B2.03 A0001.pdf

(x)

N00014-20-R-0007 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, 850-276-2279 Office of Naval Research (BD253)

09/11/20200001

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

09/11/2020

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 the amendment to N00014-20-R-0007 is to add Government responses to Offeror

Questions and Answers which were submitted by 16 Oct 2020. Please see Section J, Attachment

10 for the questions, the responses, and if the Q&A generated a change to the solicitation.

All offerors are reminded to sign this amendment and place at the front of the Technical

Binder in Volume I (see Section L, 1 General Instructions for Submission of Proposals).

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 .

TEL: EMAIL: 850-276-2279 Mary.Dent@navy.mil

[To Be Determined] 0001

Section B - Supplies or Services/Prices

CLINs/SLINs

Section C - Description/Specifications

Clause titled Statement of Work is incorporated as follows:

ONR- Statement of Work

(1) The work and services to be performed hereunder shall be subject to the requirements and standards contained in the Statement(s) of Work, the Contract Data Requirements Lists (as specified in each Delivery/Task Order), and the following paragraph(s):

(2) The purpose of CLIN 0001 is to provide for an instrument under which orders can be issued for:

The management, administration and technical oversight of the Navy Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Composites Manufacturing and the performance of Special Projects, will be awarded as the first Task Order Award in accordance with Section J, Attachment 1, Statement of Work.

Project Development and Management of the Navy Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Composites Manufacturing which will be awarded as the second Task Order Award, per Section J, Attachment 1, Statement of Work

(3) Deliverable data requirements shall be specified on each Task Order Award as applicable.

Section G - Contract Administration Data

Clause titled Travel Costs is incorporated as follows:

ONR- Travel Costs

Travel may be required to support this Statement of Work. For profit Contractor's travel costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 at rates not to exceed the maximum locality per diem rates (the combination of lodging, meals and incidentals) in effect at the time of travel, as set forth in the Federal Travel Regulations, Joint Travel Regulation and Standards Regulations, Section 925, as applicable. For educational Contractor's, travel shall be reimbursed in accordance with OMB

Circular A-21.

The Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for otherwise reimbursable expenses in excess of the funded amount stated on the applicable travel CLIN. Travel will be reimbursed without profit/fee.

All Contractor travel arrangements including: clearance requests, hotel accommodations, travel orders, and visa/passport requirements, are the Contractor's responsibility. All requests for travel must be made in advance to the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). No travel is allowable until authorized by the

COR.

Section I - Contract Clauses

Clauses Included by Reference

Clause Database Clause Number Clause Title

FAR 52.211-15 Defense Priority and Allocation Requirements. (APR 2008) FAR 52.215-23 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges. (JUN 2020) -- Alternate I (OCT 2009) FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data-General. (MAY 2014) FAR 52.227-16 Additional Data Requirements. (JUN 1987)

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Number Title Number of Pages

10 B2.01 Sec J Attachmnet 10 Q_A 4

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

Summary of Clause Changes:

Clause Section L, 2 is incorporated as follows:

Section L, 2 Preparation of Technical Proposals

(A) General

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

Specific cost or pricing details should be omitted from this section of the proposal.

(2) The Offeror’s Technical Proposal should include a cover page. This cover page should include the words “Volume I - Technical Proposal” 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);

(f) Proposal Date; and,

(g) Signature from authorized organization representative.

(3) In this volume, the Offeror shall detail how it proposes to meet the requirements of the attached Statement of Work. Technical and Management Capability will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in Section M. Attention will be given to the Statement of Work (SOW) and the requirements stated below. The Offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable; possesses adequate technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources; and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Center.

(4) Proposals will be evaluated to ensure that sound approaches are proposed and to ensure the Offeror’s ability to successfully achieve the SOW tasks. Offeror’s understanding of both required services and tasks, including work effort required to produce them and demonstrated knowledge of SOW requirements, will be evaluated. Offeror’s plan of how key and team members will successfully accomplish SOW tasks will be evaluated. Offeror’s who simply restate the SOW, with no explanation as to how it will meet the requirements, will be found unacceptable. Offeror’s who receive an unacceptable rating in technical will not be evaluated for past performance or price.

(5) This volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are important. Offerors are encouraged to respond to each factor by using the same lettering and numbering scheme used in Factors 1-6 below in order to allow for ease of the technical review.

(6) Each technical factor, listed below, should be addressed in a separate, stand-alone section within the volume. Using the instructions given, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology proposed for accomplishing/satisfying the factors below.

Responses will be evaluated against the technical factors as defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

(7) Technical Factors:

Factor 1: Center Of Excellence (CoE) Operations and Management and CoE Business Operations Factor 2: Project Development and Management Factor 3: Key Personnel and Staffing Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor 5: Facilities Factor 6: Cost Share

(8) Offerors are encouraged, where applicable, to provide verification of claims. For instance, cite examples of technical successes and transition and implementation of new technologies, references, any awards received or other recognition for efforts.

(B) Executive Summary. The Executive Summary shall provide a concise overview of the main points of the proposal. Do NOT include estimated costs in this section. The salient features shall tie in with Section M evaluation factors. The Executive Summary should not exceed five (5) pages. This summary is not considered part of the technical proposal and is not counted towards the technical proposal 50 page limit.

(C) The Technical Proposal Elements which shall be addressed in proposal responses are:

(1) Factor 1: COE Operations and Management and Center of Excellence Business Operations

The Offeror shall describe how Center will be organized and how its operation and management will be conducted. When award is made to a chosen offeror, this portion of the proposal (referred to as COE Operations and Management) will be awarded as a Task Order issued at the same time of contract award. In describing its capability, the offeror shall discuss its approach and experience in performing these activities.

(a) Understanding of Requirement. The Offeror shall describe its Understanding of the requirement as follows:

1. The Offeror shall provide a narrative of the Offeror’s understanding of ONR’s task requirements outlined in Section C of this solicitation and Attachment 1, entitled, “Statement of Work.”

2. The Offeror shall discuss its capabilities to accomplish the task requirements through relevant knowledge of 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.

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

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).

(b) Center Organization. The Offeror shall describe its Center Organization as follows:

1. Proposed organization structure, to include an organizational chart to manage the Center of Excellence,

2. Rationale for the organization structure;

3. Proposed roles,

4. Responsibilities of the proposed roles,

5. Lines of authority;

6. Level of integration of the major functions of the Center of Excellence; and

7. Statements as to how the proposed organizational structure promotes individual and organization accountability to manage the Center of Excellence;

(A) Teaming: The Offeror may be a single entity or multiple entities via a joint venture or teaming arrangement of multiple entities. Joint Ventures and teaming arrangements should be clearly defined in the response to the solicitation.

(i) If a joint venture or teaming arrangement is proposed, offerors shall include a table identifying each Offeror or subcontractor company name, address, point of contact and telephone, and percentage of contract workload;

(ii) The Offeror shall describe in narrative the 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;

(iii) How the subcontracting/teaming arrangement will function as a well integrated, seamless business unit;

(iv) How the team members will hold each other accountable for overall contract performance;

(v) The Offeror must also submit letters of commitment for all of its proposed team members, agencies, or companies to provide the support outlined in the above (1) and (2), (letters can be placed in an appendix and are not included in the page limitation) and;

(vi) The extent of 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.

(c) Center Operations and Management. The Offeror shall describe its Center Operations and Management as follows:

1. Proposed viable approach to how the Center will be operated and managed, with minimal overhead expenses, in its core mission to develop center specific technologies and transition the technology for implementation in the U.S. center specific industrial base.

2. Description of management of the COE as a whole.

3. Description of management approach to be utilized to ensure appropriate interface with the Government COR to facilitate task progress, communication, and understanding among all necessary parties.

4. Description of 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.

(d) Naval Technical Advisor. The Offeror shall describe its Naval Technical Advisor as follows:

1. The Offeror shall describe its approach, qualifications, ability, and experience in providing technical evaluations and assessments on center specific technology and other naval related technologies.

2. Special Projects. 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.

(e) Connectivity. The Offeror shall describe its Connectivity as follows:

The Offeror shall describe its approach and experience in developing and maintaining working relationships and technical interchanges with DoD Laboratories and the US industrial bases 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.

(f) Outreach Activities. The Offeror shall describe its approach and experience in performing outreach activities to include:

1. Providing uninterrupted maintenance of the Center public domain website and server.

2. Providing promotional materials and logistics support for exhibits, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and displays.

3. Attending and showcasing the Center mission and accomplishments at conferences and trade shows, such as the Defense Manufacturing Conference and portfolio reviews at Joint Defense Manufacturing Tech Panel

4. Distribution of a newsletter on a minimum quarterly basis to key government and industry personnel.

(g) COE Performance Management. The Offeror shall describe its COE Performance Management as follows:

1. The Offeror shall describe its ability to manage and administer successfully a system of internal controls for all business and administrative operations.

2. The Offeror shall describe the 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. It is intended to provide a simple means of correlating technical progress to budget progress.

(h) COE Performance to Fiscal Benchmarks. The Offeror shall describe its COE Performance to Fiscal Benchmarks as follows:

The Offeror shall describe its 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.

(2) Factor 2: Project Development and Management.

The Offeror shall describe how project development will be conducted and its capability to develop, select, and manage projects. When award is made to a chosen offeror, this portion of the proposal (referred to as Project Development) will be awarded as the Second Task Order and issued at the same time of contract award.

(a) Understanding of Requirement. The Offeror shall describe its Understanding of Requirement as follows:

1. The Offeror shall provide a narrative of the Offeror’s understanding of ONR’s task requirements outlined in Section C of this solicitation and Attachment 1, entitled, “Statement of Work.”

2. The Offeror shall discuss its 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).

(b) Project Development. The Offeror shall describe its Project Development as follows:

1. The Offeror will describe a 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.

2. Describe the 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.

(c) Project Management. The Offeror shall describe its Project Development as follows:

1. The Offeror shall describe its approach to manage and successfully execute the projects to achieve the desired technical success and transition of technology within project schedule and budget.

2. Describe how 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.

(3) Factor 3: Key Personnel and Staffing.

The Offeror shall describe how Key Personnel requirements will be met and how it will provide adequate staffing. See Section J for Key Personnel Qualifications.

(a) Key Personnel. The Offeror shall provide its Key Personnel and Staffing as follows:

1. The Offeror shall describe “Key Personnel” including the COE Director, COE Technical Director, Business Manager, Contracts 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. It is recognized that the number and exact functions for these direct reports will vary with the organizational structure proposed.

2. Provide written resumes for each of the Key Personnel. 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. Submit a completed Key Personnel List utilizing the format provided in Section J. The qualifications for these positions are also stated in Section J. The identified Key Personnel will be listed in Delivery/Task Order awards.

4. For those Key Personnel who will not be assigned full time to this Contract, show the approximate percentage of work to be performed for the Center.

(b) Proposed COE Director and COE Technical Director. The Offeror shall provide its Proposed COE Director and COE Technical Director as follows:

1. Describe the stature in the manufacturing technology community and the related experience of the proposed COE Director and COE Technical Director.

2. Demonstrate 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:

(a) Approach to maintain state of the art personnel;

(b)Technology development and manufacturing;

(c) Working cooperatively with the defense industry;

(d) Identifying technology needs and effecting technology transition; and

(e) ONR ManTech Center of Excellence operations and business functions.

(c) Staffing. The Offeror shall provide its staffing as follows:

1. Provide a matrix indicating proposed labor hours by skill category required to perform the statement of work for the first Task Order, COE Operations and Management. The first Task Order shall consist of:

A Two (2) Year Base Period = (24 months) Three (3) twelve (12) month options Total of 60 months (should all options be exercised)

2. A second matrix should be provided indicating proposed labor hours by skill category required to perform the statement of work for the Second Task Order, Project Development. The Second Task Order shall consist of:

A Two (2) Year Base Period = (24 months), Three (3) twelve (12) month options Total of 60 months (should all options be exercised)

These two matrices shall not contain labor rates or any other indication of specific cost or pricing data.

Each matrix shall include percentage of time each Key Personnel labor category will be dedicated to the Center.

3. Demonstrate a sound and efficient approach to the management of personnel and organizational resources required to meet the task requirements.

4. Address how 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 composites manufacturing technology solutions for Navy weapon/sensor system needs.

5. Address the availability and capabilities of proposed staff to operate and manage the center in a costeffective manner.

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

Note that ONR is not only interested in receiving proposals with upper level management and technical personnel (i.e., Key Personnel) but also lower level technical and operational personnel to accomplish less complex delivery/task orders.

(4) Factor 4: Small Business Participation

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to provide a Small Business Participation proposal. This should not be confused with submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Offerors shall propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or first tier small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition. No goals will be provided by the Government. This acquisition relies on the offeror’s abilities to provide their realistic approach to Small Business Participation.

(A) Offerors shall address the extent of use of Small Business firms in their commitment under this requirement.

(1) Offerors shall fill out the following table:

Company Name

Small Business Category(ies)

(SB, WOSB,

SDB,

Hubzone, VOSB, SDVOSB)

Product(s)/Service(s) to be Provided, including type

& variety of work

CAGE Code NAICS Code Nature of Commitment

(2) Offerors shall address the following:

a. What is the nature of the work the proposed small businesses will provide?

b. What is the proposed approach to meeting commitments for each category of Small Business?

c. Doe the offeror have prior experience in meeting Small Business commitments? If so, please provide no more than two contracts where the offeror has met these commitments.

(3) Offerors shall address the following using the below table:

a. Offerors shall identify the extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition:

b. Offerors shall specify what proportion of the proposal, as a percentage of dollars, will be subcontracted to small business and socio-economic categories.

c. Offerors shall specify the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Business Category Dollar Value % of Total Contract Value*

Total Proposed Contract Value – Prime Offeror

Total Small Business

Small Disadvantaged Business

Woman-Owned Small Business

HUBZone Small Business

Veteran-Owned Small Business

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

*NOTE: When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

(5) Factor 5: Facilities.

The offeror shall provide its response to Facilities below:

1. The Offeror shall state if it holds a current Secret Facility Clearance with Secret Safeguarding. If no Secret Facility Clearance with Secret Safeguarding is held the offeror shall describe a plan to obtain the clearance.

2. Also, the Offeror shall describe the classified and unclassified meeting spaces at the Offeror’s facility or to which the Offeror has access.

(6) Factor 6: Cost Share.

The offeror shall provide its response to Cost Share below:

1. The Offeror will describe in detail its process for obtaining quality cost share to leverage Navy investment for technical work on Navy ManTech projects.

2. Emphasis will be placed on cost sharing, leveraging, and minimizing administrative and facility infrastructure, maintenance, and indirect costs.

3. Identification of other innovative methods to augment Navy investment and maximize the proportion of Navy funding percentage available for technical efforts.

Section M - Evaluation Criteria

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 composites manufacturing 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 composites manufacturing 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, Business Manager, Contracts 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 composites 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.

Clause Section M, 3 is incorporated as follows:

Section M, 3 Evaluation of Past Performance

Factor 7: Past Performance.

Past performance consists of a two-phase rating system that results in a single overall assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The first phase is an assessment of the relevancy of each past performance example provided by an offeror.

In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of magnitude, scope, and complexity.

All offerors who are found to be recent and relevant shall be evaluated for the second phase of the assessment which is Confidence.

In order to evaluate 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.

If, at either Phase I or Phase II, it is discovered that an Offeror has embellished their performance or has provided false information, the Offeror will automatically receive a rating of NO CONFIDENCE. 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.

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