24R8000 Amendment 01_Clean.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 update Section J Attachment 1: PWS, Section L and Section M to remove languge relating to the f irst Task Order.or the Task Order PWS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Feb-2024

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 M6785424R8000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Feb-2024

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 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

22-Feb-2024

CODE

COMMANDER, MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN: CATHIE OPSAHL

PM TRASYS

12211 SCIENCE DR

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:

M6785424R8000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

J.1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBIT

Section J – List of Attachments and Exhibits

Attachment Document Pages Date 1 Performance Work Statement (Rev 1) 62 22 Feb 2024 2 Staffing Plan Workbook 9 17 Jan 2024 3 Pricing Workbook 7 17 Jan 2024 4 Question and Answer Matrix 1 17 Jan 2024 5 Organizational Experience Reference 5 17 Jan 2024 6 Past Performance Questionnaire 5 17 Jan 2024 Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List A001

- A002 5 24 Jan 2024

Exhibit B Contract Data Requirements List B001

– B00A

20 24 Jan 2024

Exhibit D Contract Data Requirements List D001 2 24 Jan 2024 Exhibit F Contract Data Requirements List F001 2 24 Jan 2024

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors L.1 Overview This solicitation is restricted to small business concerns only under the NAICS Code 611519.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors but reserves the Government’s right to open discussions if the Government deems it necessary.

The Program Manager, Training Systems (PM TRASYS), is seeking an offeror with the capability to provide the services described in the Trackless Mobile Infantry Target (TMIT) Base Contract Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will conduct a source selection following the competitive source selection procedures contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and DoD FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3. Pursuant to FAR Subsection 15.101-1, the Government will evaluate technical, past performance, and price comparatively and use a best-value tradeoff process to select the awardee, which may result in awarding a contract to other than the highest-rated or lowest-priced offeror.

L.2 General Instructions A. Portions of the successful offeror’s proposal may be incorporated in any contract resulting from this solicitation, based solely on the Government’s discretion. Nothing contained in the successful offeror’s proposal shall constitute a waiver to any requirement of the solicitation or other terms of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful offeror's technical proposal and any contract requirement, the conflict shall be resolved per FAR 52.215-8, Order of Precedence.

If, after contract award, it is discovered that changes made during discussions were not incorporated in the PWS or the offeror’s proposal, such changes to the PWS or the offeror’s proposal shall be considered administrative and shall be made by a unilateral modification to the contract at no change in contract cost or price, or other terms and conditions of the contract.

B. The offeror shall carefully comply with the instructions contained herein to assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals and to avoid exclusion from further consideration. Please be advised that any exception, deviation, or request for a waiver from the instructions provided in Section L, or any other section of this solicitation, may render your proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. Instead, the offeror is encouraged to propose in compliance with all instructions contained herein.

C. The offeror’s proposals shall be complete and clear in all respects without a need for additional explanation or information. The offeror shall ensure proposals provide a straightforward and concise delineation of their capabilities to perform the contract.

Organization, clarity, the accuracy of information, and relevance to this effort are of prime importance. The preliminary documents and proposals shall provide sufficient detail and scope to permit the Government to evaluate them following the evaluation factors specified in Section M of this solicitation.

D. The offeror shall confine their proposal documentation to essential matters sufficient to define their offer, which must provide an adequate basis for evaluation. The offeror is cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements that prevent, or render difficult, the Government’s evaluation.

E. The Government does not assume that an offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment that is not explicitly delineated and supported in an offeror’s proposals. An offeror who was, or who currently is, an incumbent prime or subcontractor for any previous contract(s) is still required to demonstrate within its proposal that the offeror meets the requirements stated in this solicitation. An offeror shall not, based upon the offeror’s incumbency, presume the Government has any knowledge or awareness regarding its performance, capabilities, skills, or other aspects that are not explicitly provided for in their preliminary documents or proposal. The offeror shall not include any classified material in its preliminary documents or proposal.

F. Any proprietary information submitted separately for principal subcontractors shall be furnished in the same format, level of detail, and submission due date as prescribed for the offeror. Subcontractor proposals submitted separately are considered part of the offeror’s proposal and its pages counted against the prime proposal page count. If subcontractor information is submitted separately and directly to the contracting officer, and the subcontractor’s submission is late, then the offeror's entire proposal is late and may not be evaluated. Late proposals may be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

G. Questions about the solicitation are due by 2:00 pm local time Orlando, FL, on 28 February 2024 with the information below identified clearly. The offeror shall submit questions via e-mail to catherine.opsahl@usmc.mil and lisa.burns@usmc.mil. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted or addressed. Please be advised that the Government is not obligated to answer questions and has the absolute discretion to answer, to modify, to consolidate or to ignore any question(s) received. The Government will not answer questions that are likely to mislead, confuse or to obfuscate the Government’s requirements. Moreover, the Government does not intend to respond to questions which the Government believes contain proprietary information or which would require the disclosure of proprietary information. The offeror shall submit all questions in the format provided via Attachment 06, Question and Answer Matrix. The Government will only consider questions submitted using Attachment 06. Government responses to any questions that it deems to answer will be posted electronically on an anonymous basis via an amendment to SAM.Gov.

There is no limit on the number of timely submitted questions an offeror may ask. Therefore, please do not bundle multiple questions into a single question.

Questions received after the above time and date may not be addressed, unless necessary to eliminate an ambiguity in the solicitation.

L.3 Proposal Submission A. Proposal Submission Instructions

1. Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom: “Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

2. A page is defined as a single side of paper with text, drawings, data, or similar content.

Pages shall be 8.5 inches by 11 inches in size. Pages up to 11 inches by 17 inches in size are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, any page size greater than 8.5 inches by 11 inches shall count as two pages.

3. Page margins (top, right, left, and bottom) shall be no less than one inch.

4. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman font is required. Tables and illustrations may use reduced font size, but not less than 8-point. All text must be legible in the original submission as well as any revised proposal submissions.

5. All pages of each volume shall be numbered consecutively. All lines of text shall be numbered consecutively within Volumes.

6. The due date for submitting proposals is IAW block 9 of the SF33 or block 11 of the SF30 of any subsequent amendments.

B. The offeror shall submit their proposal volumes, in accordance with the page limits and number of copies detailed in Table 1 below.

The offeror shall prominently mark all proposals with the following:

mailto:catherine.opsahl@usmc.mil

“SOLICITATION M67854-24-R-8000 TMIT IDIQ PROPOSAL”

The Offeror shall submit their proposal as follows:

The offeror shall provide three (5) paper copies of the Technical Proposal, Volume I and the Past Performance Volume II and one (1) copy of the Price Volume III and the Contract Information Volume IV, see Table below. In addition, the offeror shall submit an electronic copy of all Volumes, each as a separate file, via Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/.

Paper and e-copy shall be submitted no later than closing date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the RFP/Solicitation (Orlando, FL – local time). Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR provision 52.215-1 Alt I.

Proposals may be hand delivered or mailed.

If hand delivered, please contact Catherine Opsahl at (571) 330-8968 or via email at catherine.opsahl@usmc.mil to arrange delivery.

If mailing please use the address below with delivery confirmation.

The mailing address for all proposals using FEDEX, UPS, US Postal Service, etc.:

MARCORSYSCOM / PMTRASYS

ATTN: Ms. Catherine Opsahl, Mr. Anthony Genao and Ms. Lisa A. Burns Solicitation M6785424R8000 12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826

(571) 330-8968 Electronic proposal volumes (except for the Staffing Plan and Pricing Volume) shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version 10.0 or later. Any documents requested herein shall be compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2013 format or higher 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. Appendixes may not be submitted to supplement the sections listed below and will not be evaluated. 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:

Vol Title Max. Pages File Naming Structure

I Technical Approach 40 Pages

Sect. 1 Staffing Plan No Limit - Not included in page count

ABC-Vol1-Sect1.xls

Sect. 2 Staffing Plan Narrative 10 Pages ABC-Vol1-

Sect2.pdf

Sect. 3 Labor Category Descriptions 10 Pages ABC-Vol1-

Sect3.pdf

Sect. 4 Material Technical Approach 20 Pages ABC-Vo11-

Sect4.pdf II Past Performance 15 Pages

Sect. 1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance 15 pages

ABC-Vol2- Sect1.pdf; No more than 5 references

III Price No Limit Sect. 1 Pricing Information 15 Pages ABC-Vol3-Sec1.xls

Sect. 2 Pricing Table No Limit - Not included in page count

ABC-Vol3-Sec2.xls

IV Contract Information No Limit

Sect. 1 Cover Letter / SF33 / Representations and Certifications

No Limit - Not included in page count

ABC-Vol4- Sect1.pdf

1. Technical Approach Volume The Technical Approach proposal’s detail should reflect the offeror’s clear understanding of the services to be performed, that the offeror is competent, able and possesses the resources and capabilities to fully perform all requirements, that the offeror’s workforce possesses the technical understanding to apply the offeror’s proposed approach to successfully perform the services required by the PWS.

The offeror shall divide the Technical Approach proposal into four sections: (1) Staffing Plan, (2) Staffing Plan Narrative, (3) Labor Category Descriptions, and (4) Material Technical Approach.

a. Section 1: Staffing Plan. The offeror shall complete a staffing plan that describes their approach to personnel staffing to meet the requirements of the PWS. The spreadsheet shall disclose:

i. A complete listing of labor categories proposed, including for the offeror and all proposed subcontractors, to perform the tasks outlined in the PWS. The Government will not evaluate text inserted into the spreadsheet that is not responsive to Section L's applicable requirements.

ii. The number of hours the proposal allocates per month across the period of performance to achieve the tasks outlined in the PWS for each labor category, including for the offeror and all proposed subcontractors. The offeror shall submit this information in the table provided in Attachment 03 (Staffing Plan Worksheet). The offeror may only add rows. The Government will not evaluate additional columns added by an offeror.

b. Section 2: Staffing Plan Narrative. The offeror shall describe, in narrative form, how their Staffing Plan will provide sufficient resources to perform every requirement.

This is an opportunity for the offeror to detail their staffing plan and explain their approach to staffing complexities such as overlapping labor/multiple responsibilities (e.g., “dual-hatted” individuals), part-time employees, (Please note, this is suggestive, offering examples of topics to cover in the narrative and should not be confused as stating evaluation criteria). The offeror’s narrative should justify the offeror’s choice of staffing resources and explain how each resource combines to enable the offeror to perform all PWS requirements. The Technical Narrative provides offerors an opportunity to explain the benefits of the offeror’s proposed staffing approach that may be overlooked by simply reviewing the proposed hours.

c. Section 3: Labor Category Descriptions. The offeror shall identify and define each role and its associated labor category to be employed in the offeror’s Staffing Plan (Section 1) to perform this requirement; to include both those for the offeror’s employees and each of its proposed subcontractor’s employees. The offeror shall address:

i. Roles and responsibilities to be performed by labor category;

ii. Knowledge, skills, abilities, certifications, or other characteristics the offeror will require of its employes by position;

iii. Education requirements, if any, and;

iv. Years of relative work experience, if applicable.

d. Section 4: Material Technical Approach. The offeror is required to perform successfully all of the requirements delineated in the solicitation and any appendices.

However, for evaluation purposes only, the offeror’s Material Technical Approach shall only addresses those requirements specificed for evaluation. For those requirements offerors shall prove their understanding pf the technical requirements and that they possess the resources and capability to successfully perform the following specific requirements:

1. Contract Phase-In Plan. The offeror’s phase-in plan shall demonstrate an ability to perform all phase-in requirements and meet all performance schedules, by location, in accordance with the PWS;

2. Offeror’s material technical solution shall fully describe and demonstrate:

1) their ability to maintain a 90% Operational Availability (Ao) in accordance with the PWS simultaneously and continuously at all locations during performance.;

2) how to perform the After Action Review (AAR) capability requirement

3) how their system will successfully perform the Automatic Obstacle avoidance capability requirements delineated in Appendix A of the PWS.

4) their ability to meet all Safety requirements identified in Appendix A.

2. Past Performance Volume The offeror shall submit a minimum of three, and maximum of five, recent and relevant efforts it performed as the prime, preferably with the DoD or another federal agency, and preferably performing services of the same nature as the services required by this solicitation. Offerors with no relevant past performance on federal contracts may submit for efforts performed for other entities instead.

1) “Recent” is defined as contracts, whether ongoing or completed, with at least 12 months of performance occurring during the 3 years preceding the proposal submission date.

2) Past Performance efforts shall be described in sufficient detail to allow for comparison of the prior performance to the solicitation’s PWS.

3) Note that the submission should not characterize the quality of the offeror’s performance as such assertions would be presumably biased. The Government seeks independent information regarding the offeror’s performance of prior efforts.

4) Offerors shall submit this information in the following format:

- CAGE code for the referenced company;

- Customer name, address, and telephone number;

- Customer’s Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, telephone number, and email address;

- Contracting activity’s technical representative or Contracting Officer

Representative, telephone number, and email address;

- Current Customer Program Manager, telephone number and email address;

- Current Government contract administration activity and the name, telephone number, and email address of the Administrative Contracting Officer and the Chief of Program and Technical support;

- Contract number;

- Customer Program title;

- Contract’s place of performance;

- Contract type;

- Period of performance;

- Total contract amount and price per year obligated;

- Final or projected price or cost;

- Offeror’s description of the effort, highlighting similarities and differences between the size, scope and complexity of the solicited effort. Offerors should pay particular attention to the solicited effort’s PWS and provide sufficient detail in the description to readily allow for a relevance comparison;

- For any Government contracts that did not meet original requirements with regard to schedule and cost performance, provide a brief explanation for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence;

- Explain those processes now in place to prevent past problems and ensure such problems do not affect performance on this proposed contract;

- Identify, provide, and explain any cure notices received;

- Provide the above required information for any and all of the offeror’s

Government contracts, whether or not similar to the proposed effort, that were terminated, in whole or in part, for any reason during the past three years. Include those efforts currently in the process of such termination. These responses will not be included in the page count.

3. Price Volume

a. Section 1: Pricing Information. The offeror shall include the summary price information for the entire contract within the pricing proposal workbook (Attachment 04).

b. The offeror shall propose its best price for each ordering period and demonstrate why the offeror’s price represents the best value, using the required Pricing Proposal Workbook.

All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The offeror does not need to provide pricing for Travel and Shipping Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) for the base contract as they will be pre-populated, not-to-exceed figures of $2,632,384.02 (Travel) and $500,000 (Shipping), respectively for the life of the contract.

Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to this solicitation. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror.

Unreasonably low prices may indicate an inability to understand requirements and a high-risk approach to contract performance and the Price evaluation team shall inform the Technical evaluation team of such risk. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism determination at its sole and absolute discretion to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed. The Government may consider the findings of such an analysis in evaluating an offeror’s ability to perform and the risk of its approach.

It is expected that a determination of fair and reasonable pricing will be made on the basis of adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

Therefore, the offeror is not required to submit or certify cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Government determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be requested to submit certified cost or pricing data.

The submission of pricing (Attachment 04) in accordance with the instructions shall, if accepted by the Government, contractually bind the Offeror to perform for the proposed price. The offeror shall prepare and submit its cost/price proposal narrative substantiation and rationale in Adobe Acrobat format and any numerical data in Microsoft Excel format. The offeror shall not alter the format of the spreadsheets (Attachment 04) except that column(s) and row(s) may be widened for the materials or labor categories tabs.

The price proposal shall be submitted via Attachment 04: Pricing Workbook. The pricing proposal submitted via Attachment 04 for the proposed contract shall be the basis for the Government’s price evaluation for this solicitation. The offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in Attachment 04; failure to do so may result in the proposal being ineligible.

The offeror is advised that these workbooks may be redacted to remove pricing for review by the technical evaluators. Contract Information Volume

4. Contract Information Volume

a. Section 1: Cover Letter/SF33/Representations and Certifications

i. Cover Letter. The offeror shall include with its proposal a cover letter formally transmitting the offeror’s proposal that includes the following:

(a) Statement of Compliance. Each offeror shall include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item. Any objection, exception, contingency, or addition shall be cross-referenced to the applicable solicitation paragraph(s).

(b) As part of this letter, an authorized official shall sign certifying the following:

(1) The proposed pricing within Attachment 04 is binding and will be utilized for the life of the contract.

(c) The offeror shall provide, if applicable, a description of any contractor teaming arrangement used for this solicitation. The offeror shall identify the type of contractor teaming arrangement, as well as the company name(s) and address(es) for the participating companies.

The cover letter must be signed and dated by an official of the offeror authorized to bind contractually.

ii. SF33. The offeror shall submit a signed SF33 acknowledging any/all amendments. The SF33 must be signed and dated by an official of the offeror authorized to bind contractually.

The offeror shall indicate in Block 12 of the SF33 that their offer remains valid for no less than 270 calendar days from the closing date and time for receipt of proposals.

iii. Representations and Certifications. The offeror may rely upon completed Representations and Certifications in System for Award Management or submit a complete set of Representations and Certifications with its SF 33.

iv. Pre-Award Clearance: To expedite the Government’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) pre-award clearance request process, the prime contractor 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 (page limit not applicable).

In addition, the offeror 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 $150,000 or more. If a contractor, 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@dolncc.dol.gov *Please note that to perform a verification search the VETS-4212 Service Center will need one or a combination of the following information. Having all of the requested data elements will provide for a more detailed search.

Company Name Company Address Employer Identification Number (EIN)

UEI

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award The Government intends to award one contract from this solicitation. An award will be made to the proposal that results in the best value to the Government as defined in FAR 2.101 based on a best-value tradeoff of meritorius aspects identified within each proposal for a combined technical merit, past performance, and price/cost valuation; between each awardable proposal.

The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value. The evaluation factors represent critical areas of performance most important to Government and thefore to the focus of the source selection decision. The factors have been chosen to extract meaningful discrimination between and amongst the competing proposals. The proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:

• Factor 1 Technical Approach

• Factor 2 Past Performance

• Factor 3 Price

Relative importance of Factors during evaluation: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, 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 someone other than the highest rated or the lowest-priced offeror. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.

B. Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with all Section L Proposal Submission Instructions before being evaluated against the Factor Evaluation Criteria. Proposals failing to comply with all submission instructions may be eliminated from the competition if the non-compliance provides the offeror with an unfair advantage over other offerors.

C. Proposals rated Unacceptable or Marginal for the Technical Approach Factor or No Confidence for the the Past Performance Factor are not eligible for inclusion within a competitive range, if one is established, and will not be further evaluated, unless all proposals receive Unacceptable or Marginal Technical Approach Factor ratings, or No Confidence ratings for the Past Performance Factor.

M.1 Technical Approach Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate how well the offeror demonstrated itscomplete understanding of the services to be performed, and that the offeror appears competent, able to perform, and possesses the resources and capabilities to successfully perform all requirements. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s workforce appears to possess the technical understanding to apply its proposed approach to successfully perform the required services. The Government will evaluate how well offerors’ proposals reflect their approach to perform the requirements of the PWS. The Government will identify any risks inherent in offeror’s approach during evaluation of each Factor element level for use within the combined Technical/Risk Rating for the Factor.

A. The Government will evaluate how well the offerors’ Staffing Plans describe their approach to personnel staffing within the spreadsheet, particularly focusing on how well offerors:

1. Combine and coordinate their labor categories and incorporate their sub-contractors labor categories to demonstrate an ability to successfully perform all PWS requirements;

a. Note: The Government will not evaluate text inserted into the spreadsheet that is not responsive to Section L's applicable requirements.

2. Offeror- Attachment 03 (Staffing Plan Worksheet). For each CLIN provide allocated performance hours, per month, for each labor category, including offeror and their subcontractors to successfully perform all requirements.

a. Note: The Government will not evaluate additional columns added by the offeror.

B. The Government will evaluate how well offerors’ Narratives describe their Staffing Plan, and whether or not sufficient detail is present to address the solicitation’s required information.

Specifically, the Government will evaluate:

1. How well offerors explain their approach to staffing complexities such as overlapping labor/multiple responsibilities (e.g., “dual-hatted” individuals), part-time employees, etc.

2. How well offerors’ narratives prove that their choice of staffing resources will enable the offeror to perform all PWS requirements.

3. How well offerors explain any unique benefits or advantage(s) to the Government from their particular staffing plan.

C. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s Labor Category Descriptions identify and define each proposed labor role and associate the labor category used within their Staffing Plan, focusing on how well they addressed:

1. Roles and responsibilities to be performed by each labor category;

2. Knowledge, skills, abilities, certifications, or other characteristics offerors required of their employees for the position;

3. Education requirements, if any, and;

4. Years of relative work experience, if applicable.

D. The Government will evaluate how well the offerors’ Material Technical Approach demonstrates their understanding and their capability to successfully perform the following requirements:

1. Phase-In Plan, and how well offerors demonstrate their ability to meet the performance schedule, by location, in support of the PWS;

2. Maintain a 90% Operational Availability (Ao) during performance of the first task order, simultaneously and continuously, at all locations;

3. Perform the After-Action Review (AAR) capability requirements.

4. Perform all the Automatic Obstacle avoidance capability requirements delineated in

Appendix A of the PWS.

5. Ensure compliance with all the Safety requirements, identified in Appendix A throughout performance of each order.

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, significant 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

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 and may be therefore unawardable.

Red Unacceptable

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

For the above, strengths, weaknesses, risks and deficiencies are defined as follows:

• Significant Strength – Any aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

• Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Significant Weakness – A flaw on the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

• Risk - 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 may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2 Past Performance The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the probability that the offeror will successfully perform the contract, considering the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services. In accordance with FAR

15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance shall be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and performance quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, but it is not obligated to do so, as the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests solely with the offeror. The Government assumes no duty to search for information and past performance information not submitted in conformance with the solicitation’s instructions may not be considered.

Table 2: Factor 2

A. Past Performance: The Government will evaluate offerors’ recent past performance, determining both the relevancy and quality of performance of each effort, and then using that information to determine an overall performance confidence rating for the offeror.

1) Recency: 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 36 months preceding the proposal submission deadline. Efforts that are not recent will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

2) Relevance: The Government will use the offeror’s description of the effort and may also use other available information regarding the effort (e.g., 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 3, the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The greater the similarity, the greater the likelihood that the prior effort will inform 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. Where relevancy is not established, the past performance will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating. Only past performance of the prime, performed as the prime, will be considered.

However, the Government will consider the past performance of certain small business offerors that have been members of joint ventures or have been first-tier subcontractors pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 125.11.

Factor Factor 2: Past Performance

• Recency

• Relevance

• Quality of Performance

3) Quality of Performance: The Government will consider the quality of the offeror’s performance on the prior effort as assessed by customers, principally in the form of CPARs, but also possibly as phone or teleconference interviews, or written responses to e-mailed questions, et cetera. The Government will consider both general assessments and those related to performance problems and all corrective action taken by the offeror.

For this contract, the Government anticipates considering the offeror’s performance record with respect to quality, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory compliance. Offeror submissions should not assess their own performance other than to explain CPAR comments. Feedback from customers whose comments are likely to be partial (e.g., because they are proposing for this same effort, either as teammate or competitor) is not likely to be given the same consideration as feedback presumed to be impartial. Where the customer’s assessment of the offeror’s performance is not readily available, the effort will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

B. Performance confidence: 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 from Table 4. 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 effort will have more significance in determining the performance confidence rating than the offeror’s performance on a less relevant effort. Where the Government does not have sufficient independent information to corroborate the offeror’s recency and relevancy descriptions or has insufficient information regarding the quality of the offeror’s performance on the effort, the Government may give little or no consideration to that effort in determining a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. If there is insufficient past performance information to allow evaluators to determine a particular level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort, the rating will be “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

Table 4: 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.

M.3 Price Evaluation Price will be evaluated but not be assigned an adjectival rating.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the sum of the maximum number of trailers per location at 96 hours for all ordering periods, the NTE values for travel and ODCs for all ordering periods, and the priced CDRL CLINs for all ordering periods.

The Contracting Officer will perform a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine fair and reasonable pricing. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) if it is determined that the proposal lacks balanced pricing and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The proposed price to the Government must be consistent with the technical project solution of the offer.

The price evaluation will determine whether each offeror’s proposed price to the Government is reasonable using one or more 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. However, price reasonableness will not 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 sole and absolute 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 indicate the offeror’s lack of competence or failure to comprehend the requirements and risks of the solicited effort. If the Price evaluation team determine that such risk exits, the Government’s Technical evaluation team will be informed of such risk to successful performance, but not the offeror’s proposed price.

It is expected that a determination of fair and reasonable pricing will be made on the basis of adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Therefore, the offeror is not required to submit or certify cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Government determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the offeror may be requested to submit certified cost or pricing data as requested by the Government.

An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the proposed prices are materially unbalanced between line items or years, and this lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated, as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government reserves the right to request whatever cost and pricing data is necessary for analysis when unbalanced pricing is suspected.

Proposals may be found unacceptable should it be determined that the pricing is unbalanced.

There are no subfactors.

(End of Summary of Changes)