M67854-15-R-9500-0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

List of Attachments

List of Exhibits

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L.1 General Information

L.1.1 Award Without Discussion

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. Proposals shall contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to request proposal revisions, if it is determined to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

L.1.2 Single Award

It is the Government’s intent to award one (1) contract. An Offeror will only be eligible to receive one (1) award and shall not submit more than one (1) proposal in response to this RFP.

L.1.3 Incorporation of Proposal into Contract

All or part of the successful Offeror’s management approach, technical approach and/or price proposal may be incorporated into any contract resulting from this solicitation. Nothing contained in the successful Offeror’s proposal shall constitute a waiver of any requirement of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful Offeror’s proposal and any portion of the contract, the conflict shall be resolved in favor of the contract.

L.2 Proposal Construct and Content

The proposal shall be submitted in the format and quantities set forth below. All information necessary for the review and evaluation of a proposal shall be contained in the proposal volumes set forth below. Section M of the RFP sets forth the evaluation criteria and delineates the factors to be evaluated. It is an Offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with detailed information which clearly demonstrates an understanding of and the ability to comply with the RFP requirements to allow for a meaningful evaluation.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be prepared/assembled in three principal volumes which shall contain substantive details to sufficiently describe how the Offeror will meet the PWS objectives and performance levels. Proposals shall be organized and formatted as follows:

Executive Summary – NTE 1 page Volume I Management– NTE 45 pages; Offeror will utilize Government-provided Staffing Plan template and Cross Reference Matrix (CRM); The Staffing Plan, CRM, and Employee Compensation Plan will not count toward total page limitation

Volume II Technical and Past Performance – NTE 60 pages including three (3), five (5) page past performance reference; Offeror will utilize Government-provided Cross Reference Matrix (CRM); The CRM and Subcontracting Plan that includes Small Business Participation will not count toward total page limitation

Volume III Cost/Price – No page limitation

Note: No cost/price information shall be contained within Volume I Management or Volume II Technical and Past Performance. Cost/price information shall only be contained in Volume III Cost/Price.

The Executive Summary, Volume I, and Volume II portions shall be provided in MS Word 2003 or newer (save using compatibility mode). Volume III shall be provided using MS Excel 2003 or newer. Electronic spreadsheet files (workbooks) shall include all formulas, functions, macros, computations and equations used to compute the proposed amounts. There shall be no cell references to data or links to files not included in Volume III Cost/Price. For each workbook, all rows, columns, cells, and worksheets shall be visible. Zero height/zero width rows/columns in worksheets are not acceptable. Worksheet cells formatted with the font color equal to the fill color are unacceptable. Print images or files pictures (for example, a picture of an Excel spreadsheet embedded in a Word document) or files containing only values are not acceptable.

Pages shall be 8.5” x 11”, with at least one (1) inch margins on all sides, using Times New Roman font with a 12 point size type or larger for all body text. The definition of a page is a single side of paper with text, drawings, data, or similar content. 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.

Text used in graphics/tables shall use Times New Roman font with a minimum of 8 point size type or larger; graphics/tables shall be able to be printed and copied in pure black and white. Fold out pages shall count as two (2) pages. Graphics/tables shall count towards page limitations. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Each page of the proposal shall be affixed with the following legend: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Only Government representatives will be performing evaluations of proposals.

Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal, as described above and will be treated as maximums. If exceeded, excess pages 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 utilizing the hard copies provided. Any Volume/Section violating limitations will be removed and any corresponding information within the CD ROM and any such information will not be considered in the evaluation.

Attempts to circumvent the intent of these limitations (condensed printing, oversize paper, extensive or unnecessary use of large foldouts, utilizing the incorrect volume to submit additional information, putting narrative information in table format in order to use a smaller font, or other similar actions) may result in removal of such material from the proposal and its exclusion from the evaluation.

The Offeror shall provide one (1) paper and six (6) electronic copies of its proposal on CD-ROM or DVD. The Offeror shall ensure that the Volume III Cost/Price is provided on a separate CD/DVD. Each CD-ROM or DVD shall be labeled so that it is easily identifiable for evaluation purposes (example Technical Volume, Set 1 of 3, CD 1 of X), and shall also include the Offeror's name and the RFP number. The electronic proposal copies and paper proposal copies shall be identical, if a conflict occurs the paper copy will take precedence. Electronic portions of proposals shall not be encrypted or password protected.

The Offeror shall submit two (2) separate Cross Reference Matrices (CRMs): one (1) CRM for the Management Volume and one (1) CRM for the Technical Volume, as provided in the Attachment in Section J. CRMs are integrated matrices and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The CRMs will be used for reference purposes only and any comments included on the CRMs will not be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRMs do not count against the proposal page limitations.

L.2.1 Submission Due Date

Proposals shall be received at the address set forth below no later than 1400 local time (Quantico, VA) on 29 July 2015. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal, in its entirety, reaches its intended destination before the date and time set for closing of the RFP. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP, shall be delivered sealed/unopened and addressed as follows:

Commander, MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN: PM ACSS/Nichole Wyche-Seawood

2200 Lester Street

Quantico, VA 22134

RFP Number: M67854-15-R-9500

Method of Submission. Proposal submissions may be hand-carried or delivered by United States Postal Service, FedEx, UPS or other commercial carrier. Offerors shall have the security officer on duty contact Nichole Wyche-Seawood for delivery. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to present a receipt for signature of hand-carried proposals (between the hours of 0700 and 1400, local time Quantico, VA) to Nichole Wyche-Seawood (Contracting Officer). Electronic mail or facsimile of proposals will not be accepted. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure delivery is confirmed by the submission due date and time specified herein.

Late Submissions. Any proposal, modification, or revision received at the Government office designated after the exact date and time specified for receipt of offers may be considered “late.” The Government will follow the procedures in FAR 15.208 should a proposal be received after the date and time specified for receipt of proposals.

Questions. Offerors shall provide all the information requested in Section L. All questions concerning the RFP shall be submitted to Nichole Wyche-Seawood at Nichole.Wycheseawood@usmc.mil. Government responses to questions may be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website as an amendment to the solicitation. Answered questions will not disclose the Offeror’s identity. Questions are due no later than 2:00 PM local time (Quantico, VA) on 15 June 2015. The Government may not consider questions received after that date and time. All questions shall be submitted via email with the subject line “M67854-15-R-9500 Questions.” No questions will be answered that are posed via telephone or fax.

L.2.2 Volume I - Management

The Offeror’s proposal shall describe the proposed management approach, demonstrating how the Offeror will obtain, retain, and train its staff. The Offeror’s proposal shall include the details to address the management approach to accomplish PWS Section 3 performance requirements. In addition, Offeror’s shall provide proof of VETS 100 compliance in accordance with FAR 52.222-35.

L.2.2.1 Factor 1: Management (PWS Section 3) – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its overall management approach to include transition, capture plan, workforce training, staffing plan, and quality assurance plan.

· Transition Plan – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its plan to transition work activities, within ninety days of contract award, in order to efficiently and effectively provide experienced and skilled resources and identify risks and mitigations to minimize disruption to ongoing TSO system sustainment and support activities (e.g, Software Release activities).

· Capture Plan – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how it intends to capture incumbent expertise that would enable successful accomplishment of the objectives and tasks at the required performance level identified in the PWS.

· Workforce Training, Skillset Certification Maintenance and Continuing Education– The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how it intends to sustain and/or improve the capabilities of the proposed workforce to maintain identified software and technology and implementation of potential future software and technology (e.g., either new software and technology or new iterations of existing software and technology).

· Staffing Plan – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its proposed staffing in sufficient detail in order to demonstrate an understanding for obtaining, retaining and maintaining a high-quality mix of experienced and skilled IT resources necessary to perform the work described in the PWS, Section 3.

· Quality Assurance Plan – The Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance Plan shall document its quality control processes and procedures, to include; how performance will be reviewed; detail the methodology for identifying deficiencies in the quality of service and how it will take corrective action; describe the methods that will be used for internal controls, customer service, and continuity of operations; and maintain files for quality control review documentation.

The Offeror shall submit an Employee Compensation Plan in accordance with the provisions of FAR 52.222-46(a)-(d). As stated in 52.222-46(a), Offerors shall “submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for their professional employees who will work under the contract.” Further, supporting information shall “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.” Offerors are advised to read the entirety of the Clause and ensure their proposals comply with the Clause’s requirements.

L.2.3 Volume II – Technical, Past Performance and Small Business Participation

L.2.3.1 Factor 2: Technical (PWS Section 3) - The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its technical approach and associated past experience to integrate successfully into the Government-Owned, Government-Operated, Contractor-Supported (GOGOCS) integrated product team (IPT) environment, while working within an engineering and software development best practices framework and accomplishing the work described in the PWS, Section 3.

· Operating in an GOGOCS IPT Environment– The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its ability to integrate staff into geographically separated, collaborative, multifunctional teams that provide design, development, production, and maintenance support for business systems identified in PWS Appendix A. The proposal shall describe the Offeror’s approach with respect to meeting quality of performance (for example compliance with requirements, accuracy of reporting, technical excellence/awards, meeting milestones, responsiveness to technical direction, deliverable completion, etc.), mitigating performance risks and maximizing process capabilities delineated in PWS Appendix C.

· Geographical Separation – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe and demonstrate its ability to coordinate and collaborate effectively while operating in multiple locations. The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly articulate an understanding of the key concepts of the GOGOCS IPT and how it will support virtual team formation in its development and delivery of products and services.

· Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) in Software and Systems Engineering – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its use of Agile and Waterfall SDLC and how it shall support sustaining the systems listed in PWS Section 1.2.1 and described in PWS Appendix A, as part of the GOGOCS IPT. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its ability to leverage the advantages (prioritization, planning, communication, documentation, and risk management) of both SDLC methodologies. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its ability to perform system engineering in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 3 as part of the GOGOCS IPT within the constraints identified in PWS Appendix C. Examples of how this support was provided on previous similar contracts may be provided to help illustrate the Offeror’s proposal.

· Innovative Solutions – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its capability to present cost-effective and innovative engineering, design, and project management solutions related to software and systems engineering and integration for mid-tier and mainframe platforms. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its ability to introduce new ideas, methodologies, processes, and technologies into the TSO software development, systems engineering, and technology support structure and services. The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate its practical approach to identifying and recommending new opportunities and relating previous successes.

· Capability Maturity Model Integration – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how it will apply CMMI principles to TSO GOGOCS IPT software development, systems engineering, maintenance, and operations. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe familiarity with and experiences in applying continuous process improvement in developing software and delivering products and services to its customers.

· Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Service Management Framework – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to delivering IT services as part of the GOGOCS IPT IAW PWS Appendix C. The Offeror’s approach description shall include considerations given to strategy, design, transition, operation, and continuous improvement of IT services within an ITIL framework.

· Compliancy – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to supporting TSO GOGOCS IPT Cybersecurity objectives while applying the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and the Federal Information Security Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM). The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate experience with supporting and providing security solutions that are acceptable, compliant with regulation and policy, and meet adequate security for federal information systems.

· Cybersecurity – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to enabling a cybersecurity posture that ensures the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data stored and processed on TSO GOGOCS IPT supported systems. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to implementing the standard Automated Information security controls as well as the structured set of privacy controls, based on best practices, in compliance with PWS Section 4 references and PWS Appendix C. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its ability to appropriately apply security concepts and principles expressed in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards, guidelines, and publications to meet the TSO mission objectives.

· Certification and Accreditation – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its understanding of DIACAP, as well as the DIACAP replacement Risk Management Framework (RMF), and its approach to applying RMF process (Categorize System, Select Security Controls, Implement Security Controls, Access Security Controls, Authorize System, and Monitor Security Controls) and an understanding of the DoDI 8510.01, NIST SP 800 - 37, 53, and 53A in supporting TSO GOGOCS IPT supported systems.

· Help Desk – The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach for providing Help Desk services. The Offeror shall describe its approach for combining Help Desk services for Defense Travel System (DTS), Marine Reserve Orders Writing System (MROWS) and Marine Online (MOL), including Travel Management support functions. Offeror’s proposal shall include how it intends to scale Help Desk services as demand increases.

L.2.3.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan

The Offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan that includes small business participation. The Offeror shall utilize the Navy's Small Business Subcontracting Goals IAW FAR 52.219-9. The Navy's Small Business Subcontracting Goals strive to provide a minimum of 36.7% of the total subcontracting dollars to small business concerns (see Table 1 below). Offerors identified as "other than small business concerns," as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541511, entitled Custom Computer Programming Services, size standard of $27.5M, shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Plan) in accordance with Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 252.219-7003 as part of the proposal submission. No Commercial Plans, as defined by FAR 19.701, will be accepted. The Offeror shall submit an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as defined by FAR 19.701, including assurances that the Offeror will (1) submit the Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR) and Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR) under eSRS biannually and (2) ensure that its major subcontractors also agree to submit ISRs and SSRs through eSRS biannually.

Table 1: Navy Small Business Subcontracting Goals

L.2.3.2 Factor 3: Past Performance – Offerors shall provide no more than three (3) references of past performance similar in size, scope, and/or complexity (as described in Table 2 below) which are currently being performed or were completed within the last 48 months as either a prime or subcontractor. The past performance references shall address the information included in the following Table 2. Each past performance reference shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Past performance references shall include at least one (1) from the prime.

The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire, Section J, Attachment 5, for each of the three past performance references submitted. Sections 1 through 4 are to be completed by the assessor. The assessor shall submit the Past Performance Questionnaires directly to Nichole Wyche-Seawood at Nichole.Wycheseawood@usmc.mil no later than the proposal due date and time specified in Section L.2. Past Performance Questionnaires do not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

The Government may contact references during the evaluation process to verify relevant experience and level of performance. The Government may, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror, such as:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in addition to all recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror

Past performance on contracts not submitted by the Offeror

Personal knowledge

Table 2: Offerors shall submit the past performance references containing the content and format as follows:

Name of Past Performance Effort

1.2 Name of Contracting Agency

1.3 Contract Number

1.4 Contract Type

1.5 Initial Contract Value

1.6 Total Contract Value

1.7 Period of Performance

1.8 List of Key Subcontracts and the Estimated Portion of Work Performed by subcontractors

1.9 Customer Point of Contact (POC)

1.10 Customer POC Phone

1.11 Address if any cure notices or show cause notices were received during performance.

Describe the Work Products and/or Services delivered to the customer under this past performance citation.

2.2 Demonstrate relevance of this past performance to TSO requirements in terms of:

Scope, Period of Performance, and Complexity.

2.3 Demonstrate the IT support services relevance by describing how the past performance demonstrates similarity to the TSO processes, constraints, operations, resource allocation, approach, methodologies, organization, and management requirements (i.e. PWS) in terms of experience with:

IT support services of similar work scope, scale and complexity (for example software design and analysis, programming, debugging, software testing, software installation, help desk support and management, document conversion, risk management, software process improvement, quality assurance, system operations support, project management, prototyping, development of system documentation, training, and the design, development, modification, conversion, technology infusion, and maintenance of systems and subsystems, etc.).

Cost Containment (how close to final contract price versus offered price?)

Cost Overruns (Identify reasons for cost overruns, if applicable)

Cost Control (Identify cost control strategies and methods).

L.2.3.2.1 Past Performance References:

The completed past performance reference is considered source selection information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that the telephone numbers provided for the customer’s point of contact included in each of the past performance references are accurate and that the representative is aware that he or she may be contacted by PM ACSS regarding the questionnaire and the Offeror’s past performance.

In accordance with FAR 15.306, in the event the Government enters into discussions, the Offeror will be given the opportunity to discuss adverse past performance information obtained if it has not previously responded through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or a similar system. However, the names of individuals providing the information shall not be disclosed.

L.2.4 Volume III – Cost/Price Proposal

L.2.4.1 Cost/Price - The Government anticipates awarding a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)/Firm Fixed Price (FFP) hybrid contract. In accordance with FAR 16.301, an Offeror shall have an adequate accounting system for determining costs applicable to the contract. Any Offeror’s accounting system found not to be adequate and not in compliance with required Cost Accounting Standards will be ineligible for award.

The Offeror shall submit a cost/price proposal that addresses the requirements in PWS. The Offeror shall agree to hold the cost/prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

There is no page limit for this volume; however, Offerors are encouraged to only provide data necessary to perform a comprehensive review and that which would allow the evaluation team to determine the cost reasonable and realistic.

The Offeror shall provide a cost-element breakdown for each proposed CPFF CLIN including a proposed fixed fee. The Offeror shall provide a basis for the cost, identifying all prospective labor categories, showing labor hours and rates for all labor categories. The Offeror shall use $250,000.00 for each Other Direct Costs/Travel CLIN. This amount shall not be modified by the Offeror. No fee shall be assessed on ODCs/Travel. Reimbursement for Travel shall be in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). In addition, Offerors shall only price the base and option periods and shall not submit a price for the optional six (6) month extension of services period covered by the clause at FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

In preparing the cost proposal, the Offeror shall ensure the submittal is easy to understand. A narrative that addresses any assumptions made during the preparation of the cost proposal and discusses the basis for the cost elements listed below:

· Labor hours per labor category.

· Direct labor rates by category. The Offeror is required to submit labor rates for proposed categories. If composite or category averages are proposed, provide a breakdown of how rates are developed. If necessary, provide a narrative to describe derivation of labor rates, use of uncompensated overtime, pools to which indirect rates are applied, and historical/ provisional billing rates for indirect rates for the last 3 years and description.

· Escalation on labor.

· Indirect rates and costs (i.e. Overhead, Fringe Benefits, General and Administrative (G&A), etc.).

· Information needed to explain the Offeror’s estimating practices.

· Subcontracting Plan (including Small Business Subcontracting Plan).

· Profit/Fee: Identify the profit/fee rate and the total profit/fee amounts proposed. In addition, identify the cost element to which the profit/fee is being applied. Fee rates must be clearly distinguishable. Profit/Fee shall not be applied to ODCs.

· When the Offeror elects to claim Cost of Money (COM) as an allowable cost, the Offeror shall submit a DD1861 and show the calculations of the proposed amount.

L.2.4.2 The Offeror shall submit a cost/price proposal that demonstrates that the labor rates and the total proposed cost/price are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation and the technical and management approaches identified in the Management and Technical Volumes of the proposal. The proposal shall refer to specific sections in the Management and Technical Volumes as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Cost/Price Volume and the Management and Technical Volumes. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and cost/price, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

L.2.4.3 The Offeror shall provide the same information on its proposed subcontractors as required for the prime Contractor. The proposed subcontractors may submit their cost/price proposal directly to Nichole Wyche-Seawood at Nichole.Wycheseawood@usmc.mil. The prime Contractor shall justify the reasonableness of each subcontractor’s cost/price. The Contractor shall provide its basis for determining the reasonableness for each proposed subcontractors’ cost/price.

L.2.4.4 The Offeror shall provide the following Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) information.

· DCAA point of contact with a current e-mail address or phone number.

· DCAA Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter.

· DCAA Final Billing Rate Approval Letter.

· DCAA/DCMA approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreement/Recommendation.

If DCAA has not reviewed the rate information for an Offeror, the Offeror shall submit a detailed justification of the proposed direct and indirect rates to include the last three (3) years of actual indirect information. The Offeror shall also provide documentation verifying that it has a DCAA audited and approved Cost Accounting System or state that its Cost Accounting System has not been approved by DCAA.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M.1 Basis of Award The Contract award shall be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer provides the best value to the Government after consideration of cost and price, and the non-price factors described in section M.2 below. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e) and 15.101-1(c) the Government’s objective is to make award to a Contractor who will achieve the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements at the best value for the Government. Prospective Offerors are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements of the PWS with the lowest total evaluated price may not necessarily be selected if an award to a higher price offer is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. Evaluations will include tradeoffs during source selection and will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the following website: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/.

The Government intends to select an offer based on initial submissions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to allow Offerors to make revisions if it is in the Government’s best interest. IAW FAR 15.306 (c) the Government may limit the number of Offerors in the competitive range.

M.2 Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance

Offers will be evaluated against the evaluation factors set forth in this section. There is only one subfactor; adjectival ratings will be applied at the factor level only. Any Offeror who receives a rating of Marginal or Unacceptable for any factor will not be eligible for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the selection decision on an integrated assessment of each Offeror’s proposal as measured against the evaluation factors.

The evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance are:

· Factor 1 - Management

· Factor 2 - Technical

· Factor 3 - Past Performance

· Factor 4 - Cost and Price All evaluation factors other than cost and price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost and price.

M.3 Evaluation of Management and Technical Factors

M.3.1 Evaluation of Non-Price Factors excluding Past Performance.

The Management and Technical factors will be assigned a rating based upon the following definitions:

M.3.2 Factor 1 - Management (PWS Section 3) – The Government will evaluate the feasibility and anticipated effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed Management approach, to include, where appropriate, e.g., whether the Offeror has appropriately identified risk and risk mitigation procedures; whether the Offeror has demonstrated an ability to provide a high-quality, experienced, well-trained, skilled, and certified staff; whether the Offeror will be able to capture, where appropriate, incumbent staff, etc.

M.3.3 Factor 2 - Technical (PWS Section 3) - The Government will evaluate the feasibility and anticipated effectiveness of the Offeror’s Technical approach, to include, where appropriate, e.g. whether the Offeror has demonstrated an ability to integrate into the TSO GOGOCS IPT environment; to operate in a geographically separated environment; to effectively and efficiently process change requests leveraging different software development methodologies; to offer and implement workable innovative solutions; to participate in and reinforce continuous process improvement; to improve and enhance ITIL-based systems operations and support; to implement and sustain information and security controls; to sustain and improve systems’ cybersecurity posture; to gain and maintain systems’ Authority to Operate (ATO); to provide effective Help Desk services; and to consistently produce quality results, etc.

The services to be performed are detailed in PWS Section 3 are as follows:

· General Requirements

· HLO 1 Systems Engineering and Integration

· HLO 2 Mission Support

· HLO 3 Systems Operations and Support

· HLO 4 Cybersecurity

· HLO 5 Help Desk

M.3.3.1 Technical Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan - The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan will be reviewed in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003; and will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as part of technical evaluation. Failure to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall result in the Offeror's proposal being evaluated as UNACCEPTABLE.

M.3.4 Factor 3 - Past Performance – Past performance shall be used to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply the products or services that meet the user’s needs based on a demonstrated record of performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine:

1. The Offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the scope of work for TSO; and

2. How relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror (or key teaming partners) is to the TSO requirements, as defined in Section L.2.3.2.

Past performance references completed as a prime will be considered more relevant than as a subcontractor. Past performance references from DoD clients will be considered more relevant than from other non-DoD federal or commercial clients.

Past performance relevancy ratings are:

The Government will assign a single Past Performance Confidence rating based on how well the Offeror (or key teaming partners) performed on previous efforts using the table below:

The Government may, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate past performance information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror. Offerors that do not have a record of relevant past performance will be assigned an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating.

M.3.5 Factor 4 - Cost and Price

The cost and price evaluation will be based on an analysis of the proposed cost and price data.

M.3.5.1 Cost Evaluation

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (c) (1), a cost analysis will be performed to review and evaluate the separate cost elements, the value of the equipment and material to be provided by the Government, and fee of the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the proposed costs are fair and reasonable. Additionally, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis.

Cost realism is a review of the cost portion of an Offeror’s proposal to determine if the overall costs proposed are realistic for the work to be performed, if the costs reflect the Offeror’s understanding of and approach to meeting the requirements, and/or if the costs are consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as increasing performance risk. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or Government. The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the Offeror’s capability data, and the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix for all periods of performance.

Cost information, including but not limited to DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to assist in the Government determination of the most probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this contract. If proposed costs or related assumptions are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic labor and indirect rates, then for the purposes of evaluation only, the Offeror’s proposed costs may be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic, probable costs.

In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer will be made to include the Government’s evaluation of the cost for the potential six (6) month period covered by the clause at FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The cost for the extension will be based on six (6) months of the Offeror's final option period proposed cost and fee, adjusted for realism, and will be added to the Offeror's total price.

Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the Offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government’s estimate of the Offeror’s most probable cost. Evaluated cost to the Government is an Offeror’s total cost, including profit/fee, identified for all CLINs, as well as the cost for the additional 6 months to extend services, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all years. This evaluated cost will be used in making an award recommendation. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost should be explained in the supporting cost/price data volume. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic, the Government may infer a lack of understanding of the requirements, a potential for increased risk of performance, or a lack of credibility on the part of the Offeror.

M.3.5.2 Price Evaluation

The price evaluation will determine whether each Offeror’s proposed price to the Government is reasonable using one or more of the methods cited in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The purpose of price reasonableness is to determine whether an Offeror’s price is too high. Price reasonableness will not, however, be used to determine if an Offeror’s price is too low. It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition.

The Government will NOT perform a price realism analysis.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that in the event of discrepancies between the SF 33 Section B and Volume III Narrative, the SF 33 Section B will prevail.

M.3.5.3. Employee Compensation Plan Evaluation - The Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated using the criteria identified in FAR 52.222-46(a)-(d). Note that pursuant to FAR 52.222-46(d), failure to comply with the provisions of this clause may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

M.4 Source Selection - The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that has a “Marginal”, “Unacceptable”, or “No Confidence” rating at the Factor level.

(End of Summary of Changes)