M67854-16-R-4800_SF30_RFP_Amendment_01.docx

M67854-16-R-4800

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 06-Apr-2016 10:00 AM to 11-Apr-2016 10:00 AM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

MCRISS Engineering Change Proposal. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives Section 4, exclusive of any Other Direct Cost. Specific objectives will vary based on the Task Order.

To:

MCRISS Engineering Change Proposal. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives Section 4, inclusive of any Other Direct Cost. Specific objectives will vary based on the Task Order..

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Recuriter Client Tool. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs 4.6.2 through 4.6.6.11 exclusive of any Other Direct Cost. Specific objectives will vary based on the Task Order.

To:

Recuriter Client Tool. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs 4.6.2 through 4.6.6.11 inclusive of any Other Direct Cost. Specific objectives will vary based on the Task Order..

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION

1 EVALUATION- COMMERCIAL ITEMS EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the Evaluation Section below.

Any proposal that does not substantially and materially comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation may be rejected and not considered for further evaluation. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.” A proposal will be considered to substantially and materially comply if it adheres to all the requirements described in section L, Instructions to offerors, and the requirements of the law, regulation, and conditions set forth in the solicitation and mandatory solicitation requirements.

The Government’s evaluation will be based upon factors in Section A.13 below.

2 BASIS FOR AWARD

In accordance with 52.212-1 [included by reference in this Request for Proposals (RFP)] the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

If the Government awards, without discussions, any proposal that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” in Factor 1 or Factor 2, will be unacceptable for award and will not be considered during the best value trade-off.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions. If the Government decides to conduct discussions, then, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Government will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly-rated proposals. In setting this competitive range, the Government may determine that a proposal that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” for any one, or any combination, of factors is not amongst the most “highly rated” proposals and may choose to exclude it from the competitive range.

Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines that the number of proposals that would be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted, the KO 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.

The Government anticipates a single award resulting from this solicitation.

3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Evaluation Areas, Factors, & Relative Order of Importance. While the evaluated price to the Government is an important factor to be taken into consideration in the integrated assessment of proposals, the non-price factors, when combined, are substantially more important than price. Nevertheless, offerors should submit competitive pricing. Because this is a best value procurement, the Government may award to other than the lowest price proposal or to other than the offeror with the highest technical rating, if the Source Selection Authority determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.

The Government does not anticipate to award Task Order 0003 Recruiter Client Tool at the inception of the IDIQ contract. The offeror’s proposed approach and price will be evaluated. The Government understands that the Task Order 0003 priced proposal may require adjustment relative to labor rate escalation at time of award.

Factors 1 through 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Elements within factors are not weighted.

Table 1: Factors and Elements

Factors Elements

(1) Technical Approach

ID/IQ PWS Approach

- Draft Post-Deployment Software Support Plan

- Draft Software Development Plan

- Draft Project Management Plan

- Comprehensive IDIQ Labor Mix (without rates)

Task Order 0001 (PDSS) Approach

- Task Order 0001 Labor Mix and Level of Effort (without rates)

Task Order 0002 (ECPs) Approach

- Task Order 0002 Labor Mix and Level of Effort (without rates)

Task Order 0003 (RCT) Approach

- Task Order 0003 Labor Mix and Level of Effort (without rates)

CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or equivalent

Small Business Participation Plan

Customer Assessments

ODCs/Travel

Model Contract/ Representations and Certifications

Compensation Plan

EEO Information

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

Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Factors 1 and 2

1. Submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) is required; failure to submit a plan shall render the Proposal Unacceptable for award. The SBSP will be reviewed and evaluated as pass/fail in accordance with the Department of the Navy Small Business Subcontracting Objectives (Exhibit 4). See below for further information.

1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant Past Performance and assess the relevancy of each of the offeror’s past performance exemplars.

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Assessment for Factor 3

1. After assessing the relevancy and quality of the past performance exemplars, the Government will assign a single overall Past Performance Confidence rating.

Table 4: Past Performance Confidence Rating for Factor 3

1. Price will be evaluated but not rated.

4 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Each Factor will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of the solicitation and the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.

0. Factor 1 – Technical Approach

1) ID/IQ PWS Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Approach for accomplishing the requirements of the ID/IQ PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

2) Draft Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS) Plan The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for accomplishing the PDSS requirements of the PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility Additionally, the Government will evaluate how: the Offeror will perform quality assurance; what mitigation plans are proposed for failures and outages; and how the Offeror will manage and execute their processes and procedures for the Critical PDSS Activities.

3) Draft Software Development Plan (SDP) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan for accomplishing the software development requirements of the PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

4) Draft Project Management Plan The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan for accomplishing the Project Management requirements of the PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

5) Comprehensive IDIQ Labor Mix (without rates) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for accomplishing tasks in the overall IDIQ PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

6) Task Order 0001 (PDSS) Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0001 PDSS PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

7) Task Order 0001 PDSS Labor Mix (without rates) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0001 PDSS PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

8) Task Order 0002 (ECPs) Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0002 ECP PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

9) Task Order 0002 ECP Labor Mix (without rates) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0002 ECP PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

10) Task Order 0003 (RCT) Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0003 RCT PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

11) Task Order 0003 RCT Development Labor Mix (without rates) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for accomplishing tasks in the Task Order 0003 RCT Development PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

12) CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or Equivalent The Government will also review the Prime Offeror’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®) Appraisal Disclosure Statement, or its proposed equivalent set of similar processes, to verify organizational capability and maturity.

When evaluating a proposed equivalent CMMI Maturity Level III (DEV) Process Model, the Government will evaluate the results of previous standard process maturity appraisals, if provided. Those appraisals performed within 12 months prior to proposal submission will be of most value. A offeror who is able to demonstrate that it applies processes that are ingrained in the corporate culture, that have been applied with demonstrated discipline, and that will be followed by staff familiar with those processes, may be able to reduce risk associated with the development effort and may be rated more favorably than those offerors who cannot so demonstrate.

It is necessary for a offeror to have been appraised at a CMMI Level III (DEV) or equivalent to be eligible for an award.

0. Factor 2 – Management Approach

1) Management Approach The offeror will be evaluated on a detailed and thorough approach that demonstrates the offeror’s capability to effectively manage and execute the tasks within the PWS with regard to:

· Comprehensiveness

· Realism

· Feasibility

2) Small Business Participation Plan The Government will review and evaluate whether the Small Business Participation percentages/dollars, provided in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, meet the percentages/dollars of the Navy’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals for each Small Business Category. In addition the Government will review and evaluate the explanation for not meeting the Navy Goals and the proposed realistic approach to increase percentage/dollar participation to meet the Navy’s Goals if they currently do not.

0. Factor 3 - Past Performance Past performance as a prime, teaming partner, or as a subcontractor will be considered, as will past performance by a company proposed as a subcontractor to this effort. However, performance by or as a subcontractor may be less relevant to the overall past performance rating than past performance by the offeror as a prime contractor.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will NOT be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a neutral confidence rating (i.e., unknown confidence).

An offeror may be asked to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i) and (b)(4) describes these types of exchanges as communications with offerors before the establishment of a competitive range.

0. Factor 4 – Price

1. The price proposed by the offeror will be evaluated, but not rated. The total evaluated price includes the sum of the “total amount” identified for all CLINs (including any option CLINs). 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.

14) As this solicitation will result in an IDIQ award, the Government may, solely at its discretion, perform a price analysis for the limited purpose of measuring an offeror’s understanding of the requirements or to assess the risk of poor performance inherent in a offeror’s proposal. An unrealistically low price may be indicative of the offeror’s lack of competence or failure to comprehend the requirements and risks of the solicited effort.

15) A offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the price proposed are materially unbalanced between line items, sub-line items, or years, and this lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government reserves the right to request whatever cost and pricing data is necessary (other than certified) for analysis when unbalanced pricing is suspected.

16) As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the offeror’s final option period price to the offeror’s total price. Offerors are required only to price the base and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six months extension of services period.

17) The Compensation Plan will be evaluated using the procedures described in FAR Provision 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will NOT be rated using the ratings described above.

EXHIBITS

EXHIBITS

1) Past Performance Statement

2) Past Performance Questionnaire

3) System Authorization Access Request Form (SAAR)

4) Navy Small Business Subcontracting Goals

5) MCRISS Management Plans:

a. Configuration Management Plan

b. System Test and Evaluation Plan

c. Performance Measurement Plan

d. Systems Engineering Plan

6) Requests for Clarification and Government Responses

FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1 OVERVIEW

The proposal process will be a single phase effort consisting of a written proposal leading to the award of an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government intends to conduct a source selection in accordance with the competitive commercial source selection procedures contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 in conjunction with FAR Part 15.

The Product Manager, Total Force Information Technology System (PdM TFITS), seeking potential offerors with the capability to provide the services described in the IDIQ PWS (Attachment 1).

Note: Any reference to “solicitation” or “this solicitation” shall be deemed to include all exhibits and attachments thereto.

2 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST

The offeror is reminded that certain existing contractual arrangements may preclude, restrict, or limit participation, in whole or in part, as either a subcontractor or as a prime Contractor under this competitive procurement. Of primary concern are those existing contractual arrangements in which a Contractor provides support to programs, operations, or related activities for Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager, Information Systems and Infrastructure (PMM-110). General guidance may be found in FAR 9.505; however, this guidance is not all inclusive. The offeror’s attention is directed to the "Organizational Conflict of Interest" (or similar) requirement which may be contained in current or completed contract(s) which prohibits the prime or subcontractor from providing certain supplies or services to the Government as described above during the period of the current "support" contract(s) or for a period after completion of the "support" contract(s).

Notwithstanding the existence or non-existence of an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clause or similar requirement in current or completed contract(s), the offeror shall comply with FAR 9.5 and identify whether an OCI exists and not rely solely on the presence of an OCI requirement.

Offerors shall review their existing contractual arrangements to determine whether they believe a potential conflict of interest exists, at any tier. If a offeror believes a potential conflict of interest exists, the offeror is required to notify the Contracting Officer (KO) within seven (7) calendar days of the date of this solicitation. The offeror shall provide at this time: (1) the contract number and name and phone number of the Contracting Officer for the contract which gives rise to a potential OCI; (2) a copy of the requirement; (3) the statement of work (or technical instruction) from the existing contract; (4) a brief description of the type of work to be performed by each subcontractor under the competitive procurement; (5) a proposed mitigation plan; and (6) any additional information the Contracting Officer should consider in making a determination of whether a conflict of interest exists. The Government may independently verify the information received from the Contractor.

Notwithstanding the above, the Government reserves the right to determine whether a conflict of interest exists based on any information received from any source. Any offeror who is determined to have an Organizational Conflict of Interest that cannot, in the Government’s opinion, be mitigated, will be deemed ineligible to participate in the current competition and will have their proposal rejected.

The Government will notify the offeror of any conflict of interest within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of all required information. Those offerors deemed to have a conflict of interest may be ineligible for award. Failure to provide the information in a timely manner does not waive the Government's rights to make a conflict of interest determination. The offeror is notified that proposal preparation and any expenditure is at its own risk and will not be reimbursed by the Government if it is determined that an organizational conflict of interest exists.

Any offeror that proposes a subcontractor later determined to have a conflict of interest and deemed ineligible to participate in the current competition, may not be granted the opportunity to revise its proposal to remove the ineligible subcontractor. The Government reserves the right to determine which offerors continue as part of the evaluation through the normal source selection process.

3 FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

All formal communications such as requests for clarification and/or information concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to following addresses:

Marine Corps Systems Command PMM-110/IS&I Contracting Office Attn: Melanie Haynie Contracting Officer 2200 Lester St.

Quantico, VA, 22314

Or

Email: MCSC_ISI@usmc.mil Reference: Solicitation No. M67854-16-R-4800 No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided via telephone.

Purpose. These instructions prescribe the requirements for proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. Offerors are cautioned to follow the instructions carefully. It is the 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 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 meeting the solicitation’s requirements, is not acceptable.

The offeror shall provide a detailed approach reflecting how all tasks outlined in the full ID/IQ PWS will be accomplished. The offeror shall not recite the same language in multiple sections of this volume to address the same tasks in the ID/IQ and the task orders. The offeror shall establish the baseline approach in the ID/IQ technical proposal. Individual responses to the task order PWS requirements should only identify and outline significant changes, or provide any amplifying or supplementing information above and beyond the content already provided in response to the over-arching/IDIQ response.

Finally, the Government will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability unless identified in the proposal. An offeror who was or is an incumbent for this effort is still required to, in its proposal, meet the requirements stated in this solicitation. The offeror shall not, based upon the offeror’s incumbency, presume the Government’s knowledge regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, etc.

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PROPOSAL THAT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS.

Proposal Format. The offeror shall submit its proposal in hard copy (one marked “original” and five marked “copy”) and electronic format (CD-ROMs: one marked “original” and one marked “copy”), in accordance with the following instructions. Should a conflict arise between the material presented in any volumes and the CD-ROMs submitted, the precedent for consideration of the proposal shall be within the written word contained in the original hard copy of the proposal. Proposals will NOT be accepted via email.

1. Proposal Volume Breakout. All proposals shall conform to the following outline. Proposals not following this format may be considered unacceptable. Confine all information pertaining to each indicated topic to the appropriate volume and section. Offerors shall insert their company’s name in the filename. Examples below are for the ABC Company. Volume page maximums shall be limited in accordance with the following outline.

The offeror shall structure its proposal into two parts: a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal, as detailed in the table below. The Technical proposal consists of the Matrix, Acronym List, Executive Summary, and proposal Volumes I, II, and III. The Price Proposal consists of Volume IV, including the completed Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449) signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract, as well as all the amendments. Proposals not following this format will be considered unacceptable. Price information of any kind shall ONLY be included in the Price Proposal.

1. Proposal Outline

Section

Part

Matrix

Acronym List

Executive Summary

Volume I

Technical Approach

Title

Title Page

ABC_VolI_title.doc

Contents

Table of Contents

ABC_VolI_contents.doc

Figures / Tables

Table of Figures/Tables

ABC_VolI_figures.doc

Sect. 1

Sect. 2

Sect. 3

Sect. 4

Sect. 5

Volume II

Management Approach

Title

Title Page

ABC_VolII_title.doc

Contents

Table of Contents

ABC_VolII_contents.doc

Figures / Tables

Table of Figures/Tables

ABC_VolII_figures.doc

Sect. 1

Sect. 2

Sect. 3

Volume III

Past Performance

Title

Title Page

ABC_VolIII_title.doc

Contents

Table of Contents

ABC_VolIII_contents.doc

Figures / Tables

Table of Figures/Tables

ABC_VolIII_figures.doc

Sect. 1

Sect. 2

Volume IV

Pricing Quotation

Title

Title Page

ABC_VolIV_title.doc

Contents

Table of Contents

ABC_VolIV_contents.doc

Figures / Tables

Table of Figures/Tables

ABC_VolIV_figures.doc

Sect. 1

Sect. 2

Sect. 3

Sect. 4

Sect. 5

*Note: page limits with an asterisk shall not count against the total page count for the section in which they are included.

· Title: PWS Cross Reference Matrix. The PWS Cross Reference Matrix maps each requirement from the PWS to the appropriate place in the proposal (Vol, Sect, Page, and Paragraph) addressing the requirement.

· Title: Acronym List. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive list of all acronyms used throughout the proposal.

· Title: Executive Summary. The offeror shall certify that the proposal has been prepared completely consistent with the terms and conditions of the offer or address any exceptions, deviations, and waivers to the offer. The offeror is advised that if any exceptions, deviations, or waivers are taken, the proposal may be determined non-compliant and thus ineligible for award. The offeror shall identify all prospective Tier-1 subcontractors in this section as well. The offeror shall provide email and phone numbers for a primary and alternate company representative to serve as the Government’s point of contact (POC) for the proposal. The offeror shall also list all subcontractors proposed on this effort.

· Volume I: Technical Approach The offeror shall provide a detailed and thorough approach that demonstrates the offeror’s capability to effectively execute the technical tasks within the PWS. The proposed approach should reference past experience where the offeror has previously performed as a System Integrator on an information technology system.

All proposal responses, as outlined below, shall ensure consideration of and compliance with the pertinent Performance Standards and associated Acceptable Quality Levels within each PWS.

Title: Section 1 ID/IQ PWS Approach The offeror shall provide a detailed approach to how they will accomplish all of the tasks outlined in the full ID/IQ PWS. Note that the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language (i.e. the offeror shall propose an approach to PDSS in this section, but when addressing PDSS in Task Order 1, shall ensure that the language is not simply copied and pasted from the ID/IQ Approach).

Title: Section 1, Part 1 Draft PDSS Plan The vendor shall provide a detailed PDSS Plan that describes the processes and procedures the vendor will employ to perform the PDSS tasks described in the PWS.

Title: Section 1, Part 2 Draft Software Development Plan The vendor shall provide a detailed Software Development Plan that describes the processes and procedures the vendor will employ to perform the software development tasks described in PWS.

Title: Section 1, Part 3 Draft Project Management Plan The vendor shall provide a detailed Project Management Plan (PMP) (to include the Risk Management Plan and the Quality Assurance Program Plan) in accordance with the PWS. The PMP should describe the processes and procedures the vendor will employ to execute management and oversight tasks.

Title: Section 1, Part 4 Comprehensive IDIQ Labor Mix (without rates) The offeror’s proposal will provide a realistic labor profile noting proposed labor categories with regard to the comprehensive IDIQ tasks. Labor rates are not to be included in this volume of the proposal.

Title: Section 2, Task Order 0001 (PDSS) Approach The offeror’s proposal will outline a detailed approach to how the offeror will perform PDSS in support of MCRISS. Note that the offeror should not restate the approach detailed in response to the full ID/IQ PWS.

Title: Section 2, Part 1, Task Order 0001 Labor Mix (without rates) The offeror’s proposal will provide a realistic labor profile noting proposed labor categories and associated man-hours with regard to tasks detailed in Task Order 1 PDSS. Labor rates are not to be included in this volume of the proposal.

Title: Section 3, Task Order 0002 (ECPs) Approach The offeror’s proposal will outline a detailed approach to how the offeror will develop and implement ECPs for MCRISS. This approach will address each phase from requirements analysis to deployment. Note that the offeror should not restate the approach detailed in response to the full ID/IQ PWS, Software Development.

Title: Section 3, Part 1, Task Order 0002 ECP Labor Mix (without rates) and Level of Effort The offeror’s proposal will provide a realistic labor profile noting proposed labor categories and associated man-hours with regard to tasks detailed in Task Order 2 ECP. Labor rates are not to be included in this volume of the proposal.

Title: Section 4, Task Order 0003 (RCT) Development The offeror’s proposal will outline a detailed approach to developing a Recruiter Client Tool capability as it relates to the scope of work outlined in Task Order 0003. Note that the offeror should not restate the approach detailed in response to the full ID/IQ PWS.

Title: Section 4, Part 1, Task Order 0003 RCT Development Labor Mix (without rates) and Level of Effort The offeror’s proposal will provide a realistic labor profile noting proposed labor categories and associated man-hours with regard to tasks detailed in Task Order 3 RCT Development. Labor rates are not to be included in this volume of the proposal.

Title: Section 5 CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or Equivalent The offeror shall include a copy of its Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®) Maturity Level III (DEV) Appraisal Disclosure Statement confirming the Level III certification (or equivalent certification) of the offeror’s organization that will be performing the work. If the offeror does not have the appropriate CMMI Level III Appraisal Disclosure Statement noted above, the offeror may demonstrate that it has an equivalent process model. The offeror shall provide a description of how its processes are equivalent to those processes articulated by CMMI Maturity Level III (DEV); a description of any previous equivalent model-based process maturity appraisals performed, including an identification of the organizational entity and location where the appraisal was performed, the type of evaluation, the date of the award, and the level earned; and a list of past efforts where the offeror demonstrated its effective use of such proposed equivalent process. The information provided must be sufficient to demonstrate that the maturity process proposed reflects the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs.

The CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or equivalent must be from the prime offeror and be for that specific division/location of that company. A CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement (or equivalent) from a subcontractor or team member is UNACCEPTABLE.

· Volume II: Management Approach Title: Section 1, Management Approach The offeror shall provide a detailed and thorough approach that demonstrates the offeror’s capability to effectively manage and execute the tasks within the PWS. The Management Approach should reference past experience where the vendor has previously managed an information technology system.

Title: Section 2, Small Business Participation Plan A Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be submitted in accordance with applicable FAR and DFARS clauses by all large business vendors. No commercial plans (as defined by FAR 19.701) shall be accepted. The vendor shall submit an Individual Contract Plan (as defined by FAR 19.701) including assurances that the vendor will (1) submit the Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR) and Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR) under the eSRS and (2) ensure that its subcontractors agree to submit ISRs and SSRs.

The percentages/dollars provided in 52.219-9(d)(2) are to be compared to the Navy’s Small Business Subcontracting Goals. If proposed percentages/dollars do not meet the goals delineated in the Navy’s Small Business Subcontracting Goals, the Offer shall include an explanation describing why, and what actions are being taken to increase percentage/dollars participation to meet the Navy’s Goals.

Title: Section 3, Title, Transition Plan A Transition Plan must be submitted in accordance with section 2 of the MCRISS Overarching PWS (Attachment 1).

· Volume III: Past Performance Title: Section 1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance.

The offeror shall submit up to three recent and relevant summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement, using the format in Exhibit A.

"Recent" is defined as a) completed projects with a completion date within the 5 years preceding the date of this proposal or, b) ongoing projects with at least 12 months of completed performance as of the date of proposal submission.

"Relevant" is defined as efforts worth at least $1 million/year, with similar scope and complexity.

Past performance should illustrate the offeror’s ability to perform the following:

· Transition an information technology system from an incumbent SI.

· Perform the specified SI functions required to operate and maintain an information technology system.

· Design, develop, integrate, test, and deploy new and enhanced software for an existing information technology system.

· Describe the significant achievements, challenges, or obstacles that were encountered during contract performance and the measures taken to overcome them.

The identified contracts shall be with Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Past performance as a prime, teaming partner, or as a subcontractor will be considered, as will past performance by a company proposed as a subcontractor to this effort. However, performance by or as a subcontractor may be less relevant to the overall past performance rating than past performance by the Offeror as a prime contractor. The offeror shall utilize the format provided in Exhibit A for each past performance summary reference. 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 POC.

Title: Section 2 Customer Assessments.

The offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire, Exhibit B, 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 2, Contract 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 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.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to use contract performance data provided in the offeror’s proposal and contract performance data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to the Government’s CPARS data base or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

· Volume IV Price Proposal Title: Section 1 Pricing Workbook The price proposal shall be submitted both in Section B Supplies or Services and Prices and via Attachment 6 - Pricing Workbook. The offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in Section B and Attachment 6; failure to do so may result in the proposal being ineligible for award without discussions. Pricing submitted in Attachment 6 shall be at the third level of indenture with respect to the requirements of the respective PWSs (e.g. 3.1.2). Any additional pricing line items required by the offeror should be included at the end of the pricing workbook.

The offeror shall submit the proposed labor hours, labor categories, and labor rates for each labor CLIN and third level PWS task. The offeror is advised that these worksheets may be redacted to remove pricing for review by the technical evaluators. The offeror is additionally advised that the proposals should not include proposed costs which are a typical cost of doing business, such as cell phones, teleconference costs, and office supplies.

The submission of these items in accordance with the instructions shall, if accepted by the Government, contractually bind the Government and the Contractor to the terms and conditions of the model contract. The offeror’s pricing shall be submitted both in Section B and Attachment 6. In the event of inconsistencies between Section B and Attachment 6, Section B shall take precedence.

For proposal purposes, the Government does not anticipate regular/routine travel in support of the MCRISS program. It is anticipated that the MCRISS program may migrate into the Marine Corps Enterprise Information Technology Services (MCEITS) environment in FY18. The offeror shall include proposed travel costs in support of this migration in their response to the ID/IQ PWS.

Title: Section 2 ODCs/Travel.

CLIN 0004 provides for ODCs specifically in association with PDSS performed under CLIN 0001. Engineering Change and RCT task orders are viewed by the Government as “solutions” and the pricing for these should be inclusive of any proposed ODCs or travel. The Government does not anticipate any travel associated with any of the individual orders in this initial solicitation (travel will be required in support of MCEITS migration, which may be ordered separately under this ID/IQ at a later date).

Any additional proposed ODCs/travel shall be documented in terms of what the item is, how it integrates into the proposed technical approach, what the impact of the item is, and the basis of estimate supporting the item.

Title: Section 3 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications.

The purpose of this section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the offer. This includes:

1. Completed and signed with all Amendments acknowledged.

1. Completed pricing information in Section B of the solicitation. Insert the price for each CLIN.

1. Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements. (Note: Offerors must also comply with the System for Award Management (SAM) requirements of FAR 52.204-7).

1. Statement of the period for which the proposal is valid (not less than 180 calendar days).

1. Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: “Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

1. 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. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Finally, provide the name, title, and telephone number of the CEO, Division President, or Vice President of the offeror.

1. 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.

1. Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s) which will perform the contract. 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.

Please utilize the format on the following four pages for section B submission in the Model Contract:

A. Task Order 0001 Pricing Offerors shall use the below to submit pricing for the Task Order 0001 PWS.

Lot

MCRISS PDSS Support

FFP

MCRISS Post Deployment Software Support. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives Section 3 (Attachment 1), the MCRISS PDSS PWS (Attachment 2), and the successful contractor’s proposal, exclusive of any Other Direct Cost.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

Lot

MCRISS ODCs

Other Direct Cost associated with CLIN 0001 In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives (Attachment 1), the MCRISS PDSS PWS (Attachment 2), and the successful contractor’s proposal.

NET AMT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

DELIVERY INFORMATION

25-JAN-2017

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

CHRISTOPHER HEGLAND

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

703-784-4872

M67854

25-JAN-2017

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

CHRISTOPHER HEGLAND

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

703-784-4872

M67854

B. Task Order 0002 Pricing Offerors shall use the below to submit pricing for the Task Order 0002 PWS.

Lot

MCRISS ECPs

MCRISS Engineering Change Proposal. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives Section 4 (Attachment 1), the MCRISS ECP PWS (Attachment 3), and the successful contractor’s proposal, inclusive of any Other Direct Cost.

MAX

25-JAN-2017

CHRISTOPHER HEGLAND

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

703-784-4872

M67854

Task Order 0003 Pricing Offerors shall use the below to submit pricing for the Task Order 0003 PWS.

Lot

Recruiter Client Tool (RCT)

Recruiter Client Tool. In accordance with the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs 4.6.2 through 4.6.6.11 (Attachment 1), the MCRISS RCT PWS (Attachment 4), and the successful contractor’s proposal, inclusive of any Other Direct Cost.

MAX

25-JAN-2017

CHRISTOPHER HEGLAND

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

703-784-4872

M67854

Title: Section 4 Compensation Plan.

The Compensation Plan is only required for the Prime offeror. See FAR 52.222-46 for submission requirements.

Title: Section 5 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 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).

1. Document Format

1. Page Format

· Page Definition. 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 except for foldouts. Printing shall be in accordance with the provision in FAR 52.204-4 (double-sided printing).

· 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.

· Page Limitations. Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal, as described in Table 1, 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.

1. Margins and Fonts. The text margins shall be no less than one inch. Text font shall be in 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.

Foldouts: Foldouts count as two pages. Limit use of foldout pages to non-textual matter.

Volumes and Binding. Bind each proposal (Technical Proposal…