process and efficient procedures for handling warranty claims.

Section 2. Sustainment Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Sustainment Plan to identifying the proposed Land Mobile Radio (LMR) operation and maintenance practices to ensure that the E-LMR WRI will meet the system reliability and maintenance requirements of the E-LMR (Slice) SDS (Ao of 99.9% T - 99.99% O). The operations and maintenance practices shall address the following:

(a) Preventive and corrective maintenance events.

(b) Operations and maintenance practice to ensure the most cost-effective support is performed on in-service systems. Additionally, the Offeror shall identify their staffing approach for personnel required to meet the system reliability and readiness requirements of the E-LMR (Slice) SDS.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s sustainment plan to determine that E-LMR WRI components/subsystems are provided with required 3-year warranty. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s warranty approach to determine if the warranty approach is mature and covers workmanship, materials, design and all essential performance characteristics that would affect the E-LMR system.

(d) Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) metrics to ensure the most cost-effective and efficient means of assessing sustainment performance throughout the life of the contract.

Section 3. Sustainment Engineering and Logistics Assessment Report.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's detailed technical assessment of the proposed E-LMR system over its projected life-cycle in terms of technology obsolescence, product roadmaps, and anticipated development for all major components and accessories in the E-LMR system. Along with the Offeror’s shall projection of industry trends and future developmental technologies that will overcome any identified end of life or obsolete equipment, and recommend alternatives that address issues of interoperability, technology insertion, integration, modernization and systems engineering necessary to implement these alternatives.

Section 4. Sustainment Engineering Services.

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror's describe their approach to sustainment engineering services in accordance with the stated requirements in the PWS.

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed architecture/design and Sustainment Engineering and Logistics Assessment Report to determine contractor use of open systems architecture and other system/proposal features that facilitate system modernization due to technology insertion and obsolescence-related upgrades while maintaining safety, spectrum, interoperability and IA certifications.

Section 5. Maintenance

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror's describe how maintenance will be provided in accordance with the stated requirements in the PWS.

Section 6. Support

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror's describe how support will be…