B2 N00014-21-R-0002_Amd_0003.pdf

(x)

N00014-21-R-0002 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 shawn.ryan@navy.mil Shawn Ryan, 703-588-2550 Office of Naval Research (Code 253)

11/17/20210003

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

11/17/2021

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 N00014-21-R-0002 is to add Government responses to Offeror

Questions and Answers (Q+A) which were submitted by 01 Dec 2021. 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 and all amendments, and place at the front of the Technical Binder in Volume I (see Section L, 1 General Instructions for

Submission of Proposals). Following this amendment, the submission deadline remains unchanged.

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)

Shawn Ryan

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: 703-588-2550 shawn.ryan@navy.mil

[To Be Determined] 0003

Section B - Supplies or Services/Prices

CLINs/SLINs

CLINs/SLINs

Item Number Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

0001 1 LO

The contractor shall operate and manage the Navy ManTech MTC and perform research on approved ManTech and Non-ManTech Program technical projects IAW Section C, and all task orders issued hereunder.

Award Type: Indefinite-quantity Product/Service Code: AC13

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 operations and management, to include administration and technical oversight of the Navy Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Metalworking Technology Center (MTC) 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.

In accordance with Section J, Attachment 1, Statement of Work, under this Task Order MTC will initiate, develop and manage ONR Program Officer approved 1) Standard ManTech projects that respond to the need for the production and/or repair of weapon platforms, systems and equipment to improve the affordability of naval platforms critical to the future force; 2) Non-Manufacturing Technology (Non-ManTech) projects that are sponsored by ONR, but are not funded by Navy Manufacturing Technology resources. These projects can support a ManTech weapon platform and may be funded with congressional funds and through other Defense agencies; 3) Rapid Response projects approved by the ONR Program Officer for small dollar, urgent requirements and 4) Mega Rapid Response projects that are larger dollar and address urgent requirements which require transition of the product or technology that can be inserted on a platform at the end of the project.

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

In accordance with Section J, Attachment 1, Statement of Work, Special Projects (generally identified by the ONR ManTech Program) performed under this Task Order can cover any topic approved by the ONR ManTech Program Officer. The parameters of the project will be developed by the project performer and MTC, typically following the traditional project Statement of Work development process.

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

Section G - Contract Administration Data

Clause titled Payment of Allowable Costs and Fixed Fee is incorporated as follows:

ONR- Payment of Allowable Costs and Fixed Fee

As consideration for the proper performance of the work and services required under this contract, the Contractor shall be paid as follows:

(a) Costs, as provided for under the contract clause entitled “Allowable Cost and Payment”, not to exceed the amount set forth as “Estimated Cost” in Section B, subject to the contract clause entitled “Limitation of Cost” or “ Limitation of Funds”, whichever is applicable.

(b) A fixed fee, in the amount set forth as ‘Fixed Fee’ in Section B, in accordance with the contract clause FAR 52.216-8 “Fixed Fee”, shall be paid upon completion of the work and services required under this contract and upon final acceptance by the Contracting Officer. However, the Contractor, may bill on each voucher the amount of the fee bearing the same percentage to the total fixed fee as the amount of cost billed bears to the total estimated cost not to exceed the amount set forth as "Fixed Fee" in Section B. The total fixed fee billed, shall not exceed the total fixed fee specified in Section B and is subject to the contract clause entitled "Limitation of Cost" or "Limitation of Funds" whichever applies.

(c) In accordance with FAR 52.216-8, “Fixed Fee”, the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), in order to protect the Government’s interest, shall withhold 10% of the fixed fee amount set forth in Section B or until a reserve is set aside in the amount of $100,000.00, whichever is less. The fixed fee withhold should be applied to each voucher. The ACO shall release the withhold in accordance with the provisions of FAR 52.216-8.

(d) The 10% withhold stated herein this takes precedence over the 15% withhold in FAR 52.216-8 (Jun 2011).

Section I - Contract Clauses

Clauses Included by Reference

Clause Database Clause Number Clause Title

FAR 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data - Modifications. (JUN 2020) - Alternate I (AUG 2020)

FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data-General. (MAY 2014) FAR 52.227-16 Additional Data Requirements. (JUN 1987) FAR 52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards. (JUN 2020)

DFARS 252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support. (MAY 2016)

DFARS 252.204-7018 Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services. (JAN 2021)

DFARS 252.204-7020 NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. (NOV 2020) DFARS 252.227-7039 Patents - reporting of subject inventions. (APR 1990)

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Number Title Number of Pages

8 B2. 01RFP Sec J Attachment 8 CE Summary 10 9 B2.01 Sec J Attachment 9 ONR Reps_Certs 26 10 B2.01 Sec J Attachment 10 Q + A 1

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

Summary of Clause Changes:

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: https://www.onr.navy.mil.

(B) The Technical Proposal shall be placed in Volume I. Electronically or scanned signed copies of the SF33 and all amendment(s), if any, shall be included at the front of the Technical Volume submission. 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 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 their electronic proposal via FedConnect https://www.fedconnect.net/. If the offeror is having difficulty with FedConnect, the Offeror mat request a DoD Safe request for drop off through the Contracting Officer specified in Block 10 of the Standard Form 33. However, the proposal must be received by the date and time specified in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

Hard copy proposals are not accepted. Electronic proposals shall include the following:

Technical Volume I

Past Performance Volume II

Price Volume III (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) Organizational/Personal Conflict of Interest Volume FedConnect submissions shall be in PDF and Word/Excel formats which are unlocked with all functions enabled. Cost proposal submission by both prime and subcontractor proposals shall include use Attachment 8 for a summary of costs, and spreadsheet formulas shall remain unchanged.

Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest Volume IV

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 file://onrhqfs01/server6$/X-Files/FY21%20AWARDS/ManTech/N00014-21-R-0002%20CNM%20Recompete/II.%20SOLICITATION-SOURCE%20SELECTION/B-2%20%20Solicitation-Amendments%20&%20Attachments/RFP%20N00014-21-R-0002/:%20https:/www.onr.navy.mil https://www.fedconnect.net/

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).

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

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

(3) 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. 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 formatted in the following manner:

(a) Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8 1/2" by 11" formatted pages with 1" minimum margins. Do not submit any information that is not specifically requested by this solicitation.

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

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

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

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

(H) 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) -Two Rapid Response project(s); (see table below for estimating purposes) shall be shown separately from COE Operations and Management Costs.

-COE-level deliverables as referenced in Section J.

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.

Project Type Number of Projects Per Year

Estimated Project Value per Project

Estimated Period of Performance per Project

Special ProjectsNo more than 1 $50k to $100k 6 - 9 Months

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

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.

Project Type Number of Projects Per Year Estimated Dollar Value per Project Estimated Period of Performance per Project

ManTech Projects 6 to 10 $1M to $4M 18 to 36 Months

Rapid Response Up to 2 $200k 6 Months

Mega Rapid Response Up to 2 $750K 9 Months

(I) 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.

(J) 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, 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: https://www.onr.navy.mil.

(B) The Technical Proposal shall be placed in Volume I. Electronically or scanned signed copies of the SF33 and all amendment(s), if any, shall be included at the front of the Technical Volume submission. 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 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 their electronic proposal via FedConnect https://www.fedconnect.net/. If the offeror is having difficulty with FedConnect, the Offeror mat request a DoD Safe request for drop off through the Contracting Officer specified in Block 10 of the Standard Form 33. However, the proposal must be received by the date and time specified in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

Hard copy proposals are not accepted. Electronic proposals shall include the following:

Technical Volume I

Past Performance Volume II

Price Volume III (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) Organizational/Personal Conflict of Interest Volume FedConnect submissions shall be in PDF and Word/Excel formats which are unlocked with all functions enabled. Cost proposal submission by both prime and subcontractor proposals shall include use Attachment 8 for a summary of costs, and spreadsheet formulas shall remain unchanged.

Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest Volume IV

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.

file://onrhqfs01/server6$/X-Files/FY21%20AWARDS/ManTech/N00014-21-R-0002%20CNM%20Recompete/II.%20SOLICITATION-SOURCE%20SELECTION/B-2%20%20Solicitation-Amendments%20&%20Attachments/RFP%20N00014-21-R-0002/:%20https:/www.onr.navy.mil https://www.fedconnect.net/

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

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

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

(3) 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. 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 formatted in the following manner:

(a) Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8 1/2" by 11" formatted pages with 1" minimum margins. Do not submit any information that is not specifically requested by this solicitation.

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

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

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

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

(H) 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) -Two Rapid Response project(s); (see table below for estimating purposes) shall be shown separately from COE Operations and Management Costs.

-COE-level deliverables as referenced in Section J.

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.

Project Type Number of Projects Per Year

Estimated Project Value per Project

Estimated Period of Performance per Project

Special ProjectsNo more than 1 $50k to $100k 6 - 9 Months

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

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.

Project Type Number of Projects Per Year Estimated Dollar Value per Project Estimated Period of Performance per Project

ManTech Projects 6 to 10 $1M to $4M 18 to 36 Months

Rapid Response Up to 2 $200k 6 Months

Mega Rapid Response Up to 2 $750K 9 Months

(I) 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.

(J) 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.

Section M - Evaluation Criteria

Summary of Clause Changes:

Clause Section M, 3 is incorporated as follows:

Section M, 3 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the following:

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

Understanding the requirement

1. Offerors will be evaluated on how well their proposed approach demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding and ability to manage the Navy Mantech program, and specifically the Offeror’s understanding of the role of operating the Metalworking COE as described in Attachment 1, Statement Of Work;

2. The extent of the Offeror’s capabilities to accomplish the task requirements through relevant knowledge of ManTech Center specific technologies or equivalent, and ability to transition technology 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 extent of an Offeror’s understanding of managing the execution of RDTE, DoD Budgeting, Federal Government Contracting, etc.

Center Organization Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

1. How well the Offeror understands the Navy ManTech program and role of the COEs;

2. How well the center is organized in a lean but capable manner, including clear lines of authority;

3. Extent of clear articulation of center structure (including technical, contracting, and financial aspect of operations) and operating model, including any seamless teaming arrangements and commitment letters, subcontracting with small businesses, identifying contact information of such teaming arrangements and joint venture arrangements;

4. How clearly and effectively the Offeror articulates its relationships to relevant Navy commands, key Navy shipyard and industry partners, and novel metalworking technology providers.

Center Operations and Management Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

1. How effectively the Offeror demonstrated relevant experience and expertise in full array of metalworking and required technology areas of COE or equivalent, not just a limited subset of required technology areas;

2. Whether proven, reasonable, and efficient arrangements will be in place to hold team members accountable to each other for overall contract performance;

3. Whether the Offeror effectively demonstrated an understanding and relevant experience with current Navy production materials and processes (how Navy is currently making airplanes, ships, etc.);

4. Whether the offeror will be able to fulfill in its core mission to develop naval metal working technologies and transition the technology for implementation in the U.S. center specific industrial base;

5. Whether the Offeror’s proposed an effective management approach that ensures appropriate interface with the Government COR to facilitate task progress, communication, and understanding among all necessary parties;

6. Whether the Offeror’s proposed operations and management approach will provide the required program support, such as generation of COE-level deliverables and reports, and respond to any and all applicable data calls;

Naval Technical Advisor

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the qualifications, ability, and experience or equivalent in metalworking within Naval applications and/or advising Naval commands.

2. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach and experience, or the equivalent thereof, in technology assessments and road mapping.

Connectivity

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the sufficiency and effectiveness of their 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.

Outreach Activities

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the innovative, effectiveness, sufficiency, efficiency and value of their approach to providing uninterrupted maintenance of the Center public domain website and server.

2. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to providing promotional materials and logistics support for exhibits, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and displays.

3. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to attending and showcasing the Center mission and accomplishments at conferences and trade shows, such as the Defense Manufacturing Conference.

4. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to the distribution of a newsletter on a minimum quarterly basis to key government and industry personnel.

5. The minimum requirement that will be evaluated by govt is for the offeror to provide uninterrupted maintenance the center of public domain website and server.

COE Performance Management

1. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on the effectiveness/sufficiency/efficiency/value of their fiscal approach at the center level to manage and administer successfully a system of internal controls for all business and administrative operations. Approach will be evaluated on the Effectiveness, reasonableness, and level of disclosure of their budget… good steward of taxpayer $, controls of financial system, property mgmt., forecasting of expenditures, funding needs (meant for center mgmt aspect) and approach to track and meet benchmarks.

2. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on the effectiveness/sufficiency/efficiency/value of their fiscal, schedule and technical approach at the project level 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 simple means of correlating technical progress to budget progress.

3. The offeror will be evaluated on the sufficiency/strength/depth/breadth/effectiveness of their approach and experience, or plan in 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.

COE Performance to Fiscal Benchmarks

Offerors will be evaluated to determine:

1. Their level of understanding of DOD fiscal benchmarking policies, types of Naval funding, the appropriation process, etc.;

2. The offeror’s skills and abilities with fiscal tracking, including analyzing finances and expenditure of funds;

3. Extent of an offeror’s ability to identify deviations and develop recovery plans

Technical Factor 2: Project Development and Management.

Understanding of the Project Development Requirement

The Government shall evaluate the following:

1. The offeror’s understanding of the Project Development approach. The evaluation shall focus on the offeror’s methodology to project initiation to completion on the three basic types of ManTech projects.

Understanding of the Project Development Process

1. The offeror’s proposed approach for identifying viable projects. The evaluation shall focus on the offeror’s methodology of identifying viable project, calculating a ROI, and potential to transition timeframe.

2. The offeror’s proposed approach to develop all three basic types of Navy ManTech projects. The evaluation shall focus on efficiency of the proposed approach, cost effectiveness, and timeliness.

3. The offerors detailed, approach to individual project development. The evaluation shall focus on adherence to the three step process as noted in the SOW to include adherence to administrative requirements.

Understanding of the Project Management Process

1. The offeror’s proposed approach for managing all three types of Navy ManTech projects. The evaluation shall focus on adherence to schedule, budget, and technical requirements.

2. The offeror’s proposed approach for communicating post award issues.

Technical Factor 3: Key Personnel and Staffing.

Key Personnel:

The Offeror will be evaluated based on their ability to demonstrate the proposed personnel meet the requirement qualification as stated in the RFP’s Personnel Qualifications (Section J, Attachment 02), including experience (both general and project specific), education and security clearance. Offerors will also be evaluated based on documentation indicating availability of key personnel and their commitment under any resulting contract. The key personnel are the COE Director, COE Technical Director, COE Business Manager, and COE Contracts Manager. Commitment proof may include but is not limited to commitment letters for all key personnel or proof of current employment with the company. If current employment proof is submitted, the company may include a corporate commitment letter where the company plans to maintain the proposed key personnel for the duration of the tasks they have been proposed for. While not required, these commitment documents will help solidify a favorable rating.

Offerors shall submit documentation, indicating immediate availability for all proposed personnel who are not currently contractor employees. This documentation may include, but not limited to, commitment letters and/or subcontract/consultant agreements.

Staffing:

The Offeror’s proposed staffing plan will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s understanding and ability to provide and retain qualified personnel needed to successfully operate a COE. The staffing plan will be assessed for ability and risk associated with meeting the staffing requirements at performance start.

Additionally, the staffing plan will be assessed for the adequacy and appropriateness of the approach for performance quality management of the staff. The staffing plan will also be assessed to determine if the offeror provides an adequate number of personnel with security clearances to the SECRET level to meet the scope and volume of the requirement.

The offeror is forewarned that it may receive a weakness if it proposes the predominance of a labor category or Statement of Work (SOW) section tasking using prospective or contingent hire employees and the evaluation team deems this a risk to successful performance.

Technical Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be assigned ratings as follows:

Rating Description

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

Good

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

Acceptable

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

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

Unacceptable

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

Proposal is unawardable.

Technical Factor 4: Small Business Participation

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

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

2. The extent of the proposed commitments which 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.

Technical Factor 4 will be assigned a rating as follows:

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives, Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Technical Factor 5: Facilities.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The Offeror’s current Secret Facility Clearance, capacity, and capable of Secret Safeguarding.

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

3. The Government shall also evaluate the proposed classified and unclassified meeting spaces and capacity 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 extent of the Offeror’s experience with cost share, including examples, and their approach to obtaining quality cost share to leverage Navy investment, for technical work on Navy ManTech projects.

2. The proposed magnitude of proposed cost sharing, leveraging, and minimizing administrative and facility infrastructure, maintenance, and indirect costs.

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

The Government shall use the Department of Defense Source Selection Guide (dated Mar 2016) definitions located on page 38-40 when assessing strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses. Offerors may find a copy of this document at: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

If the link is broken, a web search for “DoD Source Selection Guide” can be used to locate the document.

An Offeror who receives a rating of Unacceptable on any of the technical factors will be rated as Unacceptable for the overall technical factor, and the cost proposal will not be evaluated for cost realism.

Technical Factors 5 and 6 will be assigned ratings as follows:

understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

Section M, 3 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the following:

understanding and ability to manage the Navy Mantech program, and specifically the Offeror’s understanding of the role of operating the Metalworking COE as described in Attachment 1, Statement Of Work;

2. The extent of the Offeror’s capabilities to accomplish the task requirements through relevant knowledge of ManTech Center specific technologies or equivalent, and ability to transition technology 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 extent of an Offeror’s understanding of managing the execution of RDTE, DoD Budgeting, Federal Government Contracting, etc.

Center Organization Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

1. How well the Offeror understands the Navy ManTech program and role of the COEs;

2. How well the center is organized in a lean but capable manner, including clear lines of authority;

3. Extent of clear articulation of center structure (including technical, contracting, and financial aspect of operations) and operating model, including any seamless teaming arrangements and commitment letters, subcontracting with small businesses, identifying contact information of such teaming arrangements and joint venture arrangements;

4. How clearly and effectively the Offeror articulates its relationships to relevant Navy commands, key Navy shipyard and industry partners, and novel metalworking technology providers.

Center Operations and Management Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

1. How effectively the Offeror demonstrated relevant experience and expertise in full array of metalworking and required technology areas of COE or equivalent, not just a limited subset of required technology areas;

2. Whether proven, reasonable, and efficient arrangements will be in place to hold team members accountable to each other for overall contract performance;

3. Whether the Offeror effectively demonstrated an understanding and relevant experience with current Navy production materials and processes (how Navy is currently making airplanes, ships, etc.);

4. Whether the offeror will be able to fulfill in its core mission to develop naval metal working technologies and transition the technology for implementation in the U.S. center specific industrial base;

5. Whether the Offeror’s proposed an effective management approach that ensures appropriate interface with the Government COR to facilitate task progress, communication, and understanding among all necessary parties;

6. Whether the Offeror’s proposed operations and management approach will provide the required program support, such as generation of COE-level deliverables and reports, and respond to any

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the qualifications, ability, and experience or equivalent in metalworking within Naval applications and/or advising Naval commands.

2. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach and experience, or the equivalent thereof, in technology assessments and road mapping.

Connectivity

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the sufficiency and effectiveness of their 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.

Outreach Activities

1. Offerors will be evaluated on the innovative, effectiveness, sufficiency, efficiency and value of their approach to providing uninterrupted maintenance of the Center public domain website and server; A higher than acceptable approach will have….

2. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to providing promotional materials and logistics support for exhibits, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and displays.

3. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to attending and showcasing the Center mission and accomplishments at conferences and trade shows, such as the Defense Manufacturing Conference.

4. Offerors will be evaluated on their approach to the distribution of a newsletter on a minimum quarterly basis to key government and industry personnel.

5. The minimum requirement that will be evaluated by govt is for the offeror to provide uninterrupted maintenance the center of public domain website and server. A higher evaluation rating

COE Performance Management

1. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on the effectiveness/sufficiency/efficiency/value of their fiscal approach at the center level to manage and administer successfully a system of internal controls for all business and administrative operations. Approach will be evaluated on the Effectiveness, reasonableness, and level of disclosure of their budget… good steward of taxpayer $, controls of financial system, property mgmt., forecasting of expenditures, funding needs (meant for center mgmt aspect) Approach to track and meet benchmarks

2. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on the effectiveness/sufficiency/efficiency/value of their fiscal, schedule and technical approach at the project level 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 simple means of correlating technical progress to budget progress.

3. The offeror will be evaluated on the sufficiency/strength/depth/breadth/effectiveness of their approach and experience, or plan in 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.

1. Their level of understanding of DOD fiscal benchmarking policies, types of Naval funding, the appropriation process, etc.;

2. The offeror’s skills and abilities with fiscal tracking, including analyzing finances and expenditure

1. The offeror’s proposed approach for identifying viable projects. The evaluation shall focus on the timeframe.

2. The offeror’s proposed approach to develop all three basic types of Navy ManTech projects. The evaluation shall focus on efficiency of the proposed approach, cost effectiveness, and timeliness.

3. The offerors detailed, approach to individual project development. The evaluation shall focus on

2. The offeror’s proposed approach for communicating post award issues.

Technical Factor 3: Key Personnel and Staffing.

Key Personnel:

The Offeror will be evaluated based on their ability to demonstrate the proposed personnel meet the requirement qualification as stated in the RFP’s Personnel Qualifications (Section J, Attachment 02), including experience (both general and project specific), education and security clearance. Offerors will also be evaluated based on documentation indicating availability of key personnel and their commitment under any resulting contract. The key personnel are the COE Director, COE Technical Director, COE Business Manager, and COE Contracts Manager.