M67854-18-R-7800_A0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as p rovid ed herein, all terms and cond itions o f th e document referenced in Item 9A o r 10 A, as hereto fore chang ed , remains un ch an ged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND T IT LE OF SIGNER (T ype or print )

30-105-04EXCEP TION T O SF 30

AP PROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) P rescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update Section M.5, Past Performance Table 2, Note 2; update A ttachment J6, MSTP Exercise SOP to incorporate page numbers into the document; and update A ttachment J26, A nswer to Of f erors Questions to include answ ers to questions 56-58.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Oct-2018

16B. UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Cont ract ing Officer)(Signat ure of person a ut horized t o sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., St reet , County, Sta te and Zip Code) X M6785418R7800

X 9B. DATED (SEE IT EM 11)

12-Oct-2018

10B. DATED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS IT EM ONLY AP PLIES TO AMENDMENT S OF SOLICITAT IONS

X Th e ab ove n umbered solicitation is amend ed as set forth in Item 1 4. Th e hou r and date sp ecified for receipt o f Offer is extend ed , X is not extended.

Offer mu st ackn owled ge receipt of this amen dment p rior to the h our an d d ate specified in the solicitation or as amen ded b y o ne of the following method s:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15 , and returnin g co pies of the amen dment; (b ) By ackn owled ging receipt of this amen dment o n each copy of the o ffer sub mitted ;

o r (c) By separate letter o r teleg ram wh ich includ es a reference to th e so licitation and amend men t nu mbers. 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 virtu e of this amen dment y ou desire to change an offer already su bmitted, su ch change may be made by teleg ram or letter, p rovid ed each telegram o r letter mak es reference to th e so licitation and this amen dment, an d is receiv ed prio r to the op en ing hou r and date sp ecified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND AP PROP RIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM AP PLIES ONLY T O MODIFICATIONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED P URSUANT T O: (Spec ify aut horit y) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CO NTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office , appropria tion dat e, et c.) SET FORT H IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUT HORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SU PP LEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUT HORITY OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modificat ion and aut horit y)

E. IMP ORTANT: Contrac tor is not, is required t o sign this document and re turn copies to t he issuing office.

14. DESCRIP TION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organize d by UCF sec tion headings, inc luding solic ita tion/contrac t subject mat t er whe re feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If app licable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Oct-2018

CODE

MARCORSYSCOM

AT TN:EDWARD MCGRAIL/

CT 2.7

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO F L 32826

M67854 7 . ADMINISTERED BY (If o ther than item 6)

4 . REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M6785418R7800

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Description

1 Base Contract PWS

2 NAVMC 1553.1A - Instructional Systems Design System Approach to Training

3 Consolidated Data Item Description List

4 Consolidated DD Form 1423-1 CDRLs

5 CDRL Instructions

6 MSTP Exercise SOP

7 MSTP Pamphlet 7-0.2 - Simulation Instructor Controller Handbook

8 Combat Center Order 3500.15 MAGTFTC Large Scale Exercise SOP

9 DD 254

10 DD 254 Continuation Sheet

11 MCLOG Command Brief

12 Organizational Experience Information Sheet

13 Request for Controlled Distribution Documents

14 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

15 MCSC Mishap Form OSHA Form 300 or equivalent

16 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

17 MTSS Data Rights Attachment

18 Combined Arms Command and Control Trainer Upgrade System (CACCTUS) Stocklist (Controlled Distribution)

19 MAGTF Tactical Warfare Simulation System (MTWS) Stocklist (Controlled Distribution)

20 Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE) Stocklist (Controlled Distribution)

21 Laptop, General Purpose Stocklist (Controlled Distribution)

22 ODCs Report Attachment

23 List of Exhibits

24 Solicitation Q&A Matrix

25 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance References

26 Answers to Offeror Questions (updated via Amendment 0002)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALALUATION FACTORS

M.1 General

The Government intends to award contracts to all “Qualified Offerors” (see Definition in the Evaluation Criteria of Section M.5) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2305 as referenced in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Deviation 2018-O0006 (Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts). The Government intends to evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified below.

M.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

If the Government determines that an OCI exists related to the IDIQ MATOC award that cannot be satisfactorily avoided, neutralized, mitigated or waived, the Contracting Officer may determine that the Offeror will not be eligible for award. Moreover, please be advised that the Contracting Officer may exclude an Offeror from the competition because of an appearance of an OCI in order to protect the integrity of the procurement system, even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination is based on facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion.

Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to only consider mitigation plans proposed by apparently successful Offeror(s). While the failure of an Offeror to submit the documentation described in Section L may be cause for the Government to determine the Offeror is a “No Go” under the evaluation factors, the process of requesting revisions to or approving an OCI mitigation plan does not constitute discussions as described in FAR 15.306. Offerors will be required to address OCIs related to the scope of the Task Order awards in connection with individual task order competition/awards.

M.3 Award Without Discussions

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1 (incorporated by reference in Section I of this RFP) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors; However, Offerors may be given the opportunity for clarification of certain aspects of their proposal or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be desired.

M.4 Evaluation Process and Criteria

The Government is going to employ a two-step evaluation process during source selection. The first step is comprised of an initial screening of the preliminary documents to determine whether Offerors have met a limited set of “Go/No-Go” criteria. In the event that an Offeror fails to submit ANY of the documents or information set forth in L.2.A.1-12, the Offeror will be assigned a “No-Go” and will not be allowed to submit a proposal under Phase 2.

Further, the Government may assign a “No-Go” to any preliminary documents that do not substantially and materially comply with ALL of the solicitation requirements delineated in Section L.

M.5 Basis for Award

The Government intends to make a contract award to each “Qualifying Offeror” as defined in 10 U.S.C.

2305(a)(3)(D). The statute defines a “Qualifying Offeror” as an Offeror that “(i) is determined to be a responsible source; (ii) submits a proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; and (iii) the contracting officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.”

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C) as referenced in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Deviation 2018-O0006, price will not be an evaluation factor for this solicitation. However, consistent with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E), the Contracting Officer shall consider cost or price as one of the factors in the selection decision for each task order under the IDIQ MATOC.

The “determination to be a responsible source” will be determined by the Contracting Officer at the time of award in accordance with FAR 9.104. A responsibility determination is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

The Government will make the determination that “the contracting officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing” based on the Government’s review of the preliminary documents which require: 1) a timely submitted and signed certification stating that the Offeror follows generally accepted accounting practices and has not knowingly submitted cost or pricing data which were incomplete, inaccurate, or not current to the Government over the past five years; 2) Any FPRA, FPRR, and any DCAA audits regarding the Offeror’s accounting system, including, but not limited to an audit documenting that the Offeror has a DCAA approved accounting system; and 3) the Offeror’s representations and certifications

The Government intends to evaluate “submits a proposal that conforms to the requirements of the Solicitation” in accordance with the “Go/No-Go” criteria referenced above and via an evaluation of Technical Approach and Past Performance Proposal as provided below. An Unacceptable rating for any one of the Technical Approach, Past Performance or (for other than small businesses) the Small Business Participation Plan would fail to conform to the requirements of the solicitation and be ineligible for award.

a) Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has demonstrated an acceptable Technical Approach in its Oral Proposal based on:

1) Given the situation within the scenario, the Offeror will be evaluated on whether they accurately describe the application of the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) process for a formal school to include the Offeror’s approach to processing and creating outputs resulting from each ADDIE step as defined by NAVMC 1553.1A (Attachment J2). Offerors should note that the mere restatement of the ADDIE process is insufficient to satisfy this evaluation criteria, and is not a satisfactory description of how this process is used to promote the professional delivery of instruction to support student acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes to ensure that Marines are prepared to perform their job in a combat environment.

2) Given the scenario, Offerors will be evaluated on whether they demonstrate: 1) an understanding of the MSTP Driven Events in accordance with the Exercise Life Cycle contained within the MSTP Exercise SOP (Attachment J6); and, 2) an approach in line with the relationship between all other events with the MSTP Driven Events in accordance with the Exercise Life Cycle within the MSTP Exercise SOP (Attachment J6).

An Acceptable Technical Approach is one that does not have a material deficiency as that term is defined below. The Government will assign each Offeror’s Technical Approach an adjectival rating as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 1

*Deficiency is 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.

* Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

*Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3) The Government will evaluate all Past Performance references received in response to this solicitation, or otherwise identified by the Government at its sole discretion, for recency, relevancy, and quality in order to determine whether the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort (i.e., Acceptable Past Performance as defined in the adjectival ratings below). To that end, the Government will utilize the "Acceptable/Unacceptable" adjectival ratings provided in the solicitation that correlate to the Government's evaluation of the past performance for each Offeror and the Government's determination whether it has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Government will assign each Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal an Adjectival rating as follows:

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See Note 2 below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 2

Note 1: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” However, an Offeror whose descriptions of their past performance indicate that they do not understand the scope and complexity of the solicitation will be considered “unacceptable” because failure to understand the scope and complexity is a basis for the Government to determine it does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note 2: The Government may not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the contractor is found to have more than three (3) Non-Systems CPARS within the past 5 years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation with “Quality” evaluation area rated as Marginal or below, more than 2 cure notices, or any Terminations for Default. This includes Offerors who may otherwise have been found “Neutral” as described in Note 1.

b) Small Business Participation (If applicable)

1) The Government will evaluate all required information that is included within the Large Business Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with clauses: FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2018 O0013) APR 2018 with Alternate II; and DFARS 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts)-Basic (DEVIATION 2018-O0007) DEC 2017.

Failure of Large Businesses to submit an Individual Small Business Contract Plan or a Government approved Master Subcontracting Plan shall result in the Offeror’s proposal being UNACCEPTABLE.

For the purposes of evaluating all information required to be included within the Large Business Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan for the underlying IDIQ competition pursuant to the above- referenced FAR and DFARS clause, Large Business Offeror’s shall identify the percentage of work that they propose to award to Small Businesses rather than specific dollar amounts.

To be considered “Acceptable” the Large Business Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with the above-referenced FAR and DFARS clauses must meet the following DoD Small Business Subcontracting Goals: 33% Small Business; 5% Woman Owned Small Business; 5% Small Disadvantaged Business; 3% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Business; and 3% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, or provide an explanation of why the goals are unreasonable under the circumstances with a plan tailored to meet the goals during the period of performance.

Large Business Offerors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the Test Program described in DFARS 219.702-70 must provide a copy of the approved comprehensive subcontracting plan. In the event that a Large Business Offeror has an approved comprehensive subcontracting plan pursuant to DFARS 219.702-70, the Government will evaluate whether the Large Business Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation meets, or exceeds the percentages identified in its approved comprehensive subcontracting plan.

Please be advised that a failure to meet or exceed the percentages identified in its approved comprehensive subcontracting plan will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and the Large Business Offeror will not be considered a Qualifying Offeror as defined in this solicitation.

2) The Government will assign each Large Business Offeror’s proposal an Adjectival rating as follows:

Small Business Rating Method

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(End of Summary of Changes)