M67854-17-R-7823_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 extend the proposal submission due date to 6 Oct 2017, revise Base PWS paragraph 3.1.1.15, update the

Period of Performance for Task Orders 0001 and 0002, add 52.219-14, and update Sections J, L and M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Sep-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 M6785417R7823

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Aug-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 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 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

28-Sep-2017

CODE

PM TRASYS

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO FL 32826-8323

M67854 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M6785417R7823

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 04-Oct-2017 02:00 PM to 06-Oct-2017 12:00 PM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-14

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

Attachment 1 – Contract Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Attachment 2 – Task Order 0001 PWS

Attachment 3 – Task Order 0002 PWS

Attachment 4 – System Specification

Attachment 5– Government Furnished Property

Attachment 6– Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 7 – Pricing Spreadsheet to be provided by Offeror

Attachment 8 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Attachment 9 – SAVT Technical Data and Drawings (Commercial off the Shelf, Training Conduct Support

Document, Training System Support Document, System Interface Manual, Product Drawings and Associated List)

Attachment 10 – Digital CAS STIM Drawing

Attachment 11- Questions and Answers

Exhibit A – Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) Package

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

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 Product 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 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 task 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 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 shall not, based upon the Offeror’s incumbency, presume the

Government’s knowledge regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, etc.

Due to the size of Attachment 9 SAVT Technical Data and Drawings , any potential Offeror who desires Attachment 9 to this solicitation must send an email to reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil and edward.mcgrail@usmc.mil with the Subject “Request for SAVT”. The body of the email must provide an email address and point of contact. Once received, the Government will provide

Attachment 9 via the Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center

(AMRDEC) file exchange to the email address provided. The Government will not entertain any requests to extend the due date of proposals due to late requests for solicitation documentation.

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. The requirement for line numbers DOES NOT apply to Volume II, Section 2.

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 II Section 2, and Volume IV) shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version 10.0. Volumes I though III can be submitted on the same 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 designate one paper copy as the

“original.” The Offeror shall submit its proposal in paper hard copy as well as electronic format (CD-ROMs), in accordance with Table 1 below. The Offeror shall designate one paper hard copy as “Original”. 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 paper 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 Paper Hard

Copy

CD-ROM File Naming Structure

I Training Device

Operators Approach 25pages 5 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol1.pdf

II

Technical Approach

Proposal 20 pages 5 copies 2 copies

Sect. 1 SAVT Modifications 5 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol2-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Staffing Plan No Limit 5 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol2-Sect2. xls

III

Past Performance

Proposal

20 pages 3 copies 2 copies

Sect. 1 Recent and Relevant

Past Performance 3 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol3-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Customer Assessment

List 3 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol3-Sec2.pdf

Sect. 3 Other Past Performance No limit 3 copies 2 copies ABC-Vol3-Sec3.pdf

IV Price Proposal 30 pages 4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Pricing Information 4 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol4-Sec1.xls

Sect. 2 Pricing Table 4 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol4-Sec2.xls

V Contract Information No Limit 2 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1

Model Contract/

Representations and

Certifications

2 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol5-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2

EEO and VETS 4212

Pre-Award Clearance

Information

2 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol5-Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3 OCI 2 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol5-Sect3.pdf

Sect. 4 Property Management

System 2 copies 3 copies ABC-Vol5-Sect4.pdf

L. 3 PROPOSAL CONTENT

The proposal must be prepared in 5 volumes: Volume I: Training Device Operators Approach, Volume II: Technical Approach, Volume III: Past Performance, Volume IV: Price, and 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.

Volumes I though III must not contain references to total task order price.

L.4 MATRIX

The Offeror shall provide a Matrix which cross references the requirements under technical approach to the proposed solution page and line location. This will not be evaluated but used to streamline evaluation of Volume II.

L.5 VOLUME I - Training Device Operators Approach

The Offeror shall propose the following for Contractor Logistic Support (CLS)

Operator/Maintainer, (i.e., Task Order 0001):

1. Roles and responsibilities to be performed by Operators/Maintainers.

2. Knowledge, Skills, Education, and Work experience the Offeror deems necessary for

Operator/Maintainer.

3. Ability to provide required services on day one of the contract.

4. Compensation Plan, to include base salaries and list with short description of Fringe benefits.

No Resumes. The Government does not want Offerors to identify specific individuals.

Rather, the Government seeks 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 - Technical Approach

The Technical Proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken. Proposals should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s competence and technical understanding to successfully accomplish the requirements set forth in the Task Order 0001 and

0002 PWS. The Technical Proposal shall be divided into two sections: SAVT Modifications and

Staffing Plan

A. Section 1: SAVT Modifications. The Offeror shall provide their approach to successfully design, develop, install, integrate, test and deliver the following modifications in accordance with Task Order 0002 and Performance Specifications:

Student Component Input/Output System

Lensatic Compass

Windows/Red Hat Operating System Upgrades

Cybersecurity

B. Section 2: Staffing Plan: The Offeror shall complete a staffing plan for Task Orders 0001 and 0002 in spreadsheet format. Task orders shall be completed on separate tabs. 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 under paragraph

3 of Task Orders 0001 and 0002, taking into consideration all requirements in the respective orders. Any subcontractor labor category shall be clearly delineated as such with “(subcontractor)”. Further, contractor shall provide the name of the subcontractor inside parenthesis. For example (sub-company A). 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., 3.4). Text inserted into the spreadsheet that is not responsive to the requirements in Section L 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.

L.7 VOLUME III - 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 performing 15 percent or more of the identified contract

Total Evaluated Price (TEP).) Past Performance contracts submitted for non-principal subcontractor WILL NOT be reviewed.

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 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 made during performance to resolve problems with respect to the problems or issues related to performance 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. Section 2: Past performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

Offerors shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment J.6) attached to this RFP to the past performance contract customer’s Points of Contact (POCs) for the identified past performance contracts in Section 1 above. Offerors shall instruct the Customer

POCs to complete and forward completed questionnaires to Mr. Reggie Caldwell, Contract

Specialist, via email at reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil no later than the closing date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation.

If CPARS exist Offeror may submit CPARS in lieu of respective Past Performance

Questionnaire. This will not count against the page count.

For the proposal, Offerors shall submit a list detailing the POCs with contact information (email address and phone number) for each PPQ sent out for completion.

C. Section 3: Other Past Performance: 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). As such, Offerors shall submit a list consisting of ALL Federal Government contracts of the Prime Contractor performed (in part) within five (5) years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP, that were awarded under NAICS code 541512. This information will not be evaluated, but may be utilized to narrow searches in CPARS or PPIRS.

L.8 VOLUME IV- PRICE

A. Section 1: Pricing Information.

The Offeror shall include price information for Task Orders 0001 and 0002. Offerors shall propose one overall price for each Task Orders 0001and 0002, supported by the spreadsheet submitted for Technical Approach Section 2(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 per Task order (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. CLINs with an NTE value shall not be priced, as these

CLINs will be evaluated using the NTE value. Note: Please provide a separate tab for each modification required under Task Order 0002.

B. Section 2: Pricing Table.

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 2 of Volume II (please see example below). This table will be incorporated into the base contract as [Attachment 7]. The rates in [Attachment 7] will then be utilized, with their corresponding labor category as a 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. 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 $150.00

Systems Engineer $135.00

Software Engineer $120.00

CLS SAVT Operator $105.00

Hardware Engineer $95.00

Test/QA $115.00

Technician $95.00

***Please note, “labor categories and fully burdened rates utilized” means the contractor has assigned labor hours to be performed by the labor category under the Pricing Information

(Section 1, Vol V and by associated Staffing Plan Section 2, Vol II). Labor categories that are not assigned labor hours (or not utilized) in The Pricing Information (and Staffing Plan) shall not be included in this table.

L.9 VOLUME V - Contract Information

The Offeror shall provide the documentation specified below:

A. Section 1: Model Contract.

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 ALL 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.

C. Section 3 Notification of Potential Organizational Conflict(s) of Interest

Offerors are required to identify actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) 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).”

D. Section 4: Property Management System- The Offeror shall provide evidence of an acceptable Property Management System in accordance with FAR 52.245-1(f).

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 reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil subject line – M67854-17-R-7823. Answers to RFCs will be provided through Amendments to the solicitation on FBO. Therefore, questions/comments shall mailto:reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil 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: Edward McGrail

Contracting Officer

12211 Science Drive

Orlando, FL 32826

Or

Email: Edward.McGrail@usmc.mil

Reference: Solicitation No. M67854-17-R-7823

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-7823

For FEDEX,UPS, or US Postal Service:

PM TRASYS

12211 Science Drive

Attn: Mr. Edward McGrail

For hand carried offers:

PM TRASYS

3039 Technology Parkway

Attn: Mr. Edward McGrail

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 Reginald Caldwell (please email for phone number). 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

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.

Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be an IDIQ. As such, the Marine Corps has created Task Orders (with Attachments) that encompass and reflect a significant portion of work to be performed under the base IDIQ contract (hereto called Task Order 0001 and Task

Order 0002). Further, the labor necessary to accomplish Task Orders 0001 and 0002 is anticipated to represent a reasonable sampling of the expected labor categories necessary to accomplish all the base ID/IQ listed requirements.

PLEASE NOTE: The Government will award the Overall ID/IQ and either one, or both, of the

Task Orders based on proposals. To ensure fair and reasonable pricing, and that there is no

“buying-in” to the contract, the Government will not provide which Task Order(s) will accompany the base ID/IQ, only that at least one order will be awarded and it will satisfy the

ID/IQ minimum.

M.2 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. Substantially and materially compliance includes Proposal Format, all Volumes and applicable information submitted.

Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.”

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3), 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. If the Government awards without discussions, any proposal that receives at least one factor rating of

“Marginal” or “Unacceptable” 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 Contracting Officer 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.

In addition, if after discussions are complete any proposal that receives at least one factor rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will be unacceptable for award and will not be considered during the Best value trade-off.

M.3 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, past performance, compensation plan, and price. The

Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value. The evaluation of non-price factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decisions. The non-price 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 Training Device Operators Approach

Factor 2 Technical Approach

Factor 3 Past Performance

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Any elements within a non-price factor are not weighted or rated. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than 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. Further, as non-price factors qualitative distinctions become closer, price increases in importance.

FACTOR 1 - TRAINING DEVICE OPERATORS APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Training Device Operators Approach for:

1. Roles and responsibilities proposed for Operators/Maintainers are comprehensive and will result in successful performance.

2. Knowledge, Skills, Education, and Work experience for Operators proposed demonstrate knowledge of the requirements.

3. Ability to successfully perform required services on day one of the contract.

4. Compensation Plan shall be evaluated for reflecting a clear understanding of work to be and capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified operators to meet mission objectives.

PLEASE NOTE: The Government will evaluate as advantageous any Offeror who provides

Operators with Work Experience that includes 1) Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC), 2)

Joint Fires Observer (JFO), and/or 3) Forward Air Controller (FAC) military designations.

FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

A) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to successfully design, develop, install, integrate, test and deliver the following modifications activities for overall likelihood of success:

Student Component Input/Output System

Lensatic Compass

Windows/Red Hat Operating System Upgrades

Cybersecurity

B) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Plan for Task Orders 0001 and 0002

PWS’s to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

whether the proposed labor categories are appropriate to perform the PWS, whether the proposed combination of hours and labor categories logically aligns to the PWS requirements, and

Whether the proposed labor mix and hours are likely to result in successful performance of the PWS requirements.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR FACTORS 1 AND 2

A) The Government will assign each Offerors Training Device Operators Approach and

Technical Approach (Factors 1 and 2) a rating that reflects the degree to which the 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, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The adjectival ratings listed below will be applied only at the Factor level for

Factor 1 and Factor 2; they will not be applied at any element level. Factor ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offerors receive the same

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 and 2)

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.

B) Applicable Definitions:

Deficiency: 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. One deficiency renders the entire factor as “Unacceptable.” A collection of weaknesses and significant weaknesses can also combine to make a deficiency.

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance, or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

*Please Note: A weakness or significant weakness in itself does not render a quotation technically unacceptable like a deficiency. However, a weakness or significant weakness may significantly detract from the Offeror’s response.

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract

Significant Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will appreciably be advantageous to the Government during contract

FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

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 relevant 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.

A) 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 review:

the contract types, total dollar amounts, dollar amounts of the effort actually performed for which the past performance effort is being submitted, 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.

B) 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 CPARS into account.

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 CPARS into account.

c. Program Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in program management, which will incorporate pertinent assessments Past

Performance Questionnaires. The Government may also take CPARS into account.

C) 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.4 Price Evaluation

Price will be evaluated but not rated.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) includes the sum of the totals of Task Order 0001 and Task

Order 0002 price, derived as follows:

Step 1. (Labor category hours)* (Labor hour price) = Total Labor Category Price

Step 2. Σ(All Total Labor Category Prices) = Total Task Order Price

Step 3. TEP = Total Task Order 0001 Price + Total Task Order 0002 Price

As noted above, Task Orders 0001 and 0002 requirements promote a realistic expectation of work to be performed within the overall IDIQ contract. Further, the labor categories necessary to accomplish Task Orders 0001 and 0002 are anticipated to represent a reasonable sampling of the expected labor categories necessary to accomplish all other Task Orders. As such Task Orders

0001 and 0002 provide a meaningful basis for comparison of prices (and cost to the

Government); because even if does not include ALL services the Government may order or include ALL potential labor categories, it is sufficiently typical of the work to be performed.

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(b)(2). The purpose of price reasonableness is to determine whether an Offeror’s price is too high. Price reasonableness will not, however, be used to determine if an Offeror’s price is too low.

As this solicitation will result in FFP Task Orders, the Government may, at its discretion, perform a price realism 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…