Amendment_0001.pdf

M9284013RCG6016

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

Attachment 1 is provided to answer questions regarding the RFQ. Section M and the PWS "Key Personnel" is changed to Program Manager, Sr Program Analyst and Test Analyst.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Aug-2013

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 M68909-13-Q-7646

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Aug-2013

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-Aug-2013

CODE

COMMANDING OFFICER

CONTRACTS, MCTSSA

BOX 555171

CAMP PENDLETON CA 92055-5171

M68909 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M68909-13-Q-7646

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

In accordance with FAR Part 13, the Contracting Officer is not required to state the relative importance of the evaluation factors. The Government will award a contract to the responsible 8(a) Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and will be most advantageous to the Government with price and other factors considered. The Government will award one contract on a best value basis.

The following evaluation factors apply to this procurement:

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach;

Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications and Experience;

Factor 3: Past Performance;

Factor 4: Price

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1. Technical Understanding and Approach

Offeror shall describe in a narrative format its understanding and approach of non-personal Technical and Engineering support in conducting studies and analysis tasks relating to Test and Evaluation of Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Command & Control Communications and Computer and Intelligence (C4I) System of Systems (SoS).

The services to be provided include:

Technical and Engineering activities, developing Technical Staff Studies, Trade Studies and Technical Studies and Analysis as describe in the attached PWS § 3 -3.1, in support of MAGTF C4I System of Systems.

Test and Evaluation support services include: participation in test planning, participation in Test Execution, Data Collection, Data Analysis and Test Reporting activities as describe in the attached PWS § 3.2, in support of the MAGTF C4I SoS Test and Evaluation. The contractor shall develop test plans, test cases/scenarios (based on approved mission threads/architectures), test procedures/scripts, and data collection and test data analysis, as required by PWS § 3.2.1 - 3.2.3.

Test and Evaluation support shall be provided similar test support for VRPL and other formally scheduled MAGTF C4I SoS test events. The contractor shall perform data reductions and analysis, and document the findings/results for inclusion in a test report.

The contractor shall review, analyze, and provide written comments on technical documentation.

The types of documentation shall include but not be limited to technical studies, system performance and requirement specifications, interface and design documents, version description documents, system manuals, engineering and interface change proposals, test plans, procedures, and reports. The contractor shall document the results of each review in a Technical Report.

The contractor may also be required to support the development and writing of test specific documents that includes, but is not limited to, test plans, test reports, mission threads, test cases, and related architecture products as describe in the attached PWS § 3.3.

The Offeror shall describe its ability to provide continuous quality support for PWS Task 3 through 3.3 described in the attached PWS. This factor may not exceed 20 pages.

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical understanding and technical approach to meeting the specific requirements as evident by the written narrative. The Government will further evaluate if the Offeror’s startup timeframe meets the needs of the Government.

Standard. The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a fundamental understanding of the technical requirements and identifies a sound technical approach to meeting the specific work requirements of the PWS.

Technical Ratings: The technical ratings to be used for Factor 1 are:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach to and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach to and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which generally outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are generally offsetting or will have little or no negative impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Risk: When assessing risk, the Government will consider the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor 2. Personnel Qualifications and Experience

The Offeror shall identify key personnel who are qualified to perform the work described in this PWS, and submit resumes for government approval. Key personnel performing tasks under this PWS shall have current technical experience and expertise configuring, employment, testing and evaluating Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) systems of systems, to include: Marine Corps C4I architecture and employment, system of systems testing, distributed joint testing, and shall be otherwise qualified to perform the work described herein. This factor may not exceed 20 pages.

The contractor shall provide resume(s) for all key personnel. Key personnel include the Program Manager, Sr Program Analyst and Test Analyst.

Key personnel shall be otherwise qualified to perform the work described in this PWS, and shall not be substituted without the permission of the Contracting Officer. During the term of the contract performance, no personnel substitutions will be permitted unless such substitutions are necessitated by an individual’s sudden illness, death, or termination of employment.

Request for approval of substitutions shall be made in writing with a detailed explanation of the circumstances along with a resume of the proposed individual. Proposed substitutions shall at a minimum have the equivalent qualifications of the person being replaced.

Labor categories will be evaluated to ensure the Government receives the best value of labor mix for this requirement. All personnel shall possess the appropriate skills and work experience to ensure effective technical performance of PWS requirements.

Below are the estimates of anticipated hours. The hours are estimated total hours and apply to each option period. They cannot be broken down any further. The hours specified DO NOT commit the Government to any labor charges other than actual hours work is that is performed.

LABOR

CATEGORY

HOURS

Program Manager*** 180 Sr. Program Analyst* 1870 Sr. System Engineer* 1870 System Architect II* 1870 Test Engineer** 1870

Test Analyst** 1870

OTHER DIRECT COSTS:

CONUS TRAVEL:

$20,000.00

*** Tasks 3.1 through 3.3 **Task 3.2 and 3.3 *Task 3.1

For evaluation purposes ODC’s for travel shall be estimated to be $20,000.00.

Standard. The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates that the personnel proposed possess the appropriate skills and work experience to ensure effective technical performance of PWS requirements. The labor categories will be evaluated to ensure the Government receives the best value mix of labor required for the effort.

Technical Ratings: The technical ratings to be used for Factor 2 are:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach to and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach to and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which generally outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are generally offsetting or will have little or no negative impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 3. Past Performance

Offeror shall submit a listing of relevant past contracts pertaining to its experience over the past three (3) years in performing same/similar/relevant services that are shown in the PWS/QASP.

The list shall contain the contract number, dollar value, description of project, Government points of contact (name, address, telephone number, and email address), and cite problems encountered and overcome. Performance assessments will focus on Department of Defense contracts. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is included in this RFQ as Attachment J3 and shall be the responsibility of the Offeror to provide the PPQ to its customer to allow for sufficient time for completion and forwarding directly back to the Contracting Officer at least 3 business days prior to the due date. This factor may not exceed 10 pages (page count does not include PPQs).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated successful performance history for meeting technical requirements, meeting schedule requirements, and managing the contracted effort. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation of past performance. The Past Performance Questionnaire is the primary method of collecting this information, although personal knowledge as well as other reference checks may be utilized. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a "neutral" rating and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance.

Standard. The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a successful performance history in performing same/similar/relevant services that are shown in the PWS/QASP.

Note: The Past Performance Questionnaire is the primary method of collecting this information, although personal knowledge of the team and other reference checks may be utilized, i.e. PPIRS.

Past performance will be rated for relevancy and confidence, using the definitions below.

Rating Description Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as required by the current solicitation.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as required by the current solicitation

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as required by the current solicitation

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as required by the current solicitation

Rating Description 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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonably be assigned.

Factor 4. Price/Cost Offeror shall submit a proposed price for each task and/or subtask in their submitted technical quotation, list the labor category, the number of hours for the labor category, the fully burdened hourly rate, and the total labor cost for each task and/or subtask, which shall correlate to the estimated labor hours proposed in Factor 2. Proposed prices shall not be more than the prices offered to the general public for the same labor category. Offeror shall clearly identify firm labor prices by labor category for each option period.

Other Direct Costs, if required, shall be identified and supported by a breakout to include identification of the cost element and the rationale. Travel costs shall be separately priced and be within the Department of Defense Joint Travel Regulations. General and Administrative (G&A) and Overhead (OH) rates shall not be applied to travel. For evaluation purposes ODC’s for travel shall be estimated to be $20,000.00.

This factor may not exceed 15 pages.

The Government will evaluate if the Offeror demonstrates price reasonableness by comparing the fixed-price hourly rates offered to commercial prices for similar services, and historical data obtained from other Government agencies.

As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the Offeror's final option period price to the Offeror's total price. Offerors are required only to price the base and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period.

This factor will be evaluated for completeness of the price data. The Offeror’s Price Quotation will be evaluated but not rated. The Government may conduct price analysis by a comparison to the independent Government estimate, by comparing the total price to other competitive prices received, or by any other price analysis technique necessary to determine the price to the Government to be fair and reasonable. This factor has no page limit.

Standard. The standard is met when the Offeror’s proposed price can be determined to be fair and reasonable to the Government through any price analysis technique.

{End of Factors}

Award. The Government will award one contract resulting from this RFQ to the responsible 8(a) Offeror who’s Quotation, conforming to the solicitation, be most advantageous to the Government based on best value.

The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed Price Contract for this effort.

(End of Summary of Changes)