RFP_Amend_1.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 the period of performance in Section B and to add a clause in Section I of this solicitation. In addition, minor changes to Sections L and M are made via this amendment.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Apr-2017

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 M67854-17-R-7820

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Mar-2017

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 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

06-Apr-2017

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:

M67854-17-R-7820

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

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

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 27-SEP-2017 TO

26-SEP-2020

N/A N/A

FOB: Destination

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

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

CAGE

POP 27-SEP-2017 TO

26-SEP-2020

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-SEP-2017 TO

25-SEP-2020

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-JUN-2017 TO

25-AUG-2017

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-JUN-2017 TO

25-AUG-2020

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0006 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2017 TO

25-JUN-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0007 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-JUN-2017 TO

25-JUN-2020

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0008 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2017 TO

25-AUG-2020

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0009 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2017 TO

25-JUN-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0010 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-JUN-2017 TO

25-JUL-2017

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2017 TO

26-JUL-2020

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

25-AUG-2023

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

25-AUG-2023

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

26-AUG-2023

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1006 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

26-AUG-2023

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1008 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

26-AUG-2023

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1009 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

26-AUG-2023

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1010 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 26-AUG-2020 TO

26-AUG-2023

CAGE

POP 27-JUL-2020 TO

26-JUL-2023

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-14

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 OVERVIEW

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

The Program Manager, Training Systems (PM TRASYS) is seeking potential Offerors with the capability to provide the services described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Under a PWS, the Government identifies the solicitation and program requirements and performance standards offering industry flexibility to develop cost-effective solutions and the opportunity to propose innovative alternatives meeting the requirements. The Government will also provide a PWS for each individual order issued that utilizes the IDIQ PWS requirements as a base menu.

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

L.2 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF

INTEREST

Offerors are required to identify actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) related to the services described in its proposal for itself, as well as employees, consultants and subcontractors proposed. This includes, but is not limited to:

‐ The existence of conflicting roles that might bias judgment; and ‐ Access to nonpublic information that will give the offeror an unfair competitive advantage.

If an actual or potential OCI is identified, the offeror shall submit a mitigation plan as part of its proposal. Offerors shall submit with their proposal an OCI affirmation, using the following language:

“I, (Name and Title), warrant that: 1) I am an official authorized to bind the entity; and 2) to the best of my knowledge and belief , actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest have been identified, and disclosed to the Contracting Officer (identify section of proposal) as of (Date).”

If no OCI is identified, the offeror shall submit an affirmative statement indicating as such.

L.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF OFFERS

A. General Instructions.

These instructions prescribe the requirements for proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation of proposals. Offerors are cautioned to follow the instructions carefully. It is an 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 shall confine their submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, 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. Finally, the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability unless identified in the proposal. An Offeror who was or is an incumbent for any of the contracts being consolidated in this effort is still required to, in its proposal, meet the requirements stated in this solicitation. An Offeror shall not, based upon the Offeror’s incumbency, presume the Government’s knowledge regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, etc.

B. Proposal Format.

1. 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.

2. Page and Line Numbering. The Offeror shall use a standard page and line numbering system to facilitate proposal references. Number consecutive pages within each section of each volume. 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.

3. Page Limitations. Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal in Table 1, below, 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. Foldouts count as two pages.

Limit use of foldout pages to non-textual matter.

4. 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, embedded graphics (tables and illustrations) and other graphics shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman or Arial Narrow. It is imperative that all text be legible on the original submission as well as any revised proposal submissions.

5. 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. Should the Offeror need, each section may also contain a title page/cover, table of contents, table of figures, and list of figures. 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. Only material required for a specific section shall be in that section.

6. Electronic Proposals. Electronic proposal volumes (except for Volume I, Sections 1 and 2 and Volume IV) shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version 10.0. Volumes I and III can be submitted on the same CD-ROM, Volumes II and IV can be submitted on the same CD-ROM.

Volume V shall be submitted on a stand-alone and separate CD-ROM.

7. Attachments. Any other attached documents requested herein shall be compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF. Any graphics files embedded within the MS documents shall be provided in *.jpg or *.png in order to minimize memory storage requirements for electronic files. Landscape pages shall face right. All Attachments will be counted against page limitations when applicable.

8. 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.

9. Number and Form of Copies. The Offeror shall submit its proposal four hard copies (one original and three copies) as well as three electronic format (CD-ROMs), 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 not following this format may be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall insert their company’s name in the filename. Examples below are for the ABC Company. The maximum number of pages for each volume shall be limited in accordance with the following table:

Table 1: Proposal Page Limits and Number of Copies Vol Title Max. Pages Hard Copy CD-ROM File Naming Structure

Matrix PWS Cross Reference Matrix

No limit

ABC-Vol-1-XRef.pdf

I Technical Approach 30 4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Staffing Plan ABC-Vol1-Sect1.xls Sect. 2 Labor Cat Descriptions ABC-Vol1-Sect2.pdf II Past Performance 30 4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance

ABC-Vol3-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Past Performance Questionnaires

ABC-Vol3-Sec2.pdf

III Compensation Plan 30 4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Monetary Compensation

ABC-Vol2-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Fringe Benefits ABC-Vol2-Sect2.pdf IV Price No Limit 4 copies 3 copies Sect. 1 Pricing Information ABC-Vol4-Sec1.pdf Sect. 2 Pricing Table ABC-Vol4-Sec2.pdf V Contract Information No Limit 2 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Model Contract/ Representations and Certifications

No limit ABC-Vol5-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 EEO and VETS 4212 Pre-Award Clearance Information

No limit ABC-Vol5-Sect3.pdf

L. 4 PROPOSAL CONTENT

The proposal must be prepared in 5 parts: Volume I: Technical Approach Proposal, Volume II: Past Performance Proposal, Volume III: Compensation Plan, Volume IV: Price Proposal, Volume V: Contract Information. Confine all information pertaining to each indicated topic to the appropriate volume and section. Each of these volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of evaluation of the other. Volume I Technical Approach must not contain references to cost; however, resource information such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials and subcontracts, among other things, must be contained in the technical approach so that your understanding of the scope of work may be evaluated.

L.5 VOLUME 1 - Technical Approach Proposal

The Technical Approach Proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken.

Proposals should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s competence, technical understanding and approach in order to accomplish the requirements set forth in the PWS. For the purposes of this solicitation the Offeror shall construct their proposal to reflect their approach to meeting the performance requirements of Task Order 0001, to include a Mobilization Period (CLIN 0001) from 27 Aug 2017 to 26 Oct 2017 and MCTOG Support Services: Marine Corps Requirements (CLIN 0002) from 26 Oct 2017 to 31 May 2018. Together, the Task Order 0001 PWS (J12), Task Order 1 Appendix A MCTOG Requirements Worksheet (J13); and MCTOG FY 17 and FY 18 Campaign Plan TEEP (J7) provide a sufficient description of the work requirements that are anticipated to be awarded with Task Order 0001. The Technical Approach Proposal shall be divided into two sections: Staffing Plan and Labor Category Descriptions.

A. Section 1: Staffing Plan. The Offeror shall complete a staffing plan, that describes the approach to staffing to meet the requirement of the Task Order 1 PWS. The spreadsheet shall include:

1. A complete listing of labor categories being proposed, including the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors, required to meet the performance requirements. Sufficient labor categories must be proposed to address the PWS to at least the third indentation level (e.g., 3.1.8). If no third indentation level exists, then the Offeror shall break down to the second indentation level (e.g., 2.4). Text inserted into the spreadsheet that is not responsive to the requirements in Section L or to Attachment 1 will not be evaluated.

2. The number of hours to be performed for each labor category for the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors allocated per month across a calendar year for Task Order 0001.

B. Section 2: Labor Category Descriptions. The Offeror shall provide a definition for each labor category identified (Offeror and all proposed subcontractors) that addresses:

a. Roles and responsibilities to be performed by the labor category

b. Knowledge, skills and abilities required for the position

c. Education requirements, if any

d. Years of relative work experience, if applicable

C. No Resumes. The Government does not want Offerors to identify specific individuals. Rather, the Government seeks an to understand the roles individuals will fill. Do not include resumes in any volume;

Resumes are inappropriate and WILL NOT be reviewed.

L.6 VOLUME II - Past Performance Proposal

A. Section 1: Recent and Relevant Past Performance.

The offeror shall identify up to three (3) of the Offeror’s most relevant Government past performance contracts and may identify up to an additional two (2) of the most relevant Government past performance contracts for each principal subcontractor. (Principal subcontractors are defined as any entity proposed to perform 25 percent or more of the identified contract Total Evaluated Price (TEP).) To be considered for purposes of past performance recency or relevance, a contract must have been performed in part within five (5) years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP (i.e., any active portion of performance within five years).

Preference will be given to contracts or orders with a period of performance greater than six months and within the past five years. Offerors may submit past performance contracts on which they were the prime contractor or a subcontractor, although for subcontracts there should be a demonstrated defined scope of work for which the Offeror was responsible.

For purposes of this solicitation, relevance is defined as contract performance and responsibility similar to this solicitation performed by the Offeror and the Offeror’s principal subcontractors. Aspects of relevance include:

-the contract type,

- total dollar amount,

- dollar amount of the effort actually performed by the company for which the past performance effort is being submitted, -the location and division of the company that performed the effort, -the length of the period of performance of the past performance effort, -the scope and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. The scope and complexity of the effort under this solicitation should address experience in information technology, modeling and simulation, C4I and other knowledge-based subject matter expert experience in military organization/operations support.

The Offeror must include all requested data that illustrates the adequacy of the Offeror’s various contracts selected to convey recent and relevant past performance. For each contract identified the Offeror shall provide the following information:

1. Name, title, email address, phone number and any additional information for the point of contact.

2. A description of the contract effort, relative to the PWS in this solicitation, that the Offeror performed or was responsible for.

3. The relevancy of the Offeror’s, and if applicable, the Offeror’s principal subcontractors’ past performance.

4. The Offeror’s past performance in the delivery of quality supplies/services, which includes meeting technical requirements.

5. The Offeror’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, to include on-time or late deliveries, and modifications of original schedules.

6. The Offeror’s past performance in managing the contracted effort, to include program management, subcontract management, and cooperation with the customer.

7. The Offeror’s past performance in meeting any identified Acceptable Quality Levels or minimum thresholds of performance.

8. If applicable, any improvements to resolve systemic problems with respect to the solicitation requirements.

For each past performance problem identified, describe the status of the improvement efforts and, where applicable, demonstrate the impact that the improvement effort had on resolving the systemic problem such that it would not recur.

The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of data provided in its proposal. The Government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the government finds in the information provided by the offeror.

Task or delivery orders awarded under single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite delivery (ID/IQ) or Multiple- Award Contracts (MACs) will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation.

Thus, Offerors may not propose an entire ID/IQ or MAC as a past performance contract reference.

In addition, regardless of relevancy, the Offeror shall provide a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any and all contracts, task orders, or delivery orders within the past 5 years. If the Offeror has not received any Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices or Terminations for Default in the past five years, the Offeror shall insert a statement to that effect. The list or statement shall not count against the maximum page count.

B. Section2: Past performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

As set forth in Attachment J.16 – Past Performance Questionnaire, Offerors shall instruct past performance points of contact to send completed questionnaires to Mr. Jaime Morrison, Contract Specialist, via email at jaime.morrison@usmc.mil no later than the closing date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation.

L.7 VOLUME III - Compensation Plan

The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan of the Offeror and any proposed subcontractors. The Compensation Plan shall be organized into two Sections.

A. Section 1: Monetary Compensation.

Offerors should include a table with the following information:

1. In the first column, Offerors should list all of the proposed offeror and subcontractor labor categories.

2. In the second column, Offerors shall map all of the proposed offeror and subcontractor labor categories to the comparable Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Labor category. Comparable should take into account locality, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and experience. Offerors should use the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification System located online at www.bls.gov/soc#classification.

3. In the third column, Offerors shall justify for each Offeror or proposed subcontractor labor category why it is appropriately mapped to the chosen BLS category.

4. In the fourth column, insert the proposed hourly rate (i.e., non-burdened hourly rate) for the labor category.

5. In the fifth column, insert the BLS hourly rate for the labor category.

B. Section 2: Fringe Benefits.

1. Offerors shall provide a list of fring benefits with anarrative description for each fringe benefit provided to professional employees by the offeror and its subcontractors, and a total dollar amount for fringe benefits;

2. For each fringe benefit offered to professional employees, Offerors shall also submit specific supporting documentation or data such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys, and/or studies of professional, public, and private organizations used in establishing the fringe benefit.

L.8 VOLUME IV – Price Proposal

A. Section 1: Pricing Information.

The Offeror shall include price information for Task Order 0001. Offerors shall propose one overall price for Task Order 0001 supported by the spreadsheet submitted for Technical Approach Section 1(Staffing Plan) with the following supplemental information:

- one fixed hourly burdened rate for each individual labor category;

- A summation column that provides the overall price per labor category; and

- A TOTAL price for Task Order 0001 (this should be a summation of the bullet above).

All formulas shall remain intact on CD-ROM submissions. All dollar amounts should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Offerors do not need to provide pricing for Travel and ODCs CLINs for Task Order 0001. CLINs for Travel and ODC will use pre-populated not-to-exceed figures of $50,000 and $20,000, respectively.

B. Section 2:Pricing Table.

As an IDIQ will be awarded as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to utilize the proposed fixed hourly burdened rates and individual labor categories for all other task orders awarded under the IDIQ. Therefore, the offeror shall provide a table of labor categories and fully burdened rates utilized in the tables submitted under Section 1 of Volume V (please see example below). This table will be incorporated into the base contract as Attachment 9. The rates in Attachment 9 will then be utilized, with their corresponding labor category as ceiling price rates for all TOs. Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods, and are not subject to any escalation through the course of the ordering periods (with the exception labor categories subject to Department of Labor Wage Determination adjustments). The Government will not consider allowing the contractor to include escalation in its pricing submission.

EXAMPLE:

Labor Category Description Fixed Burdened Labor Rate

Program Manager $250.00 Lead Systems Engineer $190.00 Systems Engineer $125.00 Logistician $125.00 System Engineer (Sub A) $115.00

System Engineer (Sub B) $115.00

Etc…

L.9 VOLUME V - Contract Information

The Offeror shall provide the documentation specified below:

A. Section 1: Model Contract/Reresentations and Certifications.

The Offeror shall submit a signed SF33 with any/all Amendments acknowledged and all appropriate “fill-ins” completed. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS INCLUDES ALL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

The SF33 must be signed by an official authorized to bind the Offeror.

1. Authorized Offeror Personnel. 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.

2. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. 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 principal subcontractors. If Offeror is a joint venture, provide a copy of the joint venture agreement. The above information will be utilized to help establish responsibility.

3. Statement that pricing shall be valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

B. Section 2: EEO and VETS 4212 Pre-Award Clearance Information.

To expedite the Government’s EEO pre-award clearance request process, the Offeror 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.

As legislatively mandated under 38 U.S. Code, Section 4212, codified at 41 CFR Section 61-300, respectively, contractors and subcontractors who enter into, or modify a contract or subcontract with the federal government, and whose contract meets the criteria set forth in the above legislation/regulations, are required to report annually on their affirmative action efforts in employing veterans.

As such, Offerors shall submit a copy of the confirmation of receipt notification (e-mail) for verification of successful submission of VETS 4212 report for the prime contractor and any subcontractor with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $100,000 or more. If an Offeror, for any reason, cannot produce a confirmation notification then they may contact the VETS-4212 Service Center to request a verification search to be performed.

Phone: (866) 237-0275 Email: VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov

In order to perform a verification search, the VETS-4212 Service Center will need one or a combination of the following information: Company Name, Company Address, Employer Identification Number (EIN), DUNS Number. Having all of the requested data elements will provide for a more detailed search.

L.10 INQUIRIES

Upon release of the RFP, Requests for Clarification (RFCs) will be accepted for fourteen (14) calendar days. RFCs should be submitted directly to the attention of subject line – M67854-17-R-7820 MCTOG RFP. Answers to RFCs will be provided through Amendments to the solicitation on FBO. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all RFCs, but will consider them and incorporate changes into the RFP as deemed necessary.

At its sole discretion, the Government may answer untimely RFCs.

L.11 FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

All formal communications other than for RFCs (described above) concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer:

Marine Corps Systems Command

PM TRASYS

Attn: Sandi Brubaker Contracting Officer

12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826

Or

Email: sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil Reference: Solicitation No. M67854-17-R-7820

No information concerning this solicitation, including RFC’s, will be provided via telephone.

L.12 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL

The minimum offer acceptance period is 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers. Proposals must be delivered to the addresses provided below, by the time and date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 “Offer Due Date/Local Time”. The time specified on the SF 33 is Local Time, Orlando, FL. Offers received after the time and date specified will be considered late in accordance with the parameters specified in FAR Part 15.208. Offerors shall prominently mark all containers used for delivery of proposals with the following statement:

“REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – SOLICITATION M67854-17-R-7820

For FEDEX,UPS, or hand carried offers:

Marine Corps Systems Command

PM TRASYS

3039 Technology Parkway Orlando, FL 32826 Attn: Ms. Sandi Brubaker 407-380-8184

For US Postal Service:

Marine Corps Systems Command

PM TRASYS

12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826 Attn: Ms. Sandi Brubaker 407-380-8184

For those proposals being hand delivered to the above address, the following additional instructions apply: Notify the Contracting Officer by email that you intend to deliver the proposal and an approximate time for delivery to ensure someone is available to receive it. When arriving at the front of the building, please call Jaime Morrison

(407) 381-8668. The Contracting Officer or representative will arrive in the lobby to receive the proposal and issue a receipt.

Offerors are advised that proposals sent by conventional US MAIL service or shipping service company (e.g., UPS, FedEx) run the possibility that a proposal will not comply with the stated closing date/time exists due to errors by the service. In such cases, the proposal will be considered a “late submission” and treated in accordance with FAR 15.208.

L.13 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Offerors shall be limited to one proposal for this Solicitation. No alternate proposal(s) will be accepted.

L.14 PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS

This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any cost for preparation and submission of a proposal. In addition, the Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this acquisition.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria below. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), Offerors may be given the opportunity for clarification of certain aspects of their proposal or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

As provided above, any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be an IDIQ. As such, the Marine Corps has created a Task Order (with Attachments) that encompasses and reflects a significant portion of work to be performed under the base IDIQ contract (hereto called Task Order 0001). Further, the labor necessary to accomplish Task Order 0001 is anticipated to represent a reasonable sampling of the expected labor categories necessary to accomplish the base ID/IQ listed requirements. Task Order 0001 will be the first awarded Task Order under the Contract. As such, Offerors’ proposals shall be written to the Task Order 0001 level (with Attachments), and the Government will award the base IDIQ and Task Order 0001 (in accordance with Section M below) based on those proposals.

M.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

If the Government determines that an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) exists that cannot be satisfactorily avoided, neutralized or mitigated or waived, the Contracting Officer may determine that the Offeror will not be eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to only consider mitigation plans proposed by the apparent successful Offeror. The process of approving an OCI mitigation plan and revisions to such a plan does not constitute discussions as described in FAR 15.306.

M.3 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS AND COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATIONS

Any proposal that does not substantially and materially comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation may be rejected and not considered for evaluation. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.” Substantially and materially comply includes, but is not limited to: 1) Equal Opportunity Compliance , 2) proof of VETS 4212 compliance, 3) Signed SF33 and acknowledgement of ALL Amendments, and

4) Submission of all Volumes.

In accordance with 52.215-1 (incorporated by reference in this RFP) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be desired.

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 determines that the number of proposals that would be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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.

M.4 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract from this solicitation. Award will be made to the proposal that results in the best value to the Government as defined in FAR 2.101 on the basis of a tradeoff between technical merit, compensation plan, past performance and price/cost. The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decisions. The factors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. The proposals will be evaluated against the Government’s requirements using the following:

Factor 1 Technical Approach Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Compensation Plan Factor 4 Price

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Any elements within is not weighted or rated. All evaluation factors other than cost or prices, when combined, are signifcantly more important than cost or price. Because this is a best value procurement using tradeoffs, the Government may award the IDIQ to other than the lowest priced Offeror. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.

M.5 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will review the Offeror’s Staffing Plan and Labor Category Descriptions to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the Task Order 0001 PWS, including (a) whether the proposed labor categories are appropriate to perform the Task Order 0001 PWS, (b) whether the proposed combination of hours and labor categories logically aligns to the Task order 0001 PWS requirements, and (c) whether the proposed labor mix and hours are likely to result in successful performance of the Task Order 0001 PWS requirements.

The Government will assign each Offeror Technical Approach (Factor 1) a rating that reflects the degree to which the technical aspects of an Offeror’s proposal meet, exceed, or do not meet the solicitation’s requirements through a qualitative assessment of a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The adjectival ratings listed below will be applied only at the Factor level for Factor 1; they will not be applied at any element level. Technical Approach Factor ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offerors receive the same Technical Approach Factor rating, 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.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Technical Approach (Factor 1)

Color Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable

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

M.6 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance record. The Government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel. In addition, in evaluating an Offeror’s past performance (or in the source selection official’s tradeoff decision): the past performance effort of the Offeror performed as a subcontractor will generally not be considered as significant as a past performance effort where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor; performance under Federal Government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under State and Local Government or commercial contracts; and PPQ information provided by a member of the Offeror’s proposed team is given less weight than PPQ information provided by a Government representative.

M.6.1 Relevancy.

For each past performance contract submitted, the Government will evaluate the past performance contract to determine how relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

In determining relevancy, the Government will compare the contract types, total dollar amounts, dollar amounts of the effort actually performed, the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort, the period of performance of the past performance contract, and the scope, and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will assign each past performance contract one of the relevancy ratings listed in the table below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

M.6.2 Demonstrated Past Performance.

After relevancy of a past performance contract is established, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance for that past performance contract in the following areas:

a. Quality of Product or Service. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in the delivery of quality supplies and services, which includes meeting technical requirements, and will also incorporate pertinent assessments from Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government may also take into account information contained on Government reporting sites, including but not limited to PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS.

b. Schedule. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from Past Performance Questionnaires.

The Government may also take into account information contained on Government reporting sites, including but not limited to PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS.

c. Program Management and Subcontract Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in program management and subcontract management (if the Offeror is proposing to use subcontractors), which will incorporate pertinent assessments Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government may also take into account information contained on Government reporting sites, including but not limited to PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS.

For those cases where the Offeror may have had past performance problems likely to occur again, the Government will assess whether the Offeror successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems. Problems not addressed by the Offeror are considered to still exist.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of neutral.

M.6.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

After the Government has compiled a full assessment of the Offeror’s relevance and demonstrated past performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the Offeror. The assessment reflects the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the Offeror’s record of relevant past and present performance. The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth below. As part of the assessment, the Government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data base or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

The Past Performance (Factor 3) Confidence ratings will be assessed as below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings (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.

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.

M.7 Compensation Plan Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Compensation Plan to determine whether the Offeror is likely to be able to perform high quality, uninterrupted work, and recruit/retain the proposed staffing. In this regard, the Government will take into consideration the proposal salary and fringe benefits.

As part of its evaluation, the Government will review the Offeror’s mapping and justification for the proposed comparable BLS labor categories for reasonableness. The Government may review all or a portion of the proposed labor categories. If the Government determines the BLS category is reasonable, the Government will then evaluate the corresponding proposed unburdened hourly labor rate to the BLS labor category mean rate.

The Compensation Plan (Factor 2) rating reflects the degree to which the Offeror’s compensation reflects a sound compensation approach. The adjectival ratings listed below will be applied only at the Factor level for Factor 2;

they will not be applied at any element level. Compensation Plan Factor ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offerors receive the same Compensation Plan Factor rating, the fact that the rating is the same does not indicate the proposals are equal or the same; qualitative distinctions may exist even between proposals that receive the same Factor rating.

Table 4. Compensation Plan Rating (Factor 2)

Adjectival Rating

Description

Green Acceptable Proposal presents adequate approach and reasonable BLS mapping for compensation and therefore presents a low risk of unsuccessful performance in maintaining program continuity and uninterrupted, high quality performance.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not present adequate approach or reasonable BLS mapping for compensation and therefore presents medium to a high risk of unsuccessful performance in maintaining program continuity and uninterrupted, high quality performance.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not present an adequate approach or reasonable BLS mapping for compensation…