RFP_M67854-18-R-2023_Amendment_0005.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:

(1) Post the Government's response to Request for Clarification (RFC); (2) Revise RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement; (3) Revise RFP, Section B, CLIN List and Pricing Terms. (4) Revise RFP, Section E, Addendums 1 and 2; (5). Delete RFP Attachment 5; (6) Revise Attachment 4 (Pricing Worksheet); (7) Delete CDRL A00D; (8) Update CDRLs B001, B003, and B003; (9) The Government has included a Conformed copy of the RFP based on changes up to Amendment 0005; (10) Proposal due date is hereby extended until 1:00 P.M. local time Quantico,VA on 2 April 2018.

Due to the contract writing systems automatic sorting of the documents, sections of Amendment 0005 sorted in reverse order. The Conformed copy of the solicitation is sorted correctly.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Mar-2018

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 M6785418R2023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Mar-2018

CODE

MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN: TOMMY KING, CT CES

2200 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M6785418R2023

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The contractor shall provide MCH Wireless Access Point(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3 and 4.5.

To:

The contractor shall provide MCH Wireless Access Point(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. The Government intends to intially procure 20 Sample Wireless Access Points and in the event of the need to refresh, the Government will procure up to 20 additional Sample Wireless Access Points. Delivery of Sample Wireless Access Point to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).

CLIN 0009

The contractor shall provide MCH Production EUD's Large Form Factor(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3 and 4.5. Delivery of Production Devices to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).Offerors pricing for this CLIN should be submitted on a Volume Discount Pricing Worksheet (see sample at Attachment 5).

The unit price for each delivery order will be determined based on the quantity ordered.

The contractor shall provide MCH Production EUD's Large Form Factor(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Delivery of Production Devices to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).Offerors pricing for this CLIN should be submitted on a Volume Discount Pricing Worksheet (see sample at Attachment 4). The unit price for each delivery order will be determined based on the quantity ordered.

CLIN 0010

The contractor shall provide MCH Production EUD's Large Form Factor(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3 and 4.5. Delivery of Production Devices to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).Offerors pricing for this CLIN should be submitted on a Volume Discount Pricing Worksheet (see sample at Attachment 5).

The unit price for each delivery order will be determined based on the quantity ordered.

The contractor shall provide MCH Production EUD's Large Form Factor(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Delivery of Production Devices to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).Offerors pricing for this CLIN should be submitted on a Volume Discount Pricing Worksheet (see sample at Attachment 4). The unit price for each delivery order will be determined based on the quantity ordered.

CLIN 0011

The contractor shall provide MCH Production Wireless Access Point(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3 and 4.5. Delivery of Production Device to the Government will be no more than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).

The contractor shall provide MCH Production Wireless Access Point(s) as identified in the PSPEC and IAW PWS Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Delivery of Production Device to the

CLIN 0013

The contractor shall provide the SDK IAW PWS section 4.4.4.

The contractor shall provide the SDK IAW PWS section 4.4.4. Delivery of SDK to the

CLIN 0014

The contractor shall provide Secure Host Baseline EUD/ Wireless Access Components IAW PWS 4.4.5. Deliver no later than 90 days After Receipt of Order (ARO).

The contractor shall provide Secure Host Baseline EUD/ Wireless Access Components IAW PWS 4.4.5. Delivery of Wireless Access Components to the Government will be no later than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).

CLIN 0015

The contractor shall provide Secure Host Baseline Mobile Management / Security Components IAW PWS 4.4.5. Deliver no later than 90 days After Receipt of Order (ARO).

The contractor shall provide Secure Host Baseline Mobile Management / Security Components IAW PWS 4.4.5. Delivery to the Government will be no later than 90 days After Delivery of Contract (ADC).

CLIN 0026

The contractor shall deliver Software Version Description under CDRL A005 IAW PWS 4.3.4.3 and 4.7.5

The contractor shall deliver Software Version Description under CDRL A005 IAW PWS 4.3.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.7.5

CLIN 0030

The contractor shall deliver the Program Protection Implementation Plan under CDRL B002 IAW PWS 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.1.5

The contractor shall deliver the Program Protection Implementation Plan under CDRL B002 IAW PWS 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.5, 4.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.3.

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0013 has been added:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

90 dys. ADC N/A

FOB: Destination

The following have been added by full text:

52.225-6 TRADE AGREEMENTS CERTIFICATE (MAY 2014)

(a) The offeror certifies that each end product, except those listed in paragraph (b) of this provision, is a U.S.-made or designated country end product, as defined in the clause of this solicitation entitled ``Trade Agreements.''

(b) The offeror shall list as other end products those supplies that are not U.S.-made or designated country end products.

Other End Products

Line Item No.:

Country of Origin:-----------------------------------------------------

(List as necessary),

(c) The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the policies and procedures of Part 25 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. For line items covered by the WTO GPA, the Government will evaluate offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American statute. The Government will consider for award only offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products unless the Contracting Officer determines that there are no offers for such products or that the offers for those products are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation.

(End of provision)

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS

SECTION D

List of documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment (1) - Performance Work Statement Attachment (2) - DD 254 Attachment (3) – PSPEC Requirements Compliance Matrix (RCM) Attachment (4) - Pricing Worksheet (sample) Attachment (5) – System Volume Pricing Worksheet (sample)

EXHIBITS

Exhibit (1) – Past Performance Questionnaire Exhibit (2) - Performance Specification (PSPEC)

ADDENDUMS

Addendum (1) – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offeror Addendum (2) – Evaluation Commercial Items

The following Appendices refer to the Performance Work Statement:

Appendix (A) – Contracts Data Requirements List Tracker (CDRL) Appendix (B) – Solicitation Supporting Documentation Appendix (C) – Reference Documentation Appendix (D) - Acronyms

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

SECTION D

D-1.1 ADDITIONAL CONTRACT INFORMATION

The Contractor shall perform all services as described in the attached Performance Work Statement for the entire ordering periods of the contract. The Government reserves the right to make none, one, or multiple Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract(s) as a result of this solicitation. Task Orders/Delivery Orders issued under the resulting contract will be Firm-Fixed Price (FFP).

The contract resulting from this solicitation will include a CLIN structure consisting of Firm Fixed Price CLINS and a Cost Reimbursable CLIN for travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

D-1.2 The base contract is not funded. Funds will be obligated on TASK ORDERS/delivery orders written against this contract. Some Task Orders/Delivery Orders issued under this contract may be incrementally funded pursuant to FAR 52.232-22 and DFARS 252.232-7007.

D-1.3 MINIMUM GUARANTEE AND MAXIMUM CEILING

The minimum guarantee over the life of this contract, per FAR 52.216-22, is limited to the issuance of Task Order/Delivery Order 0001 with minimum quantites of 15 large Form Factor Devices, 20 Small Form Factor Devices, and 20 Wireless Access Points at Contract Award. The anticipated maximum ceiling amount for this contract is $48,000,000.00 over a 5 year ordering period. The contract maximum represents an estimated total requirement over the life of the contract and the Government is not obligated to issue orders, other than the minimum guarantee.

D-1.4 CONTRACT ORDERING PERIOD

The contract has a 5 year ordering period from date of contract award.

D-1.5 TASK ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Orders may be issued at any time during the contract ordering period within the limits of FAR Clause 52.216-19.

The period of performance for individual orders will be established at the task order/delivery order level.

Orders may end twelve (12) months beyond the expiration date of the contract in accordance with FAR Clause 52.216-22 paragraph (d). FAR Clauses 52.217-8 and/or 52.217-9 will be included at the task order/delivery order when applicable.

D-1.6 ISSUANCE OF DELIVERY ORDERS

All services performed under this contract shall be set forth in individual task orders/delivery orders. All orders will be issued in accordance with the basic contract.

D-1.7 CONTRACT TYPE

The contract type is a Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract in accordance with FAR 16.504.

Firm-Fixed-Price task orders/delivery orders may be issued in accordance with this contract. The Contractor is not authorized to provide services/supplies prior to the issuance of a task order/delivery order.

D-1.8 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Place of performance shall be specified in individual task orders/delivery orders.

D-1.9 DELIVERY

The services/supplies required under each individual task order/delivery order shall be delivered/received/accepted at FOB destination within the time frame specified in each delivery order.

The resulting contract will be an ID/IQ, and the term After Delivery of Contract (ADC) applies to a Fixed Price Contract, both terms After Receipt of Order (ARO) and ADC shall be used interchangeably to mean within 90 days after receipt of an order.

D-2 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Ms. Jodie Shifflett and Mr. Tommy King

Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Phone (703) 432-9908 Phone (703) 432-8736 jodie.Shifflett@usmc.mil tommy.king@usmc.mil

United States Postal Service Address:

COMMANDER COMMANDER

MARCORSYSCOM (CT 2.2) MARCORSYSCOM (CT 2.2)

2200 LESTER STREET 2200 LESTER STREET

ATTN: JODIE SHIFFLETT ATTN: TOMMY KING

QUANTICO, VA 22134-6050 QUANTICO, VA 22134-6050

D-2.1 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) – FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

(a) COR information will be filled in at award. Unless terminated sooner, this appointment is effective for the period of performance of the resulting contract. COR authority may not be re-delegated. No change in COR assignment shall be made without written notice by the Contracting Officer, who will modify the contract to reflect the change of COR assignment. The Contracting Officer may designate assistant or alternate COR(s) to act for the COR by naming such assistant/alternate(s) in writing and transmitting a copy of such designation to the contractor via contract modification.

(b) The responsibilities and limitations of the COR are as follows:

(1) Providing technical direction and guidance as necessary with respect to the performance of work under this contract and individual task orders. Technical direction and guidance may be used to provide technical advice/recommendations/clarifications on the Performance Work Statement. It MAY NOT be used to tell the contractor how to perform the work.

(2) Submitting interim and final Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) at www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm.

(3) Assuring quality of services performed or deliverables made.

(4) Inspecting and accepting of services or deliverables.

(5) Ensuring that Government Furnished Property, to include any contractor use of on-site equipment and/or IT resources is adequately monitored and accounted for.

(6) Addressing security requirements on Government installations, such as the request and retrieval of personnel security badges and vehicle passes.

(7) Monitoring contractor’s performance and promptly report problems and recommendations for corrective action to the PCO.

(8) Annually, furnishing a written report on performance of the contractor to the PCO. And, if deemed necessary, attending a follow-up meeting to discuss that report.

(9) Attending the post award conference.

(10) Ensuring a copy of all Government technical correspondence, to include Technical Direction

Memorandums/Guidance, is forwarded to the PCO for placement in the contract file.

(11) Monitoring of funds expended.

(12) Ensuring that the Contractor does not exceed the defined performance work statement set forth in the contract and/or task order(s).

(c) Limitations: The COR is not authorized to take any action, either directly or indirectly, that could result in a change in the cost/price, quantity, quality, place of performance, delivery schedule, or any other terms or conditions of the contract or resulting task order(s). If, as a result of technical discussions, it is desirable to alter contract or task order obligations or the performance work statement, a modification must be issued in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer in order to effect such changes. No such changes shall be made without the express written prior authorization/direction of the Contracting Officer.

(a) Notwithstanding the contractor’s responsibility for total management during the performance of this contract, the administration of the contract requires maximum coordination between the Government and the contractor. The following provides the roles and their respective authority during the performance of the contract.

mailto:odie.Shifflett@usmc.mil mailto:tommy.king@usmc.mil http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm

(1) Contracting Officer (KO). The KO is the only person authorized to direct changes in any of the requirements under this contract, and notwithstanding provisions contained elsewhere in this contract, said authority remains the solely in the KO. In the event the Contractor effects any such change at the direction of any person other than the KO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and solely at the risk of the Contractor.

All contract administration will be effected by the KO. Communications pertaining to contractual administrative matters shall be addressed to the KO. No changes in or deviation from the terms and conditions of the contract shall be effected without a written modification to the contract executed by the KO authorizing such changes.

(2) Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The KO shall designate contract level CORs during the term of this contract, DFARS clause 252.201-7000 “Contracting Officer’s Representative.” The COR will provide assistance in identification and resolution of problems, conflicts in priority, subtask requirement definitions, and other operations type problems.

(3) Contractor. The Contractor shall not accept any instructions issued by any person employed by the U.S. Government or otherwise, other than the KO, or the COR acting within the limits of his or her authority.

The Contractor shall not in any way represent that he is a part of the U.S. Government or that he has the authority to contract or procure supplies for the account of the United States of America.

D-2.2 CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL

The Contractor’s Proposal, or portions thereof, may be incorporated into the contract at the Government’s discretion.

D-2.3 CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE ORDERS

(a) No modification, statement, or conduct of Government personnel who might visit the Contractor’s facility or in any other manner communicate with Contractor personnel during the performance of this contract shall constitute a change under the “Changes” clause of this contract.

(b) No understanding or agreement, contract modification, change order, or other matter deviating from or constituting an alteration or change of the terms of the contract shall be effective or binding upon the Government unless formalized by contractual documents executed by the Contracting Officer.

(c) The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this contract and, not withstanding provisions contained elsewhere in the contract, this authority remains solely with the Contracting Officer. In the event that the Contractor effects any change(s) at the direction of any person other than the Contracting Officer, these change(s) will be at the Contractor’s expense. No adjustment shall be made in the contract price or other contract terms and conditions, as the Contracting Officer did not approve any consideration for the aforementioned unauthorized change. Further, should the unauthorized change be to the Government’s detriment, the Contractor may be held financially responsible for its correction.

D-2.4 POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)

Limitation of Future Contracting. The Contracting Officer has determined that this acquisition may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. Prospective Offerors should read FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest. This task may involve systems engineering and technical direction for the MC2S program that will preclude Contractor involvement in future efforts. The restrictions upon future contracting are as follows:

If the Contractor, under the terms of this task order, or through the performance of tasks pursuant to this task order, is required to provide systems engineering and technical direction for a system or helps to develop specifications or statements of work to be used in a competitive acquisition, the Contractor shall be ineligible to supply the system or major components of the system as a prime Contractor and shall be precluded from being a Subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components under an ensuing Government contract.

This restriction shall remain in effect for a reasonable time, sufficient to avoid unfair competitive advantage or potential bias (this time shall in no case be less than the duration of the initial production contract).

To the extent the work under this contract requires access to proprietary, business confidential, or financial data of other companies, and as long as these data remain proprietary or confidential, the Contractor shall protect the data from unauthorized use and disclosure and agrees not to use it to compete with those other companies.

(a) “ Organizational Conflict of Interest” means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage. “Person” as used herein includes corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, and other business enterprises.

(b) The Contractor warrants that to the best of its knowledge and belief, and except as otherwise set forth in the contract, the Contractor does not have any organizational conflict of interest(s) as defined in paragraph (a).

(c) It is recognized that the effort to be performed by the Contractor under this contract may create a potential organizational conflict of interest on the instant contract or on a future acquisition. In order to avoid potential conflict of interest, and at the same time to avoid prejudicing the best interest of the Government, the right of the Contractor to participate in future procurement of equipment and/or services that are the subject of any work under this contract shall be limited as described below in accordance with the requirements of FAR 9.5.

(d) Disclosure of Information.

The Contractor agrees that it shall not release, disclose, or use in any way that would permit or result in disclosure to any party outside the Government any information provided to the Contractor by the Government during or as a result of performance of this contract. Such information includes, but is not limited to, information submitted to the Government on a confidential basis by other persons. Further, the prohibition against release of Government provided information extends to cover such information whether or not in its original form, e.g., where the information has been included in Contractor generated work or where it is discernible from materials incorporating or based upon such information. This prohibition shall not expire after a given period of time.

1. The Contractor agrees that it shall not release, disclose, or use in any way that would permit or result in disclosure to any party outside the Government any information generated or derived during or as a result of performance of this contract. This prohibition shall not expire after a given period of time.

2. The prohibitions contained in subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall apply with equal force to any affiliate of the Contractor, any Subcontractor, consultant, or employee of the Contractor, any joint venture involving the Contractor, any entity into or with which it may merge or affiliate, or any successor or assign of the Contractor.

3. The prohibitions contained in subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall apply with equal force to any affiliate of the Contractor, any Subcontractor, consultant, or employee of the Contractor, any joint venture involving the Contractor, any entity into or with which it may merge or affiliate, or any successor or assign of the Contractor.

(e) The Contractor may, with the authorization of the cognizant contracting officer, participate in a subsequent procurement for the same system, component, or service. This exclusion does not apply to any re-competition for those systems, components, or services on the basis of work statements growing out of the effort performed under this contract, from a source other than the Contractor, Subcontractor affiliate, or assign of either, during the course of performance of this contract or before the three year period following completion of this contract has lapsed.

(f) The Contractor agrees that if, after award, it discovers an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest, it shall make immediate and full disclosure in writing to the contracting officer. The notification shall include a description of the actual or potential organizational conflict of interest, a description of the action which the Contractor has taken or proposes to take to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict, and any other relevant information that would assist the contracting officer in making a determination on this matter. Notwithstanding this notification, the Government may terminate the contract for the convenience of the Government if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (f) above, if the Contractor was aware, or should have been aware, of an organizational conflict of interest prior to the award of this contract or becomes, or should become aware of an organizational conflict of interest after award of this contract and does not make an immediate and full disclosure in writing to the contracting officer, the Government may terminate this contract for default.

(h) If the contractor takes any action prohibited by this requirement or fails to take action required by this requirement, the Government may terminate this contract for default.

(i) The contracting officer's decision as to the existence or nonexistence of the actual or potential organization conflict of interest shall be final and is not subject to the clause of this contract entitled "DISPUTES" (FAR 52.233.1).

(j) Nothing in this requirement is intended to prohibit or preclude the Contractor from marketing or selling to the United States Government its product lines in existence on the effective date of this contract; nor, shall this requirement preclude the Contractor from participating in any research and development. Additionally, sale of catalog or standard commercial items are exempt from this requirement.

(k) The Contractor shall promptly notify the contracting officer, in writing, if it has been tasked to evaluate or advise the Government concerning its own products or activities or those of a competitor in order to ensure proper safeguards exist to guarantee objectivity and to protect the Government's interest.

(l) The Contractor shall include this requirement in subcontracts of any tier which involve access to information or situations/conditions covered by the preceding paragraphs, substituting "Subcontractor" for "contractor" where appropriate.

(m) The rights and remedies described herein shall not be exclusive and are in addition to other rights and remedies provided by law or elsewhere included in this contract.

(n) Compliance with this requirement is a material requirement of this contract.

EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

SECTION E

ADDENDUM 2 - EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See addendum below.

E-2 BASIS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Summary

1. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal received before the Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date and time established for this solicitation, and will use the results in making the source selection decision. The source selection process will determine the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. Timely proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel.

2. Any Offeror that is rated “Marginal” or below in any evaluation criteria may not be considered for contract award. Award will be to the responsible Offeror whose proposal (conforming to the solicitation) represents the best value to the Government considering the areas of Technical Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance, Price, and Subcontracting and Small Business Participation. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a “Cost/Technical Tradeoff” analysis of cost or price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

3. The Government intends to award one or more Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts (Gate 2) to offerors whose proposal provides the best value to the Government, and then to down select to a single offeror (Gate 3) who will receive delivery orders to field devices throughout the remainder of the contract. The award decision will be in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

4. The Government will use a three-gate process to evaluate proposals.

a. Gate 1 will be an evaluation of proposals on a pass/fail basis to ensure Offerors meet the following mandatory requirements: use of a CSfC Trusted Integrator, use of an Android Operating System, and a Secret Facility Clearance. Proposals must pass Gate 1 before advancing to Gate 2.

b. At Gate 2, proposals will be evaluated under the criteria included under the Technical Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance, Price evaluation, and Small Business Subcontracting and Participation evaluation factors. The offeror(s) proposing the best value to the Government will be selected for contract awards.

c. During Gate 3, a thorough developmental testing cycle will evaluate the Offeror’s solution against the MCH performance specification. A source selection board will evaluate each Offeror’s solution based on its performance during developmental testing, the NSA’s findings on the Offeror’s CSfC registration package, the proposal (including any revisions permitted), and deliverables submitted under Delivery Order 01 to inform final down-select to an Offeror from which to order production quantities. The Government reserves the right to allow Offeror(s) to revise its final pricing.

E-2.1 Basis for Contract Award

1. The Government reserves the right to award none, one or more than one contract against Solicitation No.

M67854-18-R-2023. The Government anticipates awarding multiple ID/IQ contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror using "Best Value" criteria per FAR 15.101. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) who best meets the requirements as outlined in the PWS and:

• whose proposal is technically acceptable;

• whose offer is deemed responsive to the solicitation requirements;

• whose overall offer represents "Best Value" to the Government.

E-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

E-3.1 Gate 1 Mandatory Requirements, PASS/FAIL: Under Gate 1, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submission of the following documentation on a PASS or FAIL basis. Offerors shall note that in order to move to the Gate 2 evaluation, its proposal must receive a PASS rating in ALL of the PASS/FAIL criteria. Once all proposals are evaluated against Gate 1 PASS/FAIL criteria, the Government will proceed to Gate 2 and will evaluate only those Offerors’ proposals that received a PASS rating under all Gate 1 criteria.

Table 4: Mandatory Requirements Evaluation Use of a CSfC Trusted Integrator Pass/Fail

An Approved Secret Facility Clearance Pass/Fail

Use of an Android Operating System Pass/Fail

E-3.2 Gate 2 Evaluation Factors and Relative Order of Importance.

In making its "Best Value" determination, all non-price factors combined are of significantly greater importance than price, though the evaluated price is a substantial area to be taken into consideration in the integrated assessment of offers. Therefore, the Government may award to other than lowest price, acceptable offer(s) if it is determined that the superior capability of another offeror is worth the additional price. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability. The factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

• Technical Approach

• Management

• Past Performance

• Cost/Price

• Subcontracting & Small Business Participation

Table 5: Factors and Elements Factors Elements Factor 1 – Technical Approach • PSPEC Requirements Compliance Matrix

• Proposed Solution: Capability Packages addressing to and Planned Deviations

• Sustainment Approach

• Component Management

• System Security Engineering

Factor 2 – Management Approach • Approach to Program Management

• Approach to Quality Management

• Approach to Risk Management

• Approach to Configuration Management

• Approach to System Safety Program

Factor 3 – Past Performance • Recency and Relevance of Past Performance Information

• Quality of Past Performance Factor 4 – Price • The Total Price proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated, but not rated

Factor 5 – Subcontracting & Small Business Participation

• SB Subcontracting and Participation Plan

E-4 Technical & Management Rating Evaluation Processes.

The Technical & Management Approach Factor Ratings are a combination of technical and risk ratings that reflect the proposal’s approach to, and understanding of, the Government’s requirements, the strengths and weaknesses posed by the proposal, and the risk associated with the proposed performance. The Technical & Management Approach Factors Ratings listed in Table 6 below will be applied ONLY at the Factor level; they will NOT be applied at the element (criterion) level. Table 6a is included merely to assist offerors in understanding the risk language used in the Table 6 ratings definitions. Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance, whether in the form of schedule disruption, degraded performance, increased cost, or the need for increased Government oversight.

Note: Ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offeror received the same factor rating(s), 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(s).

Table 6: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method - Technical & Management Approach Factor Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description 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 un-awardable.

Table 6a: Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

DEFINITIONS:

• “Significant Strength” is defined as any aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

• “Strength” is defined as any aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

• “Weakness” is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

• “Significant Weakness” is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

• “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

E-5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Confidence Ratings

The Government will use the rating methods listed in Tables 7 and 8 to evaluate the relevancy and quality of performance of the Offeror’s recent past performance.

Table 7: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Risk 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.

Table 8: Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Risk 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 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.

E-6. DESCRIPTION OF GATE 1 MANDATORY PASS/FAIL CRITERIA

CSfC Trusted Integrator: The Government will verify the Offeror’s CSfC Trusted Integrator status to include Offeror’s Memorandum of Agreement with the NSA and its listing on NSA’s Trusted Integrator website.

Secret Facility Clearance: The Government will verify that the Offeror has submitted its firm’s Secret Facility Clearance in the form of a fully executed DD Form 441, Department of Defense Security Agreement issued by the Defense Security Services (DSS), in addition to completing block 7 of the DD Form 254, (Attachment 2).

Android OS: The Government will verify that the Offeror’s proposed solution uses an Android operating system.

E-7. DESCRIPTION OF GATE 2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 - Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the manner and extent to which the Offeror’s proposed design and infrastructure will meet the Government’s objectives as described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and its Performance Specification (PSPEC). The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the risks associated with the program are identified and mitigated in the Offeror’s proposed solution.

Figure 1: Technical

Factor 1 – Technical Approach • PSPEC Requirements Compliance Matrix

• Proposed Solution: Capability Packages addressing to Planned Deviations

• Sustainment Approach

• Component Management

• System Security Engineering

a. PSPEC Requirements Compliance Matrix: The Government will use the Offeror’s PSPEC Requirements Compliance Matrix (RCM) to determine how well the Offeror understands the requirements, and how well the Offeror’s technical solution meets the requirements.

b. Proposed Solution: Capability Packages Addressing Planned Deviations: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s solution based on how well it reflects a clear understanding of the requirements and the extent to which the Offeror’s technical solution delivers a robust design and meets the requirements. If the Offeror’s proposal includes deviations to particular requirements in the CSfC Capability Packages, the proposal will also be evaluated on the demonstrated impact of the deviations. The government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed delivery schedule.

c. Sustainment Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to sustainment. The Government will evaluate the sustainment approach’s alignment with requirements from the PWS based on the Offeror’s component choices.

d. Component Management: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to Component Management and its notional schedule in relation to Section 4.8.1 of the PWS.

e. System Security Engineering: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed solution with respect to its disciplined, structured Systems Security Engineering (SSE) and Program Protection (PP) processes, including Criticality Analysis (CA), in system specification, detailed design, build/code, and test, with emphasis on countermeasure and sub-countermeasure implementation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed solution with respect to derived system protection requirements that are comprehensive, verifiable, and traced from the PWS and CSfC requirements, so that system level protection requirements can be validated.

Factor 2 – Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s described approach with respect to its management policies and procedures it proposes to use to accomplish the specific functional requirements of Section 4 of the PWS.

Figure 2: Management Factor Elements

Factor 2 – Management Approach • Approach to Program Management

• Approach to Risk Management

• Approach to Quality Management

• Approach to Configuration Management

• Approach to System Safety Program

a. Approach to Program Management: The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposed

Management Plan’s practices and procedures support successful execution of MCH testing and sustainment of fielded devices as outlined in Section 4.1 of the PWS.

b. Approach to Quality Management: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Quality Management Plan to determine whether its internal controls and procedures support successful execution of the MCH testing and sustainment of fielded devices based on Section 4.1.7 4.1.5 of the PWS.

c. Approach to Risk Management: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Risk Management

Plan and processes to include identifying key cost, schedule, performance and technical risks.

d. Approach to Configuration Management: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed implementation of a Configuration Management (CM) Plan to determine how well it demonstrates an understanding of and is likely to achieve, the CM requirements to control all hardware and software configuration documentation and other related areas as described in Section 4.1.5 4.1.3 of the PWS.

e. Approach to System Safety Program (SSP): The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposal addresses the safety measures outlined in Section 4.3.5 of the PWS and Section 3.2.3 of the PSPEC and the effectiveness of the SSP.

Factor 3 – Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent examples of past performance for efforts similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to determine the likelihood of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the tasks listed in the PWS and PSPEC. Relevance will be determined for each prior effort, and a single Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be determined for each offeror by weighing its performance on each prior effort in relation to the effort’s relevance to the solicited effort. Those prior efforts that are more relevant will weigh more heavily than less relevant efforts in determining the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom sufficient information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Figure 3: Past Performance

Factor Elements Factor 3 – Past Performance • Recency and Relevance of Past Performance Information

• Quality of Performance

a. Recent: As a threshold matter, the Government will determine whether the submitted effort is recent, meaning that the contract, whether ongoing or completed, has at least 12 months of performance occurring during the 3 years preceding the proposal submission date.

b. Relevance: The Government will use the Offeror’s description and other available information regarding the effort (e.g., PPQ, CPARS, interviews, etc.) to determine the degree of similarity between the reported effort and the solicited effort. Each effort will be labeled with a relevancy rating from Table 7. The greater the similarity, the greater the likelihood that the prior effort will inform the evaluators as to how the Offeror might perform the solicited effort. Relevance may include consideration of numerous aspects of the reported and solicited efforts but will nearly always consider the scope, magnitude and complexity of the effort. The Offeror bears the burden of establishing the relevance of each reported effort. Incomplete or insufficiently detailed or conflicting descriptions of the prior effort, either by the contractor or in the other past performance sources considered, may hamper the evaluator’s ability to accurately assess relevance.

c. Customer Assessment: The Government will consider the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the prior effort as assessed by customers—in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS, interviews, etc.—, generally and relative to performance problems, with particular focus on the number and severity of problems and all corrective action taken by the Offeror. Feedback from customers whose comments are likely to be partial (e.g. because they are proposed for this same effort, either as teammate or competitor) is not likely to be given the same consideration as feedback assumed to be impartial.

d. Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will consider the character and quality of the Offeror’s performance on prior efforts in order to determine a single Past Performance Confidence Rating.

In determining that rating, the Offeror’s performance on individual efforts will be weighed relative to the effort’s relevance, so that how the Offeror performed on a more relevant efforts will play a greater role in the final rating than the Offeror’s performance on a less relevant effort. Additionally, prior efforts performed for Marine Corps Systems Command may be weighed more heavily than performance for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies and performance for those entities may in turn be weighed more heavily than those performed for state or private customers. Similarly, efforts performed by, or as, a prime contractor will generally weigh more heavily than efforts performed by, or as, a subcontractor.