M67854-18-R-7821_A00007.pdf

M6785418R7821

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 modify the language in Section L.7 for the calculation of the Total Evaluated Price as w ell as the language in Section M.7.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jan-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 M6785418R7821

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Dec-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Jan-2018

CODE

MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN:EDWARD MCGRAIL/

CT 2.7

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO FL 32826

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 OVERVIEW

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

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

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

L.2 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S)

OF INTEREST

Offerors are required to identify actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) related to the services described in its proposal for itself, as well as employees, consultants and subcontractors proposed.

This includes, but is not limited to:

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

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

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

If no OCI is identified, the offeror shall submit with its proposal, in writing, an affirmative statement indicating as such.

L.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF OFFERS

A. General Instructions.

These instructions prescribe the requirements for proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation of proposals. Offerors are cautioned to follow the instructions carefully. It is an Offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which demonstrates its clear understanding of, and compliance with, the solicitation requirements. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the proposal.

Statements such as “will comply,” or “noted and understood” without supporting narrative to define compliance are not acceptable. Further, a proposal that merely “parrots back” the requirements of the solicitation, but fails to provide the required approach to meeting the solicitation’s requirements, is not acceptable. Finally, the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability unless identified in the proposal. An Offeror who was or is an incumbent for any of the contracts being consolidated in this effort is still required to, in its proposal, meet the requirements stated in this solicitation. An Offeror shall not, based upon the Offeror’s incumbency, presume the Government’s knowledge regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, etc.

Offerors shall email Mrs. Marlene Eubanks (marlene.eubanks@usmc.mil) and Ms. Sandi Brubaker (sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil) with the completed J.24 – Non-Disclosure Agreement, in order to request a copy of J.19

– C2TECOE Course Outline.

B. Proposal Format.

1. The definition of a page is a single side of paper with text, drawings, data, or similar content. Pages shall be 8.5 by 11 inches in size except for foldouts.

2. Page and Line Numbering. The Offeror shall use a standard page and line numbering system to facilitate proposal references. Number consecutive pages within each section of each volume. Charts, graphs and other insert materials shall be page-numbered as part of the page numbering system. All lines of text shall be consecutively numbered within Volumes.

3. Page Limitations. Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal in Table 1, below, and will be treated as maximums. If exceeded, excess pages will not be read or considered in evaluation of the proposal. Included in the page count are separate pages providing graphics, charts, illustrations and pictures. Page limitations will be checked utilizing the hard copies provided. Any Volume/Section violating limitations will be removed and any corresponding information within the CD ROM and any such information will not be considered in the evaluation. Foldouts count as two pages. Limit use of foldout pages to non-textual matter.

4. Margins and Fonts. The text margins shall be no less than one inch. Text font shall be in Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, no smaller than 11 point. Font for tables, figures, embedded graphics (tables and illustrations) and other graphics shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman or Arial Narrow. It is imperative that all text be legible on the original submission as well as any revised proposal submissions.

5. Volumes and Binding. Bind each proposal volume in three-ring binders. Individual sections should be removable and replaceable to the volumes. Each volume shall contain a title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures for that volume. Should the Offeror need, each section may also contain a title page/cover, table of contents, table of figures, and list of figures. Pages only used specifically for title page, table of contents, list of tables and figures information, and glossaries of acronyms and abbreviations will not count against volume page limitations. Use tab separators to separate required sections within a volume. Tab separators do not count against page count. Number all pages and lines sequentially.

Only material required for a specific section shall be in that section.

6. Electronic Proposals. Electronic proposal volumes (except for Volume I, Section 1 and Volume III) shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version 10.0. Pricing details for Volume III shall be submitted in Excel format, with formulas intact. Volumes I and

II can be submitted on the same CD-ROM, Volumes III and IV can be submitted on the same CD-ROM.

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.

7. 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.

8. Number and Form of Copies. The Offeror shall submit its proposal volumes in accordance with the page limits and number of copies detailed in Table 1, below. Should a conflict arise between the material presented in any volumes and the CD ROMs submitted, the precedent for consideration of the proposal shall be within the written word contained in the original hard copy of the proposal. Proposals not following this format may be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall insert their company’s name in the filename. Examples below are for the ABC Company. The maximum number of pages for each volume shall be limited in accordance with the following table:

Table 1: Proposal Page Limits and Number of Copies

Vol Title Max. Pages Hard Copy CD-ROM File Naming Structure

Matrix PWS Cross Reference Matrix

No limit ABC-Vol-1-XRef.pdf

I Technical Approach

4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Staffing Plan No Limit ABC-Vol1-Sect1.xls Sect. 2 Technical Narrative 12 ABC-Vol1-Sect2.pdf Sect. 3 Labor Cat Descriptions No Limit ABC-Vol1-Sect3.pdf II Past Performance 35 4 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance

ABC-Vol2-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2 Past Performance Questionnaires

Not included in page count

ABC-Vol2-Sec2.pdf

III Price No Limit 2 copies 3 copies Sect. 1 Pricing Information ABC-Vol4-Sec1.xls Sect. 2 Pricing Table ABC-Vol4-Sec2.xls IV Contract Information

2 copies 3 copies

Sect. 1

Model Contract/ Representations and Certifications; Data Rights and OCI

No limit

ABC-Vol4-Sect1.pdf

Sect. 2

EEO and VETS 4212 Pre-Award Clearance Information

No limit

ABC-Vol4-Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3 Notification of Potential Organization Conflicts of Interest

No limit ABC-Vol4-Sect3.pdf

Sect. 4 C2TECOE Data Rights No limit ABC-Vol4-Sect4.pdf

Sect. 5 Compensation Plan 25 pages ABC-Vol4-Sect5.pdf

L. 4 PROPOSAL CONTENT

The proposal must be prepared in 4 parts: Volume I: Technical Approach Proposal, Volume II: Past Performance

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

L.5 VOLUME I - Technical Approach Proposal

The Technical Approach Proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken. Proposals should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s competence, technical understanding and approach in order to accomplish the requirements set forth in the PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9.

Please be advised, Offerors will be required to perform to ALL PWS paragraphs, but for the purposes of this proposal, will only be required to propose to the 4 specified paragraphs.

For the purposes of this solicitation the Offeror shall construct their proposal to reflect their approach to meeting the performance requirements of the 4 specified paragraphs (3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9) of the first task order, C2TECOE Support Services (CLIN 0001) from 26 Apr 2018 to 28 Feb 2019. Together, the first task order PWS (J12), Appendix A C2TECOE Requirements Worksheet (J13); and Combined TEEP (J7) provide a sufficient description of these work requirements.

The Technical Approach Proposal shall be divided into three sections: Staffing Plan, Technical Narrative, and Labor Category Descriptions.

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

1. A complete listing of labor categories being proposed, including the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors, required to perform PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9. Text inserted into the spreadsheet that is not responsive to the applicable requirements in Section L or to Attachments J1, J7, J12 or J13 will not be evaluated.

2. The number of hours proposed to perform PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9 for each labor category for the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors allocated per month across the period of performance for the first task order. Offerors shall submit this information in the table provided for at Attachment J18 (Offeror Staffing Plan Table). Only additional rows may be added. No additional columns may be added. Additional columns added by Offerors will not be evaluated.

B. Section 2: Technical Narrative. The Offeror may provide a supplemental description of it its approach to the staffing plan to assist the Government in its evaluation of the Staffing Plan. For example, this is an opportunity for Offerors to explain their approach to staffing complexities such as overlapping labor/multiple responsibilities (e.g. “dual-hatted” individuals), part time employees, or how the combination of proposed staff meet PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9 requirements (Please note, these are only examples and should not be confused with evaluation criteria). This is also an opportunity to explain the benefits of the Offeror’s approach that may be overlooked by simply reviewing the proposed hours.

C. Section 3: Labor Category Descriptions. The Offeror shall provide a definition for each labor category identified in the Staffing Plan (Section 2), including Offeror and all proposed subcontractors that addresses:

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

b. Knowledge, skills, abilities, certifications, or any other characteristic(s) required for the position

c. Education requirements, if any, and

d. Years of relative work experience, if applicable

***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 - 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 one (1) of the most relevant Government past performance contracts for no more than two (2) principal subcontractors. (Principal subcontractors are defined as any entity proposed to perform 15 percent or more of the identified contract Total Evaluated Price (TEP)). Offerors shall clearly identify principal subcontractors in the Past Performance volume. 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 and its relationship to the Offeror, -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 addresses command and control system subject matter expert expertise, formal learning center operations and management, curriculum development and management, academic instruction, information technology and cybersecurity (including Risk Management Framework (RMF)), modeling and simulation, exercise design and management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, regardless of relevancy, the Offeror shall provide a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any and all contracts, task orders, or delivery orders within the past 5 years.

If the Offeror has not received any Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices or Terminations for Default in the past five years, the Offeror shall insert a statement to that effect. The list or statement shall not count against the maximum page count.

B. Section 2: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

Offerors shall submit a list detailing the points of contact (POCs) with contact information (email address and phone number) for each PPQ sent out for completion. As set forth in Attachment J.16 – Past Performance Questionnaire, Offerors shall instruct past performance points of contact to send completed questionnaires to Mrs. Marlene L.

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

L.7 VOLUME III – Price Proposal

A. Section 1: Pricing Information.

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

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

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

- A TOTAL price for the first task order (this should be a summation of the bullet above).

All formulas shall be included in the Excel format on electronic submissions. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Offerors do not need to provide pricing for Travel and ODCs CLINs for the first task order. CLINs for Travel and ODC will use pre-populated not-to-exceed figures of $50,000 and $20,000, respectively.

B. Section 2: Pricing Table.

As an IDIQ will be awarded as a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to utilize the proposed fixed hourly burdened rates and individual labor categories for all other task orders awarded under the IDIQ.

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

EXAMPLE:

Labor Category Description Fixed Burdened Labor Rate

Program Manager $250.00 Lead Systems Engineer $190.00 mailto:marlene.eubanks@usmc.mil

Systems Engineer $125.00 Logistician $125.00 System Engineer (Sub A) $115.00 System Engineer (Sub B) $115.00

All formulas shall remain intact on CD-ROM submissions. All dollar amounts should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Offerors do not need to provide pricing for Travel and ODCs CLINs for the first task order. Any award resulting from this solicitation will contain CLINs for Travel and ODC with not-to-exceed figures of $50,000 and $20,000, respectively.

The Government intends to utilize the proposed fixed hourly burdened rates and individual labor categories for all other task orders awarded under the IDIQ. As such, the pricing proposal will be incorporated into the base contract as Attachment 9. The rates in Attachment 9 will then be utilized, with their corresponding labor category as ceiling price rates for all TOs.

L.8 VOLUME IV - Contract Information

The Offeror shall provide the documentation specified below:

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

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

CERTIFICATIONS.

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

1. Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually.

2. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; Commercial Activity and Government Entity (CAGE) code; Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) code; and size of business (large or small).

Provide the same information for your principal subcontractors. If Offeror is a joint venture, provide a copy of the joint venture agreement. The above information will be utilized to help establish responsibility.

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

4. In accordance with FAR 52.219-14, offerors shall propose the dollar value and percentage of dollars of labor to be performed by the prime contractor and each of the proposed subcontractors.

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 Organization Conflicts of Interest.

Offerors shall submit a statement, in accordance with Section L.2, identifying actual and potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), if any, related to the services described in its proposal for itself, as well as employees, consultants and subcontractors proposed.

D. Section 4: Attachment J17: C2TECOE Data Rights Attachment.

The Offeror shall complete and submit Attachment J17 with their proposal.

E. Section 5: Compensation Plan.

The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits provided by the prime contractor and principal subcontractor(s) (list of fringe benefits with a narrative description) proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. Offerors shall include a narrative of what fringe benefits are provided, as well as a provide fringe benefits as a percentage of direct labor (for the first task order). The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth supporting documentation such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.

L.9 Reserved

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 Marlene Eubanks at marlene.eubanks@usmc.mil with a subject line of – M67854-18-R-7821 C2TECOE RFP. Answers to RFCs will be provided through Amendments to the solicitation on FBO. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all RFCs, but will consider them and incorporate changes into the RFP as deemed necessary. At its sole discretion, the Government may answer untimely RFCs.

L.11 FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

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

Marine Corps Systems Command PM TRASYS Attn: Sandi Brubaker

Contracting Officer 12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826

Or mailto:VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov mailto:marlene.eubanks@usmc.mil

Email: sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil Reference: Solicitation No. M67854-18-R-7821

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

L.12 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL

The minimum period of offer validity 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 M67854-18-R-7821

For FEDEX,UPS, or hand carried offers:

Marine Corps Systems Command

PM TRASYS

3039 Technology Parkway

Attn: Ms. Sandi Brubaker 407-380-8184

For US Postal Service:

Marine Corps Systems Command PM TRASYS 12211 Science Drive

Attn: Ms. Sandi Brubaker 407-380-8184

For those proposals being hand delivered to the above address, the following additional instructions apply:

Notify the Contracting Officer by email that you intend to deliver the proposal and an approximate time for delivery to ensure someone is available to receive it. When arriving at the front of the building, please call Marlene L. Eubanks at 407-380-4914. The Contracting Officer or representative will arrive in the lobby to receive the proposal and issue a receipt. Offerors are advised that proposals sent by conventional US MAIL service or shipping service company (e.g., UPS, FedEx) run the possibility that a proposal will not comply with the stated closing date/time exists due to errors by the service. In such cases, the proposal will be considered a “late submission” and treated in accordance with FAR 15.208.

L.13 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

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

L.14 PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS

This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any cost for preparation and submission of a proposal.

In addition, the Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this acquisition.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

mailto:sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

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

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

M.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

M.3 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS AND COMPETITIVE RANGE

DETERMINATIONS

Any proposal that does not substantially and materially comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation, or does not provide a complete submission of all volumes, may be rejected and not considered for evaluation.

Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.” Substantially and materially comply includes, but is not limited to: 1) Equal Opportunity Compliance, 2) proof of VETS 4212 compliance, 3) Signed SF33 and acknowledgement of ALL Amendments, and

4) Submission of all Volumes.

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

If the Government decides to conduct discussions, then in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Government will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. In setting this competitive range, the Government may determine that a proposal that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” for any one, or any combination, of factors is not amongst the most “highly rated” proposals and may choose to exclude it from the competitive range. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.4 BASIS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 Technical Approach Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Price

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

M.5 TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will review the Offeror’s Staffing Plan, Technical Narrative, and Labor Category Descriptions to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the first task order PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9, including whether the proposed combination of hours and labor categories are likely to result in successful performance of the PWS paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.9 requirements.

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

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

Color Rating Definition

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptable

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

M.6 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

*No offeror will be eligible for a substantial confidence rating without demonstrating relevant past performance with regard to RMF.

M.6.1 Relevancy.

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

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

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Assessment Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.6.2 Demonstrated Past Performance.

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

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

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

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

c. Program Management. 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 into account information contained on Government reporting sites, including but not limited to PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS.

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

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

M.6.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

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

The Government reserves the right to use contract performance data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and contract performance data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data base or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

The Past Performance (Factor 2) Confidence ratings will be assessed as below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings (Factor 2)

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.7 PRICE EVALUATION

Price will be evaluated but not be assigned an adjectival rating.

The total evaluated price includes the sum of the total Task Order 0001 price, derived as follows:

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

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

First task order requirements promote a realistic expectations of work to be performed within the overall IDIQ contract. Further, the labor categories necessary to accomplish the first task order are anticipated to represent a reasonable sampling of the expected labor categories necessary to accomplish all other Task Orders. As such, the first task order provides 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 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 comprehend the requirements and risks of the solicited effort.

It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition;

theref…