Amendment_1_-_M67854-16-R-4805_Non-conformed.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 correct administrative errors, provide additional and revised documentation, and provide the Government responses to Requests for Clarif ication.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 36

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Aug-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-4805

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Jul-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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Aug-2016

CODE

COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

ATTN: MELANIE HAYNIE

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22143

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-4805

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0003

The contract type has changed from FFP to COST.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

In accordance with the Overarching ID/IQ PWS and PDSS Task Order objectives.

To:

(At Cost) In accordance with the Overarching ID/IQ PWS and PDSS Task Order objectives..

The pricing detail quantity has changed from 1.00 to UNDEFINED.

The cost constraint NTE has been deleted.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0003 UNDEFINED Lot PDSS Travel and ODC

COST

(At Cost) In accordance with the Overarching ID/IQ PWS and PDSS Task Order objectives.

FOB: Destination

MAX COST

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC

POP 01-SEP-2016 TO

30-AUG-2017

N/A N/A

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC

POP 17-SEP-2016 TO

16-SEP-2019

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

POP 01-SEP-2016 TO

30-AUG-2017

To:

POP 17-SEP-2016 TO

16-SEP-2019

The following Delivery Schedule item has been added to CLIN 0003:

POP 17-SEP-2016 TO

16-SEP-2019

The following have been added by reference:

52.245-1 Government Property APR 2012

The following have been added by full text:

52.245-2 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY INSTALLATION OPERATION SERVICES (APR 2012)

(a) This Government Property listed in paragraph (e) of this clause is furnished to the Contractor in an ``as-is, where is'' condition. The Government makes no warranty regarding the suitability for use of the Government property specified in this contract. The Contractor shall be afforded the opportunity to inspect the Government property as specified in the solicitation.

(b) The Government bears no responsibility for repair or replacement of any lost Government property. If any or all of the Government property is lost or becomes no longer usable, the Contractor shall be responsible for replacement of the property at Contractor expense. The Contractor shall have title to all replacement property and shall continue to be responsible for contract performance.

(c) Unless the Contracting Officer determines otherwise, the Government abandons all rights and title to unserviceable and scrap property resulting from contract performance. Upon notification to the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall remove such property from the Government premises and dispose of it at Contractor expense.

(d) Except as provided in this clause, Government property furnished under this contract shall be governed by the Government Property clause of this contract.

(e) Government property provided under this clause:

Make: Lenovo Model: T440 Laptops (Developer rights model) Quantity: 4 Serial Numbers:

- MG00A73N

- MG003QDW

- MG003QGE

- MG003BRC

(End of clause)

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION OF OFFERORS

COMMERCIAL ITEMS EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

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

A reponsive proposal is one considered to be substantially and materially compliant which adheres to all the requirements described in Instructions To Offerors, and the requirements of the law, regulation, and conditions set forth in the solicitation and mandatory solicitation requirements.Any proposal that does not substantially and materially comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation may be determined ineligible for further evaluation. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.”

The Government’s evaluation will be based upon factors in Section 2 below.

1 BASIS FOR AWARD

In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, 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 either Factor 1, Factor 2 or Factor 3, will be unacceptable for award and will not be considered during the best value trade-off.

However, 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.

2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. Evaluation Areas, Factors, & Relative Order of Importance. The Government will conduct the evaluations using a best value trade-off process, meaning the non-price factors, when combined, are substantially more important than price. The Government may award to other than the lowest price proposal or to other than the offeror with the highest technical rating, if the Government determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government. Nevertheless, offerors should submit competitive pricing. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.

Factors 1 through 4 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

- 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)

CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or equivalent

(2) Management Approach

Management Approach

Small Business Participation Plan

(3) Past Performance Recent and Relevant Past Performance

Customer Assessments

(4) Pricing Quotation

Pricing Workbook ODCs/Travel Model Contract/ Representations and Certifications Compensation Plan EEO Information

b. 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 significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. 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).

“Significant Strength” is defined as an element in the proposal that appreciably reduces the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Strength” is defined as an element in the proposal that reduces the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

“Weakness” is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Significant Weakness” is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Rating Description

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

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.

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

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

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.

c. Submission of a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) is required; failure to submit a plan shall render the Proposal Unacceptable for award. The SBPP will be reviewed but will not be rated separately.

See below for further information.

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

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Assessment for Factor 3

Assessment 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 effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of 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.

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

Table 4: Past Performance Confidence Rating for Factor 3

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.

Rating Definition

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.

f. Price will be evaluated but not rated.

3 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.

Factor 1: Technical Approach The Government will evaluate the following elements of an offeror’s approach with regard to Comprehensiveness, Realism, and Feasability:

1) ID/IQ PWS Approach

2) Comprehensive ID/IQ Labor Mix (without rates)

3) Task Order 0001 (PDSS) Approach

4) Task Order 001 PDSS Labor Mix (without rates)

5) Task Order 0002 (ECPs) Approach

6) Task Order 002 ECP Labor Mix (without rates)

7) 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. The Government will evaluate the proposed staff and their roles associated with the previous development projects that were part of the appraisals or previous identified efforts using an equivalent process maturity model. 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), equivalent, or higher set of standard project processes to be eligible for an award.

“Comprehensiveness” is defined as a proposal that has provided an all-encompassing approach to the Government’s stated requirements.

“Realism” is defined as a proposal providing a realistic and logical approach to the Government’s stated requirements.

“Feasability” is defined as a proposal providing a suitable approach to the Government’s stated requirements.

Factor 2: Management Approach

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

c. 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 a 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).

Similar services performed for the Department of Defense or Federal Government entities adds to the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully meet performance and customer satisfaction standards.

A 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.

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 proposed optional 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.

2) The Government may, 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 an 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.

3) An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the prices 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.

4) 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 performance period price to the offeror’s total price. Offerors are required only to price the 36-month ID/IQ period of performance.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

5) The Compensation Plan will be evaluated using the procedures described in FAR Provision 52.222-46;

however, it will NOT be rated using the ratings described above.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1 OVERVIEW

The Product Manager, Total Force Information Technology System (PdM TFITS), seeking potential offerors with the capability to provide the services described in the solicitation. 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 and FAR Part 15. The Government reserves the right to make award with or without discussions.

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 or restrict participationas either a prime contractor or subcontractor under this competitive procurement. Existing contractual arrangements in which a Contractor provides support to Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager, Information Systems and Infrastructure (PMM-110) programs, operations, or related activities are of primary concern. 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 an 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 OCI that cannot be mitigated, will be deemed ineligible to participate in the current competition and will have their proposal rejected.

The Government will make the determination that the conflict of interest has been mitigated.

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. All proposal preparation and expenditures are at the offeror’s 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

No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided via telephone. All formal communications such as requests for clarification and/or information concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the following address:

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-4805

4 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Offerors shall be limited to one proposal for this Solicitation. No alternate proposals will be accepted.

5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS

a. 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, detailed proposal which demonstrates its clear understanding of, and compliance with the solicitation requirements. The offeror is responsible for including sufficient detail 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” are not acceptable without supporting narratives to define compliance. The Government will not assume the offeror possesses any capability not expressly identified in the proposal.

A proposal that merely recites the requirements of the solicitation, but fails to provide the requisite approach is not acceptable and shall be deemed non-responsive to the solicitation’s requirements. All incumbent offerors are still required to meet the requirements stated in this solicitation in its proposal. The Government shall not presume the offeror’s knowledge regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, etc., based upon incumbency.

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

SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS.

b. Proposal Format. The offeror shall submit its proposals in hard copy (one marked “original” and one marked “copy”) and electronic format (CD-ROMs: one marked “original” and four 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” electronic format of the proposal. Proposals will NOT be accepted via email.

- There should be a total of four (4) hardcopy binders and ten (10) CD-ROMs. The only exception is when subcontractors are providing the Pricing Workbook, in which case, only two (2) additional CD-ROMs per subcontractor are required, utilizing the "original" and "copy" markings. Additional instructions are provided in Volume IV Price Proposal.

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), as well as all Amendments, signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract. Price information of any kind shall ONLY be included in the Price Proposal. Proposals not following this format will be considered unacceptable.

2. Proposal Outline Section Part Title Maximum

Pages File Naming Structure

Matrix

PWS Cross Reference Matrix No limit ABC_XRef.pdf Acronym List Acronym List No limit ABC_AL.pdf

Executive Summary Executive Summary 3 Pages ABC_ES.pdf

Volume I

Technical Approach

Sect. 1 ID/IQ PWS Approach 30 pages Vol I Sect 1.pdf

1 Comprehensive IDIQ Labor Mix (without rates) 2 pages* Vol I Sect 1 Part 1.pdf

Sect. 2 Task Order 0001 (PDSS)

Approach 15 pages Vol I Sect 2. pdf

1 Task Order 0001 Labor Mix and Level of Effort (without rates) 2 pages* Vol I Sect 2 Part 1.pdf

Sect. 3 Task Order 0002 (ECPs)

Approach 15 pages Vol I Sect 3.pdf

1 Task Order 0002 Labor Mix and Level of Effort (without rates) 2 pages* Vol I Sect 3 Part 1.pdf

Sect. 4 CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement or equivalent No limit Vol I Sect 4.pdf

Volume II Management Approach

Sect. 1 Management Approach 20 pages Vol II Sect 1.pdf Sect. 2 Small Business Participation Plan 10 Pages Vol II Sect 2.pdf Volume III Past Performance

Sect. 1

Recent and Relevant Past Performance 9 Pages Vol III Sect 1.pdf

Section Part Title Maximum Pages

File Naming Structure

Sect. 2 Customer Assessments No Limit Vol III Sect 2.pdf Volume IV Pricing Proposal Sect. 1 Pricing Workbook No Limit Vol IV Sect 1.xlsx Sect. 2 ODCs/Travel 1 Page Vol IV Sect 2.pdf

Sect. 3 Model Contract/ Representations and Certifications No Limit Vol IV Sect 3.pdf

Sect. 4 Compensation Plan 10 pages Vol IV Sect 4.pdf Sect. 5 EEO Information No Limit Vol IV Sect 5.pdf

*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 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. The offeror shall also submit responses to DFARS 252.209-7992 as part of the executive summary/cover letter content.

• Volume I: Technical Approach

The offeror shall provide a detailed and thorough approach demonstrating the offeror’s capability to effectively execute and manage the technical and management 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 shall ensure and compliance with the Performance Standards and associated Acceptable Quality Levels within each PWS, as outlined below.

Title: Section 1 ID/IQ PWS Approach 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.

Title: Section 1, Part 1 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 ID/IQ tasks.

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 MCTIMS. 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.

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 MCTIMS. 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. Offerors are directed to propose to the ECPs included in the ECP PWS.

Title: Section 4 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.

Title: Section 2, Small Business Participation Plan A Small Business Participation 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 Participation 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 provided in 52.219-9(d)(2) are to be compared to the Navy's Small Business Subcontracting Goals (See Exhibit 3). If proposed percentages do not meet the goals delineated in Exhibit 3, 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.

• Volume III: Experience & Past Performance

Title: Section 1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance.

The offeror shall submit three (3) recent and relevant summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement, using the format in Exhibit A.

“Past Performance” is defined as an offeror’s or contractor’s performance on active and physically completed contracts.

"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 size, scope, and complexity.

Relevant 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 point of contact (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 identified past performance efforts be registered in the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the contractor may notify the Government to utilize the CPARS report in lieu 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 Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Maximum pages: No limit

• Volume IV Price Proposal

Title: Section 1 Pricing Workbook The price proposal shall be submitted both on the SF 1449 and via Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook. The offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in the SF 1449 (pages 3-4) and Attachment 5; failure to do so may result in the proposal being ineligible for award without discussions. Any additional pricing line items required by the offeror should be included at the end of the pricing workbook or on a new Tab.

Offerors are directed to propose to the ECPs included in the ECP PWS.

The offeror shall submit the proposed labor hours, categories, and rates for CLINs 0001 and 0002 down to the lowest level available up to the third level PWS task. Reserved PWS tasks should be denoted with the task number and reserved in the description. 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 the SF 1449 and Attachment 5. In the event of inconsistencies between the SF 1449 and Attachment 5, the SF 1449 shall take precedence.

- Note that while competition will suffice for the overall pricing fair and reasonable determination, labor categories and rates shall be incorporated into the ID/IQ contract, therefore the Government must determine each rate as fair and reasonable.

- The Pricing Workbook IDIQ Labor Categories Tab, (Tab 1), requires the offeror to provide labor categories, descriptions, and detailed rate data, including direct hourly compensation and fringe for each labor category by the Prime and all Subcontactor(s). All prime and subcontractor pricing is proprietary in nature but required for proposal submission. Subcontractors must provide the Pricing Workbook's labor categories, descriptions, and detailed rate data on Tab 1 and may do so in a sealed and signed envelope to be submitted with the overall proposal package.

Title: Section 2 Travel and ODC For proposal purposes, the Government’s ceiling for travel and other direct are set forth below. Offerors shall use the stated amount in the preparation of the price proposal.

CLIN 0003: $325,000

If you have reason to believe that the estimated amounts are understated, you may provide a revised estimate and a detailed basis for the revision(s). The same is true if you believe the amount is overstated.

Reimbursement for travel will be in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and proper invoice submissions per FAR 31.205-46. The Government will consider any revisions provided by the offeror;

however, the Government reserves the right not to change the estimated amounts stated above. For price evaluation, the above travel estimates will be applied to all proposals.

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:

− Completed and signed SF 1449 with all Amendments acknowledged.

− Completed pricing information in SF 1449 of the solicitation. Insert the price for each CLIN.

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

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

− Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: “Source Selection Information

- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

− 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.

− Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; Commercial Activity and Government Entity (CAGE) code; Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) code; Tax Identification

Number (TIN) and size of business (large or small). Provide the same information for your major subcontractors.

− 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.

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).

3. Document Format

a. Page Format

− Page Definition. The definition of a page is a double-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 Sections.

− 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.

b. 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, Arial, or Arial Narrow.

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

d. Volumes and Binding. Bind each proposal volume in three-ring binders. 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 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 and lines sequentially within each Section. Only material required for a specific section shall be in that section.

e. Electronic Proposals. Electronic proposal volumes shall be submitted in a searchable Adobe PDF no less than 2007 format (.pdf), (except as noted). The Technical Proposal volumes can be submitted on the same CD-ROM, but the Price Proposal shall be submitted via a separate CD- ROM. The CD-ROM must be formatted and readable on a MCEN-N computer.

f. Attachments. Any other attached documents requested herein shall be compatible with Microsoft

(MS) Office version no less than 2007 format. Landscape pages shall face right. The font size for text contained in embedded graphics (tables and illustrations) shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman, Arial, or Arial Narrow font. All Attachments will be counted against page limitations when applicable.

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

c. Pricing Information. NO PRICING INFORMATION OF ANY KIND SHALL BE INCLUDED IN

ANY VOLUME EXCEPT VOLUME IV, PRICING PROPOSAL.

d. Proposal Timeframes Summary

Table 5: Proposal Timeframes

Item Timeframe Paragraph Reference

If an offeror believes…