M67854-16-R-7803-0003_(a.k.a._0002).pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to execute the follow ing: (1) proivde answ ers to recent questions from industry.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Sep-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-7803

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Sep-2016

CODE

MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN:EDWARD MCGRAIL/

CT 2.7

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO FL 32826

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-7803

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

Question #1:

In looking through the Q&A for M67854-16-R-7803 it states:

4.1 Past Performance Contracts for Offeror

a. The offeror shall identify up to three (3) of the prime offeror’s most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts. The government is not evaluating the past performance of proposed subcontractors, or individual joint venture owners, or individual partnership owners.

That directly conflicts with FAR Subpart 15.305 (listed below) and FAR 9.602. Its been listed in stuff we have seen before and is always protested by somebody, and GAO always upholds the FAR. We have a team of 3 companies who are teaming under FAR 9.6 and FAR Subpart 15.03 including one of the major GFE listed companies in task order 1, FAR Subpart 15.305 is extremely relevant for evaluation purposes.

Its usually never successful with GAO in RFPs that try eliminating FAR Subpart 15.305 from the evaluation criteria as it’s a major component of the FAR and Government contracting and is clearly defined in the FARs listed below.

15.305 Proposal evaluation

(iii) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

9.602 General.

(a) Contractor team arrangements may be desirable from both a Government and industry standpoint in order to enable the companies involved to—

(1) Complement each other’s unique capabilities; and

(2) Offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery for the system or product being acquired.

(b) Contractor team arrangements may be particularly appropriate in complex research and development acquisitions, but may be used in other appropriate acquisitions, including production.

(c) The companies involved normally form a contractor team arrangement before submitting an offer.

However, they may enter into an arrangement later in the acquisition process, including after contract award.

Answer to Question #1:

The government appreciates the potential offeror’s question and concerns. To recap, the GTSS RFP

Section L.2.B.4.1 states: “The government is not evaluating the past performance of proposed subcontractors, or individual joint venture owners, or individual partnership owners.” In addition, RFP Section M.4, under “Factor 2 –

Past Performance,” states: “The government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel.”

Contrary to the assertions set forth in the potential offeror’s question, the government’s evaluation approach set forth in the RFP complies with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and does not limit competition. Several reasons support the government’s position, which the government hopes will serve to help preclude protest of its solicitation.

First, the selection of evaluation criteria is primarily within the agency's discretion, and the Comptroller

General does not object to the use of particular criteria as long as the criteria reasonably relate to the agency's needs in choosing a contractor that will best serve the government's interests. The fact that an evaluation criterion may otherwise make a firm's offer less competitive is not objectionable provided the agency's criteria have a reasonable basis and are not otherwise contrary to law or regulation.

Second, for the purposes of past performance evaluation, FAR section 15.305(a)(2)(iii) uses the word

“should” versus “shall,” which affords the government flexibility in determining the past performance “information .

. . relevant to the instant acquisition.” In the case of the work for the GTSS solicitation M67854-16-R-7803, the government wants to evaluate the past performance of only the prime offerors because future task order competitions and dealings under the yet-to-be-awarded Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) will be solely with the prime contractors based on contractual privity. In fact, offerors may decide to not even propose the same subcontractors or teaming arrangements on future task order competitions under the GTSS multiple-award contract ─ orders which may be competed on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable basis without the consideration of any past performance whatsoever. Thus, while an offeror may propose subcontractors for award of a task order and the multiple-award contract, the proposed subcontractors may not stay for the duration of an awarded task order, let alone the entire 40-month multiple-award contract. Furthermore, it is the prime contractor that is contractually required to meet all contract performance requirements, and if the requirements take more staffing than proposed, it is the prime contractor that is contractually required to provide additional staffing, at no increase in price, until all contract performance requirements are satisfactorily met. Therefore, the past performance of prime offerors is what is relevant to the government for evaluation purposes for this GTSS MATOC performance-based acquisition.

Third, the Comptroller General has issued decisions that state an agency does not limit competition even though the government is not evaluating the past performance of proposed subcontractors. For examples, see MW-

All Star Joint Venture, B-291170.4, Comptroller General of the United States, 2004 Comptroller General

Procurement Decisions, paragraph 98 (August 4, 2003) (agency reasonably assigned neutral rating for past performance of joint venture offeror where solicitation provided that a neutral rating would be assigned to firms with no past performance); Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-282887, Comptroller General of the United States, 99-2

Comptroller General Procurement Decisions, paragraph 49 (August 31, 1999) (protest of solicitation provision indicating that past performance evaluation will consider only corporate past performance and not past performance of key personnel denied).

Fourth, the GTSS solicitation does not restrict an offeror’s ability to submit a responsive proposal. In the absence of relevant past performance information, the solicitation simply provides for a rating of “Neutral

Confidence,” which is neither favorable nor unfavorable, as stated at Section M.3.4 of the RFP. Furthermore, subject to the limitation of five personnel at the offeror’s oral presentation, the prime offeror is not precluded from inviting any of its knowledgeable subcontractors or team members to help present during Phase Two of the solicitation, assuming the prime offeror makes it into the competitive range. In fact, it is possible under the GTSS

RFP for a proposed offeror who receives a “Neutral Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating to receive both a GTSS MATOC award and the Task Order 0001 award depending upon the offeror’s proposed price, the competition, and the Source Selection Authority’s tradeoff decision that must be documented and performed in accordance with the evaluation scheme set forth at Section M.3.2 (Technical Approach Factor is more important than Past Performance Factor, and the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price).

Fifth, even if a prime offeror does not have performance contracts that involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the GTSS solicitation requires, the prime offeror may have past performance contracts that involved similar and/or some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexity the

GTSS solicitation requires, which could possibly lead to a “Satisfactory Confidence” Past Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating, depending upon the relevancy of the past performance contracts and favorable or positive demonstrated past performance found in those past performance contracts’ Contractor Performance Assessment

Ratings and/or completed Past Performance Questionnaires. Indeed, it is possible for an offeror with past performance contracts that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity the GTSS solicitation requires to receive a “Substantial” Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, depending upon the relevancy of the past performance contracts and favorable or positive demonstrated past performance found in those past performance contracts’ Contractor Performance Assessment Ratings and/or completed Past Performance

Questionnaires.

Question #2:

L.2.B states "The offeror shall submit Volume II consisting of a slide show presentation for Technical Approach and

Past Performance in Microsoft PowerPoint limited to 75 slides." L.2.B 4.2 states "a. Provide the information identified below in an MS Word Table for each past performance contract (PPC) identified" and proceeds to instruct in 4.4 for CPARS to be included with the volume. Is the volume to consist solely of the PowerPoint slide show, or should some of this information be included separately in Word?

Answer to Question #2:

Offerors are instructed to incorporate the Microsoft Word table (listed in paragraph L.2.B.4.2.a) within the

Microsoft PowerPoint Volume II slide show presentation referenced in paragraph L.2.B. The material within the aforementioned table will count as part of the 75 slide limit.

Of note, CPARs information (see paragraph L.2.B.4.2.a, notation 3) and Past Performance Questionnaires (as applicable) are separate documents and will not be counted as a part of the 75 slide Microsoft PowerPoint page count (see paragraph L.2.B). As applicable, all other Past Performance requirements within Section L, shall be incorporated within the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, submitted as such, and counted as part of the 75 slide limit.

(End of Summary of Changes)