NACCR_AMENDMENT_0002_17_OCT_2016.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 update 52.212-1 ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS. The past performance requirement for the prime contractor has been amended. THE DEADLINE HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Oct-2016

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 M67854-16-R-4001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Sep-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Oct-2016

CODE

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND - CT MC3

ATTN: NORENE JONES

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:

M67854-16-R-4001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (FEB 2012)

52.212-1 ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES 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.

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PROPOSAL THAT

DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE PROPOSAL PREPARATION

INSTRUCTIONS.

a. The Government anticipates awarding a Single Award, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a (3) three year ordering period.

b. Offerors shall not submit more than one (1) offer in response to this solicitation.

c. A concise and comprehensive proposal is required. Organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance. The proposal shall be complete and clear in all respects without the need for additional explanation or information. The proposal shall provide sufficient detail and scope to permit the

Government to evaluate it with respect to the evaluation factors specified in the

Evaluation Criteria of this solicitation.

d. 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 describe approach or detail compliance will rarely be acceptable. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, and/or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal. Proposals should be clear, concise and complete and fully understand that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the Government’s requirements.

e. The Offeror shall not include classified material in any proposal section.

f. A ceiling on the number of pages in the proposal has been imposed, as indicated in the sections below. In the event that an Offeror exceeds the maximum page limitations provided below, the Government will only evaluate the pages that comply with the maximum number prescribed (starting with page one and continuing until the maximum number is reached). The following will not be counted as part of the proposal page limitations: title page, table of contents, acronym list, Proposal Traceability Matrix, Representative Configurations or glossary.

g. Proposals shall be valid for a minimum period of 120 days from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

h. As prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1, the Government intends to award on the basis of initial offers received without conducting discussions.

Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a business and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

i. This solicitation includes the following Attachments in reference to FAR 52.212-1:

1. Proposal Traceability Matrix

2. Requirements Evaluation Matrix

3. Pricing Information

j. To gain access to any restricted documents via FedBizOps(FBO): Once registered in

FBO, log in and click on the secured document link, which should then provide you with the corresponding link for the DD2345 - Military Critical Technical Data Agreement

Form. Fill out the DD2345 form and submit a hard copy of the original form, together with all required documentation, to the Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS), U.

S./Canada Joint Certification Program (JCP), at the address listed on the top of the form

(hard copy only, no electronic submissions). JCP will return an approved and signed certified form (electronically) within 5 days of receipt. Please note that delays may be incurred if forms and/or required documentation are incomplete or incorrect.

Additionally, it can take up to 24 hours for the JCP information to reach all systems.

Vendors can check the following website to ensure their JCP status:

http://www.dlis.dla.mil/JCP/search.aspx

Once you receive the MPIN, enter the FBO system and click on the secure document link. The FBO system will require you to enter your MPIN.

Following verification of the MPIN, vendors will submit a request for explicit access to the secure documents through the FBO system by clicking on the secure document line, then clicking the “Request Explicit Access” button. Once vendors request explicit access, the FBO system will send notification to the MCSC personnel assigned to the procurement, who will approve the request in the system. Vendors will receive an email once the access request has been approved by MCSC.

Once the MPIN has been verified in the FBO system, and explicit access has been granted, vendors will be able to enter the system and view the secure documents.

Some important notes to keep in mind:

Vendors MUST allow sufficient time for the submission and processing of the DD2345 request. Requests for extension of closing/due dates based upon lack of access to secured documents will not generally be considered without evidence of timely DD2345 submission.

DLIS does not correlate a particular DD2345 to a specific procurement or to MCSC.

Your DLIS certification will be valid until the expiration date listed in block 7c of the

DD2345, and can be used for any procurement in the FBO system.

Information regarding the policy and process for approval and certification is available at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/forms/PAMPHLET.pdf

k. All proposals are due by: 1000 (10:00 a.m.) local Quantico, VA, 20 October 2016.

Offeror’s shall prominently mark all containers used for delivery of proposals with the following statement: “REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – SOLICITATION M67854-16-R-4001”

For Hand-Carry ONLY:

Marine Corps Systems Command – M67854

1000 Corporate Dr, Stafford, VA 22554

Suite 101

Stafford, VA

Attn: Norene Jones/Jennifer Glenn, NACCR

For those proposals being hand delivered to the above address, the following additional instructions apply: Notify the Contract Specialist by email at norene.jones@usmc.mil that you intend to deliver the proposal and an approximate time for delivery to ensure someone is available to receive it. Upon arrival at Quantico Corporate Center, please call Norene Jones at

(703) 784-6520. The Contracting Officer or representative will arrive in the lobby to receive the proposal and issue a receipt.

For US Postal Service, FEDEX, UPS, etc.:

Marine Corps Systems Command – M67854

2201A Willis Ave

Quantico, VA 22134-6050

Attn: Norene Jones/ Jennifer Glenn, NACCR

A submission via FEDEX, USPS, or other commercial delivery service is acceptable (see address above), but electronic, fax, or other forms of submission are not authorized.

2. QUESTIONS AND INTENT TO BID

a. Questions about the solicitation documents are due by 1500 (3:00 p.m.) local Quantico, VA

(Eastern Daylight Time) 28 September 2016 with the information in Table 1 identified clearly. Questions shall be sent via email (Microsoft (MS) Excel 2007 format to Norene

Jones at: Norene.Jones@usmc.mil and Jennifer Glenn at: Jennifer.glenn@usmc.mil with a subject line of NACCR M67854-16-R-4001-RFC.

b. Electronic submission of requests is the only acceptable method of submission. The

Government will not provide any information concerning questions in response to telephone calls, written, or faxed copies from Offerors. Please do not bundle multiple questions into one. Questions received after the above time and date may not be addressed. Government responses will be posted electronically via an amendment to the solicitation on FEDBIZOPS.

Table 1. Example Question Format

Comment

Number

Solicitation

Section

Document/Page/

Paragraph/Line Number

Comment/Question

c. Please submit an intent to bid by 10:00 A.M. (local time, Quantico, VA) after the issuance of the Government solicitation amendment to provide responses to questions submitted.

Additionally, please provide your Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Data

Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, information and point of contact (POC) mailto:norene.jones@usmc.mil mailto:Norene.Jones@usmc.mil mailto:Jennifer.glenn@usmc.mil information including name, phone number, street address and email address. Notice of

Intent to Bid should be sent via email to Norene Jones at norene.jones@usmc.mil with a subject line of: NACCR M67854-16-R-4001 Intent to Bid.

3. 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

b. Proposals shall be prepared using “Arial” or “Times New Roman” 11 point pitch. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced pitch not less than 8 point. Margins shall be one (1) inch on all sides. All material submitted may be single-spaced. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror in the header or footer. Foldouts are not allowed, except for the Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), representative configurations, and documents required to be submitted in Excel format; font, pitch, and margins requirements do not apply.

c. The Offeror shall structure its proposal into three volumes: a Technical Volume, Price

Volume and Small Business Participation Volume as detailed in Tables 2 through 4. Each volume shall include consecutive page numbering on all pages of all documents.

Headers and footers may include offeror name, page number, and volume title.

d. The Offeror shall submit five (5) hard copies of the Technical Volume and two (2) copies of the Price Volume and Small Business Participation Volume all in separate, appropriately sized three-ring binders. The Offeror shall submit two (2) electronic copies of all volumes, each Volume on its own CD-ROM using Microsoft Office 2007 or newer suite of applications. The required signed pages must be PDF documents, price breakdown must include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulae intact. In the event that there is a conflict between the written hard copy of the proposal and the electronic copy of the proposal, the electronic copy will take precedence.

e. Individual sections should be removable and replaceable to the volumes. Each volume shall contain a title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures for that volume. Pages only used specifically for Proposal Traceability Matrix (see Attachment1), title page, table of contents, list of tables and figures information, and glossaries of acronyms and abbreviations will not count against volume page limitations. Use tab separators to separate required sections within a volume. Tab separators do not count against page count. Number all pages sequentially. Only material allocated to a specific section shall be in that section. The

Offeror shall use a standard page and line numbering system to facilitate proposal references.

The Offeror shall 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 sections.

f. 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”.

g. Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: Source Selection

Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 mailto:norene.jones@usmc.mil

***The provisions of FAR 9.5, "Organizational Conflict of Interest" (OCI), apply to any award under this RFP. Potential Offerors should review their previous, current, and planned participation in any other Government contracts, subcontracts, consulting, or teaming arrangements where they maybe in a position of actual or perceived bias or unfair competitive advantage. A common example with the potential for OCI is where an entity performs work both as a system contractor/subcontractor and as a Government support contractor for Government offices involved in the program.

The term "Contractor" herein means (i) the organization (hereinafter referred to as "it" or

"its") entering into this contract with the U.S.Government, (ii) all business organizations with which it may merge, join or affiliate, now or in the future, and in any manner whatever, or which holder may obtain, by purchase or otherwise, direct or indirect control of it,

(iii) its parent organization (if any) or its present or future subsidiaries, associates, affiliates, or holding companies, and (iv) any organization or enterprise over which it has direct or indirect control (now or in the future)

Offerors should disclose any potential OCI situations to the Contracting Officer as soon as identified including prior to proposal submission. The disclosure should include the facts and an analysis of the actual or perceived conflict and a recommended approach to neutralize or mitigate the potential conflict. The preferred approach to potential conflicts is to negate/obviate the conflict. Mitigation is considered only if it is not practical to negate/obviate the conflict. The Contracting Officer will promptly respond to resolve any potential conflicts.***

Table 2. Technical Volume

Part Section Title Maximum

Pages

File Naming

Structure

ES Executive Summary 2 Pages ABC-ES.pdf

PTM

Proposal Traceability

Matrix No limit ABC-PTM.xls

AL Acronym List No limit ABC-AL.pdf

I Technical Approach

Sect. 1 Ability to Execute 15 pages ABC-PartI-

Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Representative

Configurations 25 pages

ABC-PartI-

Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3 Requirements Evaluation

Matrix 24 pages

ABC-PartI-

Sect3.xls

Part Section Title Maximum

Pages

File Naming

Structure

Sect. 4 Contractor Work

Breakdown Structure

No limit

(foldouts allowed)

ABC-PartI-

Sect4.pdf

Sect. 5 Quality Assurance

Program Plan 5 Pages

ABC-PartI-

Sect5.pdf

Sect. 6 Sustainment 3 Pages ABC-PartI-

Sect6.pdf

II Management Approach

Sect. 1 Management Approach 5 pages ABC-PartII-

Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Initial Staffing Plan 2 pages ABC-PartII-

Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3 Project Management 2 pages ABC-PartII-

Sect3.pdf

Sect. 4 Configuration

Management

2 pages ABC-PartII-

Sect4.pdf

Sect. 5 Risk Management 2 pages ABC-PartII-Sect

5.pdf

III

Past Performance

Information (PPI).

Recent and Relevant Past

Performance Information

Required 4 past performances

1-page limit each

ABC-PartIII.pdf

Table 3. Price Volume

Part Section Title Maximum Pages File Naming

Structure

IV Price Proposal

Sect. 1 Pricing

Information No limit

ABC-PartIV-

Sect1.xls

Sect. 2 Ground Rules and

Assumptions 2 Pages

ABC-PartIV-

Sect2.pdf

V Sect. 1 Signed SF 1449 and Amendments No limit

ABC-PartV-

Sect1.pdf

File Naming

Structure

Sect. 2

Completed

Representation &

Certifications –

Commercial

Items (If applicable)

No limit ABC-PartV-

Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3

Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29

U.S.C. 794d)

VPAT (L.

No limit ABC-PartV-

Sect3.pdf

Table 4. Small Business Participation Volume

File Naming

Structure

VI

Small Business

Participation

Sect. 1 Small Business

Participation Plan No limit

ABC-PartVI-

Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2

Small Business

Subcontracting

Plan (large business only)

No limit ABC-PartVI-

Sect2.pdf

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:

Part I: Technical Approach

This section of the proposal shall address the Offeror’s ability to execute the requirements of the

PWS. The Offeror shall provide a sound Technical Approach, demonstrating appropriate use of corporate resources, providing a partnering approach with the Marine Corps for the NACCR effort. The Offeror shall submit a detailed and comprehensive response which clearly explains the strategy that the Offeror is proposing for this effort.

Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal must include technical innovations that would result in project benefits such as process improvements, accelerated schedules, and increased capability and reliability. The Offeror’s proposal must describe capability to perform and an approach that presents little potential for schedule disruptions, performance degradation or interruption of services during transitions and steady state operations.

Section 1. Ability to Execute.

The Offeror shall describe how the proposed solution and approach supports integration with listed systems in the NACCR System/Subsystem Specification (SSS). The Offeror shall describe the ability to implement the integrated components with details on the communication methods and timing and complexity of the proposed solution devices such as communication between management devices, subordinate devices, and switches. Identify processes for performing discovery, integration, policy development, 802.1x implementation, policy refinement and any other activities necessary to be successful. Identify solution differences between unclassified and classified networks. The Offeror shall describe how the proposed solution and approach will obtain authorization for the technical controls within Risk Management Framework (RMF) for

DoD IT with the system categorization of Confidentiality (Moderate), Integrity (Moderate) and

Availability (Moderate).

The Offeror shall describe how the proposed solution and approach supports enterprise management, monitoring and alerting, role-based administration to meet tiered and regionalized organizational hierarchies. The Offeror shall describe how the proposed solution and approach performs Network Access Control (NAC). Include considerations for transitioning 802.1X into the production environment, such as the design components needed for high availability and disaster recovery, and methods for log retention/archiving policies. Considerations shall also be made for metrics to calculate bandwidth requirements and the process for setting enforcement rules within the solution. Describe the default values for enforcement and options necessary for the proposed solution.

The Response shall include the test methodology that the Offeror will use to test and verify each system function and the associated metrics in accordance with the SSS, Requirements

Traceability Matrix (RTM), and other applicable references included in the PWS.

Section 2. Representative Configuration.

The Offeror shall provide the models/versions for the manufacturer devices listed below that are compatible with the proposed solution. As such, the Offeror shall provide configuration examples of the NAC device and compliance and remediation interfaces for one compatible model from each manufacturer device listed below; to include PPS, data exchange requirements and ability to integrate with protocols such as NetFlow, SPAN, SNMP, MIB, etc. The configuration example shall include necessary configuration for STIG compliancy, minimal complexity, and accuracy of integration. The examples shall be in a Command Line Interface

(CLI) unless the configuration is only available in a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Only the pertinent NAC and compliance and remediation interface configurations needs to be included within the page limit of this section.

1. Cisco

2. Brocade

3. Juniper

4. Tellabs*

*Tellabs is not required to be submitted as a configuration sample and/or example and is considered an objective requirement as it relates to this solicitation only.

Section 3. Requirements Evaluation Matrix (REM).

The Offeror shall complete the NACCR Requirements Evaluation Matrix (REM) provided as file name Attachment_2_of_52.212-1.xls. The REM shall include descriptions of how the Offeror will satisfy each requirement. This list will be used for evaluation purposes and is a subset of the requirements contained in the System Subsystems Specification (SSS). All requirements identified within the SSS will be required to be met. Each response of A, M or N requires the

Offeror to provide written details of the solution. No costs shall be included in the REM.

C – Complies with requirement out-of-the-box

A – Alternative no-cost way to satisfy the requirement

M – Modification/customization or third-party software needed at an additional cost

N – Non-compliant

Section 4. Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS).

The Offeror shall provide a CWBS in Microsoft Project format in a .pdf file with appropriate level of 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 5. Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP).

The Offeror shall prepare a Quality Assurance Program Plan 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

Government.

c. Describe the process for capturing, analyzing and reporting the quality performance measurements and metrics.

d. Describe the methodology for capturing, maintaining, tracking and reporting results from the system of measures 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 6. Sustainment

The Offeror shall describe the training approach and specifically how the training will be provided. The Offeror shall describe how the proposed approach satisfies the System Warranty requirement for CONUS and OCONUS. The Offeror shall describe warranty administration procedures, to include how to resolve warranty claims. The Offeror shall demonstrate the steps necessary to initiate a claim, and the "turn-around-time” for repairs made under warranty. As well as proposed processes and strategies for requirements integration problem reporting, change management, real time problem correction, and system upgrade and refresh due to technology obsolescence shall be provided. The Offeror shall describe how the Offeror will manage

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) and perform supply chain risk management.

Part II: Management Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a sound Management Approach, demonstrating appropriate use of corporate resources, providing a partnering approach with the Marine Corps for the NACCR effort.

Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal must describe the Offeror’s proposed management approach innovations that would result in project benefits such as process improvements, accelerated schedules, and increased capability and reliability.

Section 1. Management Approach

The Offeror shall fully describe the overall management concept, organizational structure, and proposed interfaces with the Government that will be employed to this NACCR 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 Performance Work

Statement tasks.

Section 2. Initial Staffing Plan

The Offeror shall provide an Initial Staffing Plan that provides personnel with the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications to complete the requirements of this effort.

Section 3. 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.

Section 4. 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 must be described.

Section 5. 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.

Part III: Past Performance Information (PPI).

Recent and Relevant Past Performance Information.

The Offeror shall provide examples of recent and relevant efforts similar in scope to demonstrate the Offeror’s experience and ability to operate and sustain the referenced program, development and implementation of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs). The Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) summaries of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal, State, County, or Municipal agencies or commercial customers within the last five (5) years. No more than three (3) additional summaries may be provided for all subcontractor PPI. Relevant contracts include representative models to include the number of assets being managed by the solution, integration with vulnerability scanning, software patching and remediation, Policy

Orchestrator integration, reporting to event correlation engine and trouble ticketing. 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.

These previous contracting efforts shall be for work done by the prime. For each contract effort, identify the Program Manager (PM) and the COR. 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, to 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 Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management

Agency.

Part IV: Price Proposal Section 1. Pricing Information

The Offeror shall include price information for all CLINs listed in the Schedule for Supplies.

Basis of estimate shall include labor categories, labor descriptions and labor hours. The Offeror shall provide a priced Bill of Material (BOM). This BOM is to be included in the Price proposal.

Price proposal shall be entered on the spreadsheet file, Attachmnet_3_Of_52.212-1.xls, readable in Microsoft 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 contracting officer must be able to determine that all aspects of the requirements have been considered in the proposal and that the price is reasonable for the work required.

Section 2. Ground Rules and Assumptions

An Offeror‘s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency between promised performance, the technical proposal, identified personnel resources and cost/price must be explained in the Price Volume.

Part V: Contract Information Section 1. Completed and Signed SF 1449

The Offeror shall include a completed SF1449 and amendments, 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.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 may use the GSA Buy Accessible Wizard at http://www.buyaccessible.gov/ to assist with preparation of the GPAT document.

Part VI: Small Business Participation

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to maximizing opportunities for small businesses

(SB) in the proposed effort, both in terms of the percentage of overall contract value and in terms of the percentage of the subcontracted portion’s value. The SB Subcontracting Plan is only required from an Offeror which is itself is not a Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged

Business (SDB), Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB), HubZone SB, or Service Disabled

Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB).

The cover page for the Offeror’s Small Business Participation volume shall summarize the

Offeror’s SB Participation goals and SB Subcontracting percentage goals for the total requirement as follows:

Template for the Summary Table

SB Participation Plan SB Subcontracting Plan

Total Total

SB % %

SDB % %

WOSB % %

http://www.buyaccessible.gov/

HUBZone SB % %

SDVOSB % %

*Offerors which qualify as small businesses shall enter “N/A” in this column

Section 1. Small Business Participation Plan

This plan is required from all Offerors, regardless of the Offeror’s size status. The Offeror’s SB

Participation Plan percentages are to be presented in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the total contract value.

The Offeror shall identify the extent and nature of participation of SB, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, and SDVOSBs in the performance of the proposed contract. Participation includes subcontractors or material suppliers to the prime contractor or subcontractors. The Offeror’s own participation as a SB, WOSB, HUBZone SB or SDVOSB shall be identified and included in the percentages.

The plan shall include, at a minimum:

a. the name and DUNS number (or CAGE code) of each of the firm(s) included in the plan;

b. a copy of the System for Award Management (SAM) profile for each of the firm(s) included in the plan;

c. discussion of the specific components to be produced or services to be performed by each firm;

d. identification of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code

(appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each firm’s size status;

e. the estimated total dollar value subcontracted to each firm;

f. the estimated total dollar value subcontracted to each SB category;

g. the percentage of total contract value subcontracted to each firm; and

h. the percentage of total contract value subcontracted to each SB category

The Offeror shall provide evidence of any enforceable commitments in place between itself and the participating small businesses. Each participation percentage shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments.

The Offeror shall include evidence of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” and 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” in prior contracts containing the clause. This information shall be provided, at minimum, for each of the contracts discussed in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume.

SB Participation Plan Objectives.

The Government’s Participation objectives for this acquisition are as follows:

Small Business 5.25%

Small Disadvantaged Business: 0.4%

Women-Owned Small Business 0.4%

HUBZone Small Business: 0.4%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 0.4%

For each category in which the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan contains goals below those described above, the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to why.

Section 2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan - LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY

The SB Subcontracting Plan is a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. This plan is only required from an Offeror which is itself other than a SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB or SDVOSB. The SB Subcontracting Plan describes the Offeror’s approach to maximizing opportunities for small businesses in this effort, relative to the subcontracted portion’s value. The Offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan percentages are to be presented in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the total value of subcontracts.

The required elements of the SB Subcontracting Plan are set forth in FAR 52.219-9, Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.219-7003 should be organized to address these elements in similar order to clearly demonstrate that each element has met the SB

Subcontracting Plan objectives. All small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions included in the SB Subcontracting Plan shall be specifically identified to facilitate compliance with 252.219-7003(g). The Offeror shall provide the CAGE code or DUNS number for each proposed subcontractor, and include identification of the NAICS code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each proposed subcontractor’s size status. The information in the SB Subcontracting Plan must properly correlate with that of the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan.

SB Subcontracting Plan Objectives.

The Government’s subcontracting objectives for this acquisition, as follows:

Small Business 34.5%

Small Disadvantaged Business 5%

Women-Owned Small Business 5%

HUBZone Small Business: 3%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 3%

For each category in which the Offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan contains goals below those described above, the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to why.

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

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.

In order to be considered responsive, the Offeror’s proposal MUST meet all solicitation requirements. Unsupported promises to comply with the solicitation 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 Government determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract resulting from this solicitation to the :

(a) Whose proposal is technically acceptable.

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

(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

The evaluation factors (there are no subfactors) and their relative order of importance are listed in descending order of importance as follows:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Management Approach

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Price (evaluated but not rated)

Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan

Technical is the most important factor and is more important than all of the remaining factors combined. Technical is significantly more important than Management and Past Performance.

The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor. The Price Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the following elements of an Offeror’s Technical Approach which includes all documents submitted in accordance with Attachment 1- Instruction to Offerors; to determine whether it fully addresses each of the Government’s stated PWS objectives and provides a detailed, comprehensive, well-articulated, reasonable, understandable, feasible/realistic approach that can be implemented within the stated parameters:

1. Ability to Execute

2. Representative Configuration

3. Requirements Evaluation Matrix

4. Contractor Work Breakdown Structure

5. Quality Assurance Program Plan

6. Sustainment

Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for any proposed technical innovations that would result in project benefits such as process improvements, accelerated schedules, and increased capability and reliability. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if it identifies capability to perform and an approach that presents little potential for schedule disruptions, performance degradation or interruption of services during transitions and steady state operations. The proposal will also be evaluated to determine whether the information provided demonstrates an understanding of the existing network environment and PWS requirements.

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 use of corporate resources; provides a partnering approach with the Marine Corps for the effort; and provides personnel with the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications in accordance with Attachment

1- Instruction to Offerors.

1. Management Approach

2. Initial Staffing Plan

3. Project Management

4. Configuration Management

5. Risk Management

Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for any proposed management approach innovations that would result in project benefits such as process improvements, accelerated schedules, and increased capability and reliability.

Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the solicitation’s requirements through qualitative assessment of a proposal’s strength, 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 Section level. Note: Technical ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offeror received at the same technical factor rating(s), the fact that the rating is same does not indicate the proposals are technically equal or the same; qualitative distinctions may exist even between proposals that receive the same factor ratings(s).

Rating Schemes for Factors 1 and 2

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

The Government does not intend to award to any Offeror whose proposal is evaluated as

“Marginal” or lower for any factor.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed above and the risk descriptions set forth in the table below.

Technical Risk Rating Method

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased costs or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weakness which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weakness that increases the risk of an unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 3 - Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s recent experience performing tasks similar in size, scope, and complexity to the tasks found in the PWS. Past performance evaluation considers the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the recent and relevant tasks and weighs that performance, in proportion to its relevance, to determine an overall performance confidence rating for the Offeror. The past performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1. The Government may use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data such as PPIRS and in addition to all recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror.

For Factor 3 Past Performance, the Government will assign Offerors both a relevancy rating and a confidence rating in accordance with the tables below. Relevancy ratings will be assigned for each prior effort, but a single confidence rating will be assigned for the Past Performance factor.

Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the prior and solicited efforts, including criteria such as type of effort (service/support), scope, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming, or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements. Relevance is a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Rating Schemes for Factor 3

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

For Past Performance that is not rated “Not Relevant,” the Government will weigh the quality of the performance on that effort in relation to its relevance to make an overall confidence assessment. Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or the

Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

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

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

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

In the event that insufficient past performance data exists for an Offeror, the overall rating for this factor will be “Neutral Confidence.”

Factor 4: Price

The price proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated, but not rated. The Contracting Officer will perform a price proposal analysis to determine fair and reasonable pricing. The

Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer if it is determined that the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government in accordance with FAR

Part 15.404-1(g). The total evaluated price includes the sum of the “total amount” identified for all CLINs.

The proposed price to the Government must be compatible with the technical portion of the offer. The Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable pricing on the basis of adequate competition. However, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use any of the analytical techniques in that section, either alone or in combination with each other, to determine that the award price is fair and reasonable.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

The Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Factor will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on the evaluation of both Sub-Factors: SB…