EIAS_Amendment_0002_RFP_M67854-15-R-4802-0002.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) update Section 5 - Corporate Experience under Addendum1 to Eval Plan; and

2) provide an updated list of Industry Q&As.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Jun-2015

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 M67854-15-R-4802

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-2015

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

09-Jun-2015

CODE

COMMANDER MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

ATTN: KATHY A. MARKLEY

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134-6050

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M67854-15-R-4802

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Purpose.

These instructions prescribe the requirements for proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation of proposals. Offerors are cautioned to follow the instructions carefully. It is an Offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which demonstrates its clear understanding of, and compliance with, the solicitation requirements. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government's evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood" without a supporting narrative to define compliance are not acceptable. Further, a proposal that merely "parrots back" the requirements of the solicitation, but fails to provide the required approach to meeting the solicitation's requirements is not acceptable.

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

SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS. THIS

INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, PROVIDING COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE

SECTIONS IN ALL VOLUMES.

Proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days from date of submission.

2. Requests for Clarification (RFCs) and Intent to Bid

a. All RFCs are due by 10:00 A.M. (local time, Quantico, VA) on 20 May 2015. 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 2007 format and/or PDF) to Kathy Markley at MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL with a subject line of EIAS M67854-15-R-4802 RFCs.

b. Electronic submission of requests is the only acceptable method of submission. The Government will not provide any information concerning requests for clarifications 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 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. (local time, Quantico, VA) on the next business day following issuance of the first set of RFC responses, an email notification of your intent to bid. Additionally, please provide your CAGE code, DUNS number, Tax Identification Number (TIN), and EFT information and point of contact information including name, phone number, street address, and email address. Notice of Intent to bid should be sent via email to Kathy Markley at MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL with a subject line of:

EIAS M67854-15-R-4802 Intent to bid.

3. Proposal Format and Submission:

Proposals shall be sent via email (Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF) to Kathy Markley at

MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL. Proposals are due by 10:00 A.M. (local time, Quantico, VA) on 22 June

2015. Any email received after the submission day and time will be considered a "late submission."

The Government reserves the right to reject any late submission. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide submissions with enough time to confirm receipt in the event that the Government server blocks or strips an email.

a) Pages:

i. The definition of a page is a single side of paper with text, drawings, data, or similar content. Pages shall be 8.5 by 11 inches in size.

ii. Page and Line Numbering. The Offeror shall use a standard page and line numbering system to facilitate proposal references. Number consecutive pages within sections. 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 volumes.

iii. Page Limitations. Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal, as described in Para 3. below, and will be treated as maximums.

Excess pages that exceed stated page limitations will not be read or considered in evaluation of the proposal. Included in the page count are separate pages providing graphics, charts, illustrations and pictures. Page limitations will be checked. Any Volume/Section violating limitations will be removed and will not be considered in the evaluation.

b) Margins and Fonts: The text margins shall be no less than one inch. Text font shall be in mailto:MCSC_ISI@USMC.MIL

Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, no smaller than 11 point. Font for tables, figures, and other graphics shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman or Arial. All material submitted may be single-spaced.

c) Email attachments: Offerors SHALL NOT include any .zip files. MCSC cannot accept

.zip files. Any email over 6MB needs to be split into separate emails due to size limitations of the MCSC inbox. All attached documents requested herein shall be compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF. Any graphics files embedded within the

MS documents shall be provided in *.jpg in order to minimize memory storage requirements for electronic files. Landscape pages shall face right. The font size for text contained in embedded graphics (tables and illustrations) shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New

Roman or Arial Narrow font. All Attachments will be counted against page limitations when applicable.

4. Instructions for Content:

Confine all information pertaining to each indicated topic to the appropriate volume and section. No cost or pricing information of any kind shall be included in the Technical Volume.

Offerors shall prepare and provide 4 volumes:

a) Volume 1- Technical Volume consisting of five Sections:

i) Section One - Within a 1 page limitation, provide statements as follows:

In submitting this proposal, we ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND, AND

SHALL PERFORM, when directed, the following PWS requirements in accordance with Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 2 QASP of the Base ID/IQ contract, and as directed in any Task Order specific attachments:

PWS Sections 3.1 - 3.6

PWS Sections 4.1

PWS Sections 4.2.1.1 – 4.2.1.9, 4.2.13 – 4.2.1.17

PWS Sections 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3

PWS Sections 4.2.3 – 4.2.5

PWS Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.3.5

PWS Sections 4.3.7 – 4.3.10

PWS Section 4.3.13.2

PWS Sections 4.3.14.1 – 4.3.14.3

PWS Sections 4.3.14-5 – 4.3.18

PWS Section 5

PWS Section 6

PWS Section 7

In submitting this proposal, we ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND, AND

WILL ASSIGN personnel to the IA requirements that have an active Secret level clearance, or will be able to achieve one within 30 days of the beginning of the period of performance in accordance with Attachment 1 PWS of the Base ID/IQ contract, and as directed in any Task Order sepcific attachment:

PWS Section 4.3

ii) Section Two - Within a 35 page limit, provide a technical approach in accordance with Exhibit C and D (Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS) which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the table of critical items in Figure 1 below. Again, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government's evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood" without supporting narrative to define compliance are not acceptable. Further, a proposal that merely "parrots back" the requirements of the solicitation, but fails to provide the required approach to meet the solicitation's requirements is not acceptable.

Figure 1: Critical Items

Critical Items PWS Reference

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Program and Protection Plan (PPP). 4.2.1.10

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Program and Protection Plan (PPP). 4.2.1.10

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Programmatic Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PHESHE). 4.2.1.11

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Programmatic Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PHESHE). 4.2.1.11

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Engineering input into the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). 4.2.1.12

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Engineering input into the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). 4.2.1.12

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to update existing DoDAF architectural artifacts and documents based on approved ECPs. 4.2.2.2

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Information Support Plan (ISP)/Tailored ISP/eISP. 4.2.2.4.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Information Support Plan (ISP)/Tailored ISP/eISP. 4.2.2.4.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). 4.2.2.4.2

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). 4.2.2.4.2

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Department of Navy (DON) Enterprise Architecture Compliance Confirmation and Waiver Request. 4.2.2.4.3

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain Department of Navy (DON) Enterprise Architecture Compliance Confirmation and Waiver Request. 4.2.2.4.3

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability (ACART), or government equivalent tool. 4.2.2.4.4

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability (ACART), or government equivalent tool. 4.2.2.4.4

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to develop the Department of Defense (DoD) Information Technology Portfolio Repository - DON (DITPR-DON). 4.2.2.4.5

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to maintain the Department of Defense (DoD) Information Technology Portfolio Repository - DON (DITPR-DON). 4.2.2.4.5

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to confirm that IA policies and procedures are being followed during SI system development, operation, and maintenance activities during each quarterly release cycle. 4.3.3

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to review and provide feedback regarding SI security architectures, network diagrams, ports, protocols, data flows, and accreditation boundaries for IA compliance as needed. 4.3.6

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to prepare an Information Assurance Strategy (IAS) per TFITS project in support of Clinger Cohen Act (CCA) requirements. 4.3.11 requirement to prepare Program Protection Plans (PPP). 4.3.12 requirement to prepare the TFITS Project for IV&V test events via IA documentation update. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to prepare the TFITS Project for IV&V test events via pre-assessment support. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to prepare the TFITS Project for IV&V test events via self-assessment result evaluation. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to prepare the TFITS Project for IV&V test events via Plan of Action & Milestone (POA&M) review and maintenance. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to verify vulnerability scans are performed in preparation for IV&V. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to verify Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) are performed in preparation for IV&V. 4.3.13.1

The offeror's approach successfully demonstrates and meets the requirement to track the progress of accreditation packages throughout the C&A process. 4.3.14.4

iii) Section Three - No Page Limit. The Offeror shall submit a breakdown of the level of effort necessary to complete the ENTIRE Task Order (i.e. all requirements denoted in the Exhibit C and D Task Order Matrix and Task Order

PWS, not just the critical items in the table above). The level of effort breakdown shall consist of each individual labor category, as well as the hours to be performed by each identified labor category in performance of the requirements, necessary to complete the requirements identified for each SLIN

(e.g. 0004AA, 0004AB, etc.). To assist Offerors, the Government has provided

Exhibit E, Task Order Historical Level of Effort. If there are no SLINs, Offerors shall provide the breakdown at the CLIN level (e.g. 0001, 0002). Please see the

Example Table 1 provided below.

iv) Section Four - No Page Limit. Provide a Cross reference matrix for Section Two of the technical proposal that specifically maps requirements of the solicitation to page and line number(s) of the proposal.

EXAMPLE Table 1: Table to be submitted under Section three of the Technical Volume:

SLIN 0004AA Labor category

Description Hours

Program Manager 10

Financial Analyst 25

Subject Matter Expert 500

Logistician 25

Administrative Assistant

(Sub A) 15

Administrative Assistant

(Sub B) 15

SLIN 0004AB

Program Manager 10

Subject Matter Expert 500

v) Section Five – Corporate Experience. Within a 15 page limit, The Offeror shall describe its qualifications and detail its specific experience conducting work of the same and/or similar nature to that described in the RFP and Exhibit D, Task

Order PWS. In its narrative, the Offeror shall describe its qualifications including its:

A. Experience with providing SI work encompassing the integration and management of at least three (3) IT systems simultaneously within the same contract;

B. Experience with at least three or more of the following Engineering disciplines:

Systems Engineering, Configuration Management, System, Test and Evaluation, DoD Architecture Framework; and

C. Experience with at least three or more of the following Information

Assurance disciplines:

Certification and Accreditation, Vulnerability Testing, Independent Verification and Validation, Federal Information Security Management Act.

When providing the above information, the Offeror shall clearly demonstrate the correlation between the identified capability and corporate experience and the specific PWS functional areas to which such capability/experience applies.

Provide at least three, but no more than five, examples of corporate experience information for active or completed “relevant/recent” (within the last 5 years) contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts that are directly related to the services identified in RFP and Exhibit D. For this section, while the Offeror may provide corporate experience examples from team members or major subcontractors

(defined as those responsible for at least 10% of the work), at least two (2) of the corporate experience examples provided must be for the prime Offeror (as opposed to team members/major subcontractors). For each example, the Offeror shall:

A. Provide the project’s value, contract type, and start and completion dates;

B. Provide a project description;

C. Identify the prime or core team member that performed the work;

D. Describe any creative solutions or innovations used to achieve or exceed customer objectives;

E. Describe the applicable prime/team member/major subcontractor’s role in the project and the challenges and lessons learned from the

Offeror’s experience as the prime, team member, or subcontractor;

F. Describe the integration of resources into the customer’s environment; and

G. Describe any other aspects of the project to demonstrate its relevance to supporting the Offeror’s ability to be a successful.

b) Volume 2- Past Performance Volume consisting of two Sections:

i) Section One - Recent and Relevant Past Performance. Within a 15 page limit, using the format in Exhibit B, identify at least three (3) but no more than five (5) recent and relevant contract efforts. "Relevant" is defined as efforts worth at least $2 million/year, with similar size, scope and complexity representative of ability to deliver Program Management, Logistics, and Administrative Support. "Recent" is defined as work having been performed within the past 5 years.

Within the attachment, describe the significant achievements, challenges or obstacles that were encountered during contract performance and the measures taken to overcome them. This form shall be used for evaluation of relevant Past Performance.

The identified contracts can be with Federal, commercial or other customers. These previous contracting efforts may be from should be for work done by the prime, major subcontractors, and teaming partners. Major subcontractors are defined as planned on performing more than 10% of the work under the consolidated contract.

For each contract effort, identify the Program Manager (PM) and the Contracting

Officer Representative (COR). Provide the current address, phone number, and email address for each customer Point of Contact (POC).

ii) Section Two - Customer Assessments. One Page Limit per customer assessment- The

Offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire, (Exhibit B to the

RFP), to each of the customer POCs for their respective identified past performance efforts. In order to expedite the assessment process, the Offeror may complete Section II, General Information, of the Past Performance

Questionnaire for the convenience of the customer POC. The Offeror shall not, however, complete any other section of the Past Performance Questionnaire. The questionnaire shall be provided to the customer POC with instructions to complete and submit directly to the MCSC Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date. Electronic submission is preferred; however, hardcopy mail or fax will be accepted. The Offeror shall submit with its proposal a list of the customer POCs (with contact information to include phone number and email address) that received a Past Performance Questionnaire.

Should any of the efforts identified be registered in CPARS, the contractor may notify the Government, and the Government will utilize the CPARS report in place of the Questionnaire.

c) Volume 3- Pricing Volume consisting of three sections:

i) Section One - No Page Limit. The Offeror shall provide a spreadsheet consisting of the following:

A. one fixed hourly burdened rate for each individual labor category necessary to complete the requirements identified in the Task Order for each SLIN (e.g. 0004AA, 0004AB, etc.). If there are no SLINs, Offerors shall provide at the CLIN level (e.g. 0001, 0002). Offerors shall also provide the labor categories, rates and hours for subcontractors as separate lines within the table.;

B. the hours to be performed by each identified labor category in performance of the requirements;

C. the overall price per labor category; and

D. the TOTAL price per SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs, see Example Table 2 below).

ii) Section Two - No Page Limit The Offeror shall provide a spreadsheet for any Other

Direct Costs (ODCs) or travel necessary for the successful completion of the task order as follows.

A. Tab 1- A summary tab, which sums the overall ODC total and overall

Travel total.

B. Tab 2- ODCs tab. ODCs include those costs necessary for the direct support of this contract, but not included in the cost/price of another item. ODCs do not include costs necessary to support this contract in the normal course of business (i.e. allocated to overhead). The Offeror (if proposing ODCs) shall provide an individually priced list of all ODCs to include price per item, quantity of item, and total price for each SLIN (or

CLIN if no SLINs). The Offeror shall then calculate one overall total of

ODCs which consists of the individual totals for all SLINs/CLINs.

C. Tab 3- Travel tab. Travel costs (if necessary) shall be proposed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations as limited by the

Joint Travel regulations and the following: (1) where official company travel can reasonably be planned in advance so as to take advantage of available discounted standard or coach airfares; (2) travel to and from work, shall not be reimbursed hereunder; and (3) the Offeror shall establish a primary place of performance in regards to any travel necessary to support the contract. The Offeror (if proposing Travel) shall provide (on a separate tab) total price for travel for each SLIN and the breakdown per SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs), of Travel to include departure and arrival locations, number of travelers, duration of trip, itemized transportation cost (i.e. airfare, luggage, rental car, POV, gas), hotel expenses, and any other projected expense. The Offeror shall then calculate one overall total of Travel which consists of the individual totals for all SLINs/CLINs.

iii) Section Three – No Page Limit. As an ID/IQ will be awarded as a result of this solicitation, Services within the scope can/will be required at a later date on an

“as needed” basis. The Government intends to utilize the proposed fixed hourly burdened rates and individual labor categories for all other task orders awarded under the ID/IQ. Therefore, the offeror shall provide a table of ALL labor categories and fully burdened rates utilized in the tables submitted under Section

1 of Volume III (please see Example Table 3 below). This table will be incorporated into the base contract as Attachment 3.

In addition, as a supplement to the table, the Offeror shall provide a corresponding labor category definition of each labor category listed to include

Knowledge Skills and Abilities, years of experience, training, and education.

The rates in Attachment 3 will then be utilized, with their corresponding labor category as a ceiling price rates for all TOs. Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods, and ARE NOT subject to any escalation through the course of the ordering periods. This is to ensure contractors cannot

“buy-in” during the first year of performance. The Government WILL

NOT consider allowing the contractor to include escalation in its pricing submission.

EXAMPLE Table 2: Table to be submitted under Section one of the Pricing Volume:

SLIN

0004AA

Labor category

Description Hours

Fixed

Burdened

Labor

Rate Price

Overall

Price for

SLIN (or

CLIN if no

SLIN)

Program Manager 10 $250.00 $2,500

Financial Analyst 25 $190.00 $4,750

Subject Matter Expert 500 $125.00 $62,500

Logistician 25 $125.00 $3,125

Administrative Assistant

(Sub A) 15 $115.00 $1,725

Administrative Assistant

(Sub B) 15 $115.00 $1,725

$76,325

*The Labor categories, rates, and hours provided above are purely for example purposes only and do not reflect any solution or insight other than for table formatting purposes.

**Total taken from backup spreadsheets completed. Backup spreadsheets not shown here.

i. Any/all formulas shall remain intact in Spreadsheets.

ii. All dollar amounts should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

EXAMPLE Table 3: Table to be submitted under Section three of the Pricing Volume

Labor category

Description

Fixed

Burdened

Labor

Rate

Program Manager $250.00

Financial Analyst $190.00

Subject Matter Expert $125.00

Logistician $125.00

Administrative Assistant

(Sub A)

$115.00

Administrative Assistant

(Sub B)

$115.00

Etc…

d) Volume 4- Model Contract/Representations & Certifications consisting of three Sections.

i) Section One - No Page Limit. The purpose of this Section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. Failure to provide all portions will result in rejection of the proposal without evaluation.

This includes:

A. The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Base ID/IQ

SF1449, completed (blocks 17 and 30) and with any/all Amendments acknowledged.

B. Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements. (Note: Offerors must also comply with the System for

Award Management (SAM) requirements of FAR 52.204-7).

C. Statement of the period for which the proposal is valid (not less than 90 calendar days).

D. Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

E. Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually.

F. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable

Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; Commercial Activity and Government Entity (CAGE) code; Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) code; and size of business (large or small). Provide the same information for your major subcontractors (anticipated over $2,500,000 over a 4.5 year ordering period).

G. Organizational Financial Information. Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s), which will perform the contract. Multiple years of financial statements are not required or requested. Include any information which may have a bearing on your ability to handle the financial management of the contract. If you are proposing a joint venture, describe how you will handle financial matters.

ii) Section Two - Compensation Plan. 15 Page limit. The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth:

A. proposed salaries (i.e. non burdened hourly rates) for each of the labor categories proposed within the pricing volume;

B. fringe benefits provided in both an hourly rate as well as an itemized list of benefits;

C. fully burdened hourly rates (these should match exactly the burdened rated provided in Volume III);

D. supporting documentation of sufficient compensation, to include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public, and private organizations used in establishing the total compensation structure.

iii) Section Three - Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and VETS 100 Pre-award

Clearance Information. No Page Limit. To expedite the Government’s EEO pre-award clearance request process, the prime contractor shall include a list of all proposed subcontractors with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $10 million or more, to include the following information: Name, address, individual’s name/point of contact, and telephone number. The Government plans to request EEO clearances early in the evaluation process to avoid possible delays in making contract awards (page limit not applicable).

In addition, Offerors shall submit a copy of the confirmation of receipt notification (e-mail) for verification of successful submission of VETS 100 report for the prime contractor and any subcontractor with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $100,000 or more. If a contractor, for any reason, cannot produce a confirmation notification then they may contact the VETS-100

Service Center to request a verification search to be performed.

Phone: (866) 237-0275

Email: VETS100-customersupport@dol.gov

*Please note that to perform a verification search the VETS-100 Service Center will need one or a combination of the following information. Having all of the requested data elements will provide for a more detailed search.

Company Name

Company Address

Employer Identification Number (EIN)

DUNS Number

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government intends to make award to the offeror that results in the lowest total price and is technically acceptable to the Government. Technically Acceptable will be evaluated in terms of

Compensation Plan, Technical Approach, and Past Performance.

Upon proposal Submission, the Government will perform an initial review to:

1) ensure the proposal substantially conforms with the preparation instructions; and

2) evaluate the compensation plan as Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with FAR

52.222-46. An Acceptable Plan provides compensation levels that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed and indicates the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives and to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

mailto:VETS100-customersupport@dol.gov

Offerors whose proposals do not substantially conform with the preparation instructions or provide an Unacceptable Compensation Plan will be rejected and not be able to be reviewed for

Technical Approach and Past Performance.

Applicable to Compensation Plan

Compensation Plan

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly provides compensation levels that a demonstrate a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly provide compensation levels that a demonstrate a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Next, the Government will create a table of offerors listed in descending order of price, lowest to highest, whose proposals substantially conformed to the preparation instructions and also provided an Acceptable

Compensation Plan. Price will be calculated by adding up the total Task Order price for each SLIN (or

CLIN if no SLINs) and ODCs/Travel.

Next, only the lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for Technical Approach and Past Performance:

i) Technical Approach: The Technical approach shall be evaluated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Acceptable or Unacceptable will be established on evidence provided by the Offeror in its response to this solicitation for the requirements listed in the Technical Volume, paragraphs 4.a)i) through and

4.a)v). The Source Selection Team will denote the offeror’s demonstration of meeting a requirement on a Yes/No basis (see Exhibit A to the RFP, Evaluation

Criteria Checklist). Should any one requirement not be met, the entire proposal will be Technically Unacceptable. Offerors are cautioned that proposals may be considered Technically Unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or failure to address all evaluated areas.

Applicable to Technical Approach:

Technical Approach

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation.

ii) Past Performance: The Government will evaluate Past Performance as Acceptable, Unacceptable or Neutral based on the Offeror’s proposed recent performance record on relevant programs and the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable or Unacceptable will be established via Contractor Past Performance proposed, and Contractor Performance Assessment reporting System

(CPARS)/Past Performance Questionnaires. If there is insufficient evidence that the Offeror was able to mitigate or resolve the issues described, then an unacceptable past performance rating may be assigned. As this is a set aside for

8(a) companies, prior to a past performance rating of Unacceptable being assigned, the Government will also contact the Small Business Administration for referral.

A Neutral rating will be assigned to Offerors with no recent and/or relevant Past

Performance.

The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

Applicable to Past Performance

Past Performance

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort in a

DoD environment.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort in a DoD environment.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance and for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the

Offeror shall be determined to have a neutral past performance rating.

If the lowest priced Offeror is found Unacceptable, the Government will then progress through the remaining offerors based on the next lowest-priced (one at a time) until an offeror is determined to be

Technically Acceptable.

While the Government intends to award without discussions, it reserves the right to conduct discussions should the Contracting Officer deem it necessary.

Once an Offeror is found to be Technically Acceptable, no other Offeror priced higher will be reviewed.

(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 Addendum 1 to Evaluation Plan)

(End of Summary of Changes)