Sol_N00014-18-R-0006_Amd_0001.pdf

(x)

N00014-18-R-0006 x x

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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

x

Arlington VA 22203-1995

N00014

875 N. Randolph Street mary.dent@navy.mil Mary Helen Dent, 703-254-7288 Office of Naval Research (BD253)

09/28/20180001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers 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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

09/28/2018

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Remove the "E" from the DPAS rating;

2) Include FAR 52.215-12 DEVIATION;

3) Include the rating for FAR 52.211-14;

4) Remove references to the metalworking center in Section M;

5) Revise Attachment 2, "Key Personnel Qualifications;"

6) Revise Attachment 3, "Report Format;"

7) Revise Attachment 8, "Cost Element Summary;"

8) Revise Exhibits A and B;

9) Provide clarifications, revisions, and/or supplemental information to Section L based on

Questions and Answers submitted by offerors (see Attachment 10 for all changes made); and

Continued ...

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Mary Helen Dent

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 15

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

N00014-18-R-0006/0001

10) Add Questions and Answers (as of 14 Nov 2018) as Attachment 10 to N00014-18-R-0006.

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

[To Be Determined] 0001

Section B - Supplies or Services/Prices

CLINs/SLINs (Base Plus Exercised Options)

Section I - Contract Clauses

Clauses Included by Full Text

Clause 52.215-12 is incorporated as follows:

FAR Deviations 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Deviation 2018- O0015)(May 2018)

(a) Unless an exception under FAR 15.403-1 applies, the Contractor shall require the subcontractor to submit certified cost or pricing data (actually or by specific identification in writing), in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 (to include any information reasonably required to explain the subcontractor’s estimating process such as the judgmental factors applied and the mathematical or other methods used in the estimate, including those used in projecting from known data, and the nature and amount of any contingencies included in the price) –

(1) Before awarding any subcontract expected to exceed $750,000 prior to July 1, 2018, or modifying any subcontract that was awarded prior to July 1, 2018, involving a pricing adjustment expected to exceed $750,000, or

(2) Before awarding any subcontract expected to exceed $2 million on or after July 1, 2018, or modifying any subcontract that was awarded on or after July 1, 2018, involving a pricing adjustment expected to exceed $2 million.

(b) The Contractor shall require the subcontractor to certify in substantially the form prescribed in FAR 15.406-2 that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the data submitted under paragraph (a) of this clause were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of agreement on the negotiated price of the subcontract or subcontract modification.

(c) In each subcontract that exceeds the threshold for submission of certified cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403-4, when entered into, the Contractor shall insert either—

(1) The substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), if paragraph (a) of this clause requires submission of certified cost or pricing data for the subcontract; or

(2) The substance of the clause at FAR 52.215-13, Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data– Modifications (DEVIATION 2018-O0015).

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Number Title Number of Pages

A Exhibit A DD 1423 Center Deliverables 4 B Exhibit B DD 1423 Project Level Deliverables 2 2 Key Personnel Qualifications 2 3 Report Format 4 8 Cost Element Summary (Excel File) 1

Number Title Number of Pages

10 Questions and Answers 12

Section L - Instructions,Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

Summary of Clause Changes:

The following clauses are incorporated by reference.

FAR 15.207 Handling proposals and information.

Clause Section L, 1 is incorporated as follows:

Section L, 1 General Instructions for Submission of Proposals

(A) Offerors are expected to be sufficiently knowledgeable of the missions and administrative procedures of the Navy ManTech Centers of Excellence to adequately prepare their offers and other proposal information to be submitted under this solicitation. Information relating to operational, strategic plans and technical programs is available from various documents, some of which can be accessed on the Internet at the Navy ONR Website: http://www.onr.navy.mil.

(B) The Technical Proposal shall be placed in Volume I. Signed copies of the SF33 and all amendment(s), if any, shall be included at the front of the Technical Volume binder. The Past Performance Proposal shall be placed in Volume II. The Price Proposal shall be placed in Volume III. Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest shall be placed in Volume IV. Offerors shall also include Attachment 9, ONR Specific Representations and Certifications (See Section J for a copy of the document) in their proposal submission behind Volume IV. Offerors who are required to submit a Compensation Plan, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and/or filled out Section K Representations and Certifications shall place those documents behind Volume IV. Note that not all offerors will be required to submit these documents based on their business type.

(C) All volumes should be written and organized so as to be compatible with the RFP, the Statement of Work, and company's organization and accounting structure.

(D) Prime offerors shall provide one (1) original and five (5) paper copies as well as one (1) electronic copy (Technical, Past Performance, Price and Organizational/Personal Conflict of interest volumes) in PDF and Microsoft Office compatible format on CD ROM. The electronic technical, past performance, price proposals, and OCI must be on separate CDs with search functions enabled and include unlocked Word and Excel documents. The ONR Reps and Certs may be submitted as a signed PDF only.

Subcontractors who provide an unsuppressed copy to their Prime, for inclusion in the RFP response with no further information to be submitted to the Contracting Officer, shall provide include unlocked Word and Excel documents of their proposals for inclusion on the electronic copies.

Subcontractors who provide a suppressed copy to their Prime, for inclusion in the RFP response and intend to submit an unsuppressed submitted to the Contracting Officer, shall provide include unlocked Word and Excel documents of their proposals for inclusion on the electronic copies.

(E) Length.

(1) The length of Volume I, Technical Proposal shall not exceed 50 single-sided pages.

(2) There is no page limitation for Volume II, Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF).

http://www.onr.navy.mil/

(3) There is no page limitation on the length of Volume III, Cost Proposal.

(4) There is no page limitation on the length of Volume IV, Organizational and/or Personal Conflicts of Interest.

(4) Page limitations are maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages shall not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and will be removed from the proposal. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, page separators/tabs, glossaries, table of contents/indexes, past performance questionnaires and resumes. No material may be incorporated by reference as a means to circumvent the page limitations or for any other reason. If discussions occur prior to contract award, these page limitations do not apply for responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors.

(F) Page Size and Format shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Proposals should be:

(a) Printed on plain white bond paper.

(b) Page size should be 8.5” X 11”, not including foldouts.

(c) Pages should be single spaced, and except for the reproduced section of the solicitation document, the text size should be no less than 12 point in Times New Roman font, with the exception of charts and graphs, which must be in 10-point font or larger.

(d) Use at least 1-inch margins on the top, bottom, and sides.

(e) Pages should be numbered sequentially by volume (i.e., Volume 1, Page 1).

(f) Foldouts of charts, tables, diagrams, or drawings should not exceed 11” X 17”, if used and should be 10 pt font or larger. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each side (front or back) of a foldout is considered two pages for purposes of determining the number of pages. When both sides (front and back) of a foldout display contain printed material, they will be counted as four pages. Page margins for the foldouts should be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom, and each side. Foldouts may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and other schematics, and not for pages of text.

(g) For Excel files that use currency, please round all values to the nearest whole dollar. Cents shall not be used.

(G) Binding and Labeling. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

(H) Disposition of Offers and Proposal Information. Offers and proposal information will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals).

(I) Proposal Identification/Mailing. Offerors should assign their own identifying number to their proposal.

The proposal should be packaged for delivery so as to permit safe and timely arrival at destination. The proposal package should be sent to the address shown in Block 7 of the RFP face page and marked:

RFP: Enter RFP Number assigned on page 1 of this solicitation

Office of Naval Research One Liberty Center 875 North Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

Attn: Ms. Mary Helen Dent, Contracting Officer Email: mary.dent@navy.mil Telephone: 703-254-7288

(J) Due to changes in security procedures since September 11, 2001, the time required for hard-copy written materials to be received at the Office of Naval Research has increased. Thus it is recommended that any hard-copy proposal be mailed several days before the deadline established in the solicitation so that it will not be received late and thus be ineligible for award consideration.

(K) Assumptions for Technical and Cost Proposals.

For the purposes of the COE Operations and Management (First Task Order) proposal, the Offeror shall use the following assumptions when preparing technical and cost proposals:

• One Special Project per year (see table below for estimating purposes)

• COE-level deliverables as referenced in Section J.

Project Type:

Number of projects Per Year:

Estimated Dollar Value for each project:

Estimated Period of Performance for each project:

Special Project 1 $150,000 -$500,000 12 months

For Special Projects, the First Task Order shall include ALL project management hours for execution ofSpecial Projects. Offerors shall not include labor hours for Special Project Development/Management in the individual proposed Special Project.

For the purposes of the Project Development and Management (Second Task Order) proposal, the Offeror shall use the following assumptions when preparing cost proposals:

Project Type: Number of projects Per Year:

Estimated Dollar Value for each project:

Estimated Period of Performance for each project:

ManTech Projects 10 $750,000 - $1M 18 months

Rapid Response 2 $100,000 - $150,000 4-6 months

Mega Rapid Response 2 $500,000 - $750,000 6 - 9 months

The Project Development Task Order includes ALL project management hours for execution of ManTech projects. Offerors shall not include labor hours for Project Development/Management in the individual project plan.

(L) Proposal Compliance to the Solicitation

Upon receipt of proposals, a compliance check with Section L will be performed on all proposal submissions to verify compliance with the General Instructions. Offerors that do not comply with Section L will not receive an evaluation and will result in a disqualification for award.

(M) Submission of Subcontractor Proprietary Information

Subcontractors may provide their detailed cost information to their prime contractor; however, should a subcontractor not wish to provide this information to their prime, the subcontractor shall provide their proprietary information to the Contracting Officer, via email, no later than the deadline imposed on the prime contractors for submission of their proposals (see page 1, SF 33 of the RFP).

Subcontractors that do not provide their proprietary information to the Contracting Officer by the date and time as specified for proposal responses will not be evaluated. Subcontractor information submitted to the Contracting Officer shall follow the same instructions as noted in paragraph (D) above as it pertains to subcontractors.

Subcontractors that do not provide the information risk violation of paragraph (L) above. It is highly recommended that all Subcontractors proactively discuss their strategy with their Prime to assure compliance with Section L and to meet the deadlines in the RFP.

In the event that a Prime offeror has met the RFP response deadline (which includes a suppressed subcontractor proposal), and the Subcontractor has not submitted their proprietary information to the Contracting Officer after the RFP response deadline, the Government will consider the RFP package incomplete and any/all information submitted after the response date shall not be used in the evaluation.

The Contracting Officer notes that Subcontractor submissions that are not submitted in a timely manner shall not be analyzed regardless of email latency delays on either the Subcontractor or Navy servers.

As noted in paragraph (D), unlocked versions of Word and/or Excel are to be submitted from subcontractors to the Contracting Officer. Subcontractors that use file extensions which violate Navy server policies will not be analyzed.

Clause Section L, 3 is incorporated as follows:

Section L, 3 Preparation of Past Performance Proposals

(A) General

(1) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume must be prepared as a separate part of the total proposal package.

(2) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume should include a cover page. This cover page should include the words “Volume II – Past Performance” and the following:

(a) RFP number;

(b) Title of Proposal;

(c) Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if applicable;

(d) Technical contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

(e) Administrative/business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address); and

(f) Proposal Date

(3) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall then include three recent/relevant examples. Offerors shall use Attachment 5, Past Performance Information Form (See Section J for a copy of the document), when preparing their past performance examples. This form will be used for all three examples submitted.

(4) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall also include copies of the offeror’s PWS/SOW for their submitted examples. Copies of the PWS/SOW shall be placed directly behind the example they support.

(5) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall also include copies of the most recent CPARS applicable to the example submitted. These documents shall be placed directly behind the example they support. If no CPARS is available, the offeror shall send out Attachment 6 to Government points of contact that can verify previous performance. Attachment 6, Past Performance Questionnaire (See Section J for a copy of the document), shall be returned to the contractor (not the Government) and shall be included in the proposal submission. Attachment 6 shall be placed behind the example it supports. Note that POCs must be individuals from the specific agency or department receiving the work under the past performance example.

(B) Phase I – Recency and Relevancy

(1) The Government shall use the following to determine recency and relevancy for the three (3), and no more than three (3), submitted examples:

(a) Past Performance information shall be submitted by three (3) recent contracts, and no more than three (3), that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort.

Recency is defined as awards of contracts or task orders that the offeror has initiated work on or completed within the last 5 years from the date of the release of the RFP. Offerors may submit overall Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) or other ordering vehicles; however, specific task/delivery orders should be cited and documents provided shall relate to the order.

(b) Relevancy will be evaluated based on the magnitude, scope, and complexity of the example and its relevance to the ONR SOW. The Government defines each of these areas below:

Magnitude of effort: the measure of the similarity of the dollar value of work actually performed that exists between the Statement of Work and an offeror’s submitted reference.

Scope: experience in the areas defined in the Statement of Work.

Complexity: the measure of similarity of technical and managerial intricacy and required coordination of efforts and disciplines that exist between the Statement of Work and an offeror’s performance on a submitted reference. For complexity, not only will the tasks performed be considered, but also an offeror’s ability to coordinate the tasks (e.g. concurrent performance requirements).

(C) Phase II– Confidence Evaluation

All offerors who are found to be recent and relevant shall be evaluated for Confidence.

The government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (subcontractors, consultants, partners, etc.) identified in an offeror’s proposal as part of its proposed organization; inquiries of owner representative(s); the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); and any other known sources not provided by an offeror. Offerors are hereby notified that each example submitted in Volume II may be sent to the POC’s noted Paragraph D of the Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) in each example to validate that the submitted example is an accurate reflection of the previous work performed and does not include work not performed by the offeror or areas where the offeror has embellished their past performance.

While the government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with an offeror.

Note that ONR personnel involved in this source selection which are noted as points of contact for any submitted examples will NOT be contacted regarding performance as a means of controlling potential bias, or appearance of bias, in the source selection.

Clause Section L, 4 is incorporated as follows:

Section L, 4 Preparation of Price (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) Proposal

(A) All technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated to determine price reasonableness. Cost Realism will be performed to determine the overall approach is reasonable and realistic based on the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the SOW.

(B) General

(1) The Offeror’s Price Volume must be prepared as a separate part of the total proposal package.

(2) The Offeror’s Price Volume should include a cover page. This cover page should include the words “Volume III – Price” and the following:

(a) RFP number;

(b) Title of Proposal;

(c) Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if applicable;

(d) Technical contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

(e) Administrative/business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address); and

(f) Proposal Date

(3) An offeror and each of its proposed subcontractors shall fill out Attachment 7, Price Information (See Section J for a copy of the document). Offerors shall submit any documentation they deem relevant to substantiate their proposed cost. This information shall be included and placed behind the Attachment 7 document. In addition, all prime and subcontractor offerors must complete a Price Proposal – Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Attachment 8 (See Section J for a copy of the document), to detail the total estimated costs plus estimated fixed fee representative of their technical solution proposed to satisfy the government’s requirement. This attachment is designed to facilitate data entry to the maximum extent practical barring any modifications for offerors proposed technical solution and indirect cost rate structure/methodology.

Additional tabs or additional rows may be inserted into the workbook as needed by the offeror. Unneeded Tabs and rows shall not be deleted by an offeror. Instead, offerors shall simply hide unneeded rows from the template and place a notation of “Not Applicable” watermark on unused tabs. Completing the attachment, as intended, will facilitate the government’s evaluation and ensure consistency across all offerors proposals. All tabs of the spreadsheet shall be filled. Note the spreadsheet includes workbooks to display costs for the overall anticipated five year period for the First and Second Task Orders, as well as workbooks specifically for cost on the First and Second Task Orders. Offerors shall round to the nearest whole dollar. Do not use cents. See Section L1 for information regarding submission of proprietary subcontractor information to the Government.

i. For the purposes of the COE Operations and Management (First Task Order) proposal, the Offeror shall use the following assumptions when preparing technical and cost proposals:

• One Special Project per year (see table below for estimating purposes)

• COE-level deliverables as referenced in Section J.

Project Type:

Number of projects Per Year:

Estimated Dollar Value for each project:

Estimated Period of Performance for each project:

Special Project 1 $150,000 -$500,000 12 months

For Special Projects, the First Task Order shall include ALL project management hours for execution of Special Projects. Offerors shall not include labor hours for Special Project Development/Management in the individual proposed Special Project.

ii. For the purposes of the Project Development and Management (Second Task Order) proposal, the Offeror shall use the following assumptions when preparing cost proposals:

Project Number of Estimated Dollar Value Estimated Period of

Type: projects Per Year:

for each project: Performance for each project:

ManTech Projects 10 $750,000 - $1M 18 months

Rapid Response 2 $100,000 - $150,000 4-6 months

Mega Rapid Response 2 $500,000 - $750,000 6 - 9 months

The Project Development Task Order includes ALL project management hours for execution of ManTech projects. Offerors shall not include labor hours for Project Development/Management in the individual project plan.

All proposals will be evaluated via a cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. This analysis is the process by which the Government will independently review and evaluate specific elements of each Offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are: realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's Technical Proposal.

The Government’s estimated probable cost may differ from the Offeror’s proposed cost. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost and fee, and cost sharing when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

Unrealistic or unbalanced proposed costs may represent a high risk to the Government. The evaluated risk will be used in the Government’s best value decision.

(C) Fixed Fee Caps

Offerors shall abide by the following instructions regarding fee. These paragraphs will be moved to Section H at time of contract award and be part of the resultant IDIQ contract.

Project Type: Fee Cap Prime: Fee Cap Subcontractor:

Center of Excellence Operations and Management 5% 1% Special Projects 5% 1% Project Development and Management 5% 1% Rapid Response 5% 1% ManTech Projects 5% 5%-7% Mega Rapid Response 5% 5% - 7%

Clause 52.211-14 is incorporated as follows:

FAR 52.211-14 Notice of Priority Rating for National Defense, Emergency Preparedness, and Energy Program Use. (APR 2008)

Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be [ ] DX rated order; [X] DO rated order certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy program use under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) (15 CFR 700), and the Contractor will be required to follow all of the requirements of this regulation. (Contracting Officer check appropriate box.)

(End of provision)

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Summary of Clause Changes:

Clause Section M, 2 is incorporated as follows:

Section M, 2 Evaluation of Technical Proposals

Technical Factor 1: Center of Excellence (CoE) Operations and Management and Center of Excellence Business Operations.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s proposed approach to accomplishing Attachment 1, Statement Of Work;

2. The Offeror’s capabilities to accomplish the task requirements through relevant knowledge of ManTech Center specific technologies and their transition from development stages into industrial applications, manufacturing of Navy or DoD weapon systems, and/or implementation into the U.S. Center specific industrial base; and

3. The Offeror’s understanding of managing and operating a Center of Excellence program to include execution of RDTE, DoD Budgeting, Federal Government Contracting, etc.

The Government will evaluate the following:

4. The Offeror’s proposed Center Organization which includes their proposed approach to:

o Proposed organization structure, to include an organizational chart to manage the Center of Excellence, o Rationale for the organization structure;

o Proposed roles, o Responsibilities of the proposed roles, o Lines of authority;

o Level of integration of the major functions of the Center of Excellence;

o Statements as to how the proposed organizational structure promotes individual and organization accountability to manage the Center of Excellence; and o Offeror’s who propose the use of teaming or joint ventures should address the following:

The Offeror’s table identifying each Offeror or subcontractor company name, address, point of contact and telephone, and percentage of contract workload;

The Offeror’s narrative of roles and responsibilities of the Offeror’s joint venture or team arrangement, if applicable, to manage the Center of Excellence to include roles and responsibilities of each individual team member;

The Offeror’s explanation of subcontracting/teaming arrangements which will function as a well integrated, seamless business unit;

The Offeror’s explanation of how the team members will hold each other accountable for overall contract performance;

Has the Offeror included letters of commitment for all of its proposed team members, agencies, or companies to provide the support; and The Offeror’s demonstrated participation as a team member of small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, or woman-owned small business concerns.

The Government will evaluate the following:

5. The Offeror’s proposed approach to how the Center will be operated and managed, with minimal overhead expenses, in its core mission to develop naval metal working technologies and transition the technology for implementation in the U.S. center specific industrial base.

6. The Offeror’s proposed approach of management of the COE as a whole.

7. The Offeror’s proposed management approach to be utilized to ensure appropriate interface with the Government COR to facilitate task progress, communication, and understanding among all necessary parties.

8. The Offeror’s proposed approach to how the Center will provide the required program support, such as generation of COE-level deliverables and reports, and respond to any and all applicable data calls.

The Government will evaluate the following:

9. The Offeror’s proposed approach, qualifications, ability, and experience in providing technical evaluations and assessments on specific electro optics technology and other naval related technologies.

10. The Offeror shall describe its approach, qualifications, ability, and experience in executing special projects, related to serving as a Naval Technical Advisor, such as build strategy development, industrial base benchmarking surveys, technology roadmap development, technology assessments, etc.

The Government will evaluate the following:

11. The Offeror shall describe its approach and experience in developing and maintaining working relationships and technical interchanges with DoD Laboratories and the US industrial base utilizing these relationships to facilitate technology transfer of manufacturing technology to industry and in developing and maintaining working relationships with various Navy commands and program management offices.

The Government will evaluate the following:

12. The Offeror’s approach to providing uninterrupted maintenance of the Center public domain website and server.

13. The Offeror’s approach to providing promotional materials and logistics support for exhibits, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and displays.

14. The Offeror’s approach to attending and showcasing the Center mission and accomplishments at conferences and trade shows, such as the Defense Manufacturing Conference.

15. The Offeror’s approach to distribution of a newsletter on a minimum quarterly basis to key government and industry personnel.

The Government will evaluate the following:

16. The Offeror’s approach to manage and administer successfully a system of internal controls for all business and administrative operations.

17. The Offeror’s approach to in-house financial management system it will employ to help the ONR Program Officer measure the performance and effect corrective actions as needed for each of the tasks.

This system must be capable of accurately tracking expenditures, analyzing the expenditure of funds in light of work accomplished and quantifying technical problems in terms of cost and schedule. Favorable and unfavorable cost and/or schedule variances that exceed +/- 15% shall be identified and reported along with proposed corrective actions. This does not need to be a complex EVMS. It is intended to provide a simple means of correlating technical progress to budget progress.

The Government will evaluate the following:

18. The Offeror’s approach and experience developing plans to meet government or similar obligation and expenditure fiscal benchmarks, track center performance with respect to these benchmarks, and develop

“get well” plans if necessary.

Technical Factor 2: Project Development and Management.

A single rating will be given for this factor based on how well the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s approach to Project Development and Management.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s approach to understanding ONR’s task requirements outlined in Section C of this solicitation and Attachment 1, entitled, “Statement of Work.”

2. The Offeror’s approach and experience in performing technical project development and management.

It is important that the Offeror’s proposal provide evidence of detailed knowledge of and/or experience in performing the identified tasks in the same or similar environment(s).

The Government will evaluate the following:

3. The Offeror’s process and strategies for the identification, development, and selection of technical Navy ManTech projects. This includes the demonstration of an effective project solution identification process that includes a method of identifying and prioritizing center specific technologies that are highly likely to be implemented by industry and support Navy acquisition program needs.

4. The Offeror’s process for selecting viable solutions to meet Navy needs and how project plans will be developed and delivered in a timely manner to the Government for approval. Include the Offeror’s experience and track record of working with Government program offices and industry to identify needs and appropriate technology solutions.

The Government will evaluate the following:

5. The Offeror’s approach to manage and successfully execute the projects to achieve the desired technical success and transition of technology within project schedule and budget.

6. The Offeror’s approach to factors such as technology implementation risk and financial return (i.e., as affordability assessments, return on investment, cost savings or avoidance, etc.) will be monitored during the project and what techniques will be used to improve these factors over the life of the project.

Technical Factor 3: Key Personnel and Staffing.

A single rating will be given for this factor based on how well the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s proposed Key Personnel and Staffing. A proposal must meet all criteria to obtain an “acceptable” rating.

Additional considerations will be considered in determining whether a proposal merits higher than an “acceptable” rating.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s proposed “Key Personnel” including the COE Director, COE Technical Director, and Business Manager and any additional personnel who report directly to the COE Director who the Offeror considers essential for the management and operation of the Center of Excellence.

2. The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel resumes. Resumes will show each key person’s general qualifications, education, recent experience with similar contracts and types of technical projects, and specific pertinent accomplishments.

3. The offeror’s proposed approximate percentage of time personnel will be dedicated to the Center.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s stature in the manufacturing technology community and the related experience of the proposed COE Director and COE Technical Director.

2. The Offeror’s demonstration of the COE Director’s and COE Technical Director’s ability to lead the Center’s technology development and operations through experience in and broad understanding of:

Technology development and manufacturing, particularly with respect to advanced manufacturing of center Specific components, subsystems and systems; Working cooperatively with the defense industry;

Identifying technology needs and effecting technology transition; and ONR ManTech Center of Excellence operations and business functions.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s approach to the proposed matrix of labor hours by skill category required to perform the statement of work for the first Task Order, Center of Excellence (CoE) Operations and Management and Center of Excellence Business Operations. Reference Section L for the Task Order Period of Performance including base and all options.

2. The Offeror’s approach to the proposed matrix of labor hours by skill category required to perform the statement of work for the second Task Order, Center of Excellence (CoE) Project Development. Reference Section L for the Task Order Period of Performance including base and all options.

3. The Offeror’s proposed approach to sound and efficient management of personnel and organizational resources required to meet the task requirements.

4. The Offeror’s approach to addressing the variety and completeness of the proposed staff will facilitate a timely and cost-effective team management (Government/industry) process for evaluating ManTech projects for selection/execution, as well as prioritizing and selecting advanced manufacturing technology solutions for Navy weapon/sensor system needs.

5. The Offeror’s approach to availability and capabilities of proposed staff to operate and manage the center in a cost-effective manner.

6. The offeror’s proposed prioritization of the Center requirements with other contracts held by the offeror.

Technical Factor 4: Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Participation as follows:

1. The offeror’s proposed commitment of Small Business participation in this requirement (number of small business categories noted and percentages per category).

2. The proposed approach to meeting the commitments noted in the offeror’s response to include proposed small business subcontractor’s nature of work to be performed, proposal approach to meeting the commitments, and offeror’s previous performance for meeting commitment to small business.

3. The offeror’s proposed approach to identification of the extent of Small Business Participation over the life of the requirement.

Technical Factor 5: Facilities.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s current Secret Facility Clearance with Secret Safeguarding.

2. If no Secret Facility Clearance with Secret Safeguarding is held the Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to obtain the clearance.

3. The Government shall also evaluate the proposed classified and unclassified meeting spaces at the Offeror’s facility or to which the Offeror has access.

Technical Factor 6: Cost Share.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to obtaining quality cost share to leverage Navy investment for technical work on Navy ManTech projects.

2. The Government will evaluate the emphasis will be placed on cost sharing, leveraging, and minimizing administrative and facility infrastructure, maintenance, and indirect costs.

3. The Government will evaluate the identification of other innovative methods to augment Navy investment and maximize the proportion of Navy funding percentage available for technical efforts.

Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force and effort under award number [To Be Determined].