Amendment_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Posting of revised Performance Work Statement w ith numerous changes and a solicitation w ith revised provisions. Posting of Questions and Answ ers. Posting of revised attachments: Labor Category Rate Matrix, Organizational Conflict of Interest, and DD Form 254. All other original attachments remain in effect. Question period extended to 12:00 PM EST on Wednesday, March 22, 2017. Closing date extended to 9:00 AM EST on Monday, April 17, 2007.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 95

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Mar-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00189-17-R-0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Jan-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 6 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Mar-2017

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE

ATTN: M. DUTTA

1968 GILBERT ST. SUITE 600

NORFOLK VA 23511-3392

N00189 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00189-17-R-0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award multiple Firm Fixed Priced (FFP), Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. Although the Government intends to award multiple contracts, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award only one (1) contract. The Offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in, solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items” and its Addendum.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) without discussions. The establishment of a competitive range is not anticipated. Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price, technical and past performance stand point. The Government, nonetheless, reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Provided there are sufficient initial offers to support competition, the Government intends to immediately issue task order solicitations to those offerors awarded contracts without discussions. These initial contracts will have three (3) year ordering period and also include the option at FAR 52.217-8.

Should the Contracting Officer determine it to be in the Government's best interest to add additional prime contractors beyond those awarded contracts without discussions; the Government reserves the right to draw a competitive range among the remaining unsuccessful Offerors and conduct discussions for the purposes of making additional awards. Prime contracts resulting from discussions will have an ordering period that runs concurrent with the balance of the ordering period of the initial contracts. Prime contract holders awarded contracts resulting from discussions will be included only in those Task Order solicitations issued on or after the date of their award.

The Government will conduct a Trade Off source selection process.

Accordingly, the following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Volume I: Non-Priced Factors

• Factor I: Technical

• Subfactor I: Management Plan

• Subfactor II: Staffing Plan

• Factor II: Past Performance

Volume II: Price Factor

The Overall Non-Price Factor will be evaluated based upon Factor I, Technical and related Sub-Factors. Subfactor I: Management Plan is more important than Subfactor II: Staffing Plan. Factor I, Technical is more important than Factor II: Past Performance. All Non-Price factors when considered together will be significantly more important than price. After Factor I: Technical and Factor II: Past Performance factors have been evaluated, a combined overall Non-Price Factor rating will be assigned using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table.

1. Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

The Non-Price proposal is comprised of Technical Approach and Past Performance along with the respective sub-factors.

Factor I: Technical Approach – The technical submission will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s ability to establish, with sufficient detail, their understanding of the requirement and their ability to perform all technical requirements. The evaluation will consider if the Offeror addressed each of the areas in sufficient detail so that the Government can reasonably determine that the Offeror possesses the requisite ability to perform the contract. Such detail shall include a form of explanation of the Offeror’s structure, and processes that reflect its capabilities Offerors that simply reiterate the requirements and state that they possess the capability to perform will be considered Unacceptable.

The Government will utilize the Combined Technical/Risk and Technical Risk Rating Tables below to evaluate the following Subfactors to determine if the Offeror is technically capable of successfully performing the requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor I: Management Plan

The Offeror will be evaluated on their ability to present a management plan that demonstrates successful performance of the requirements of the solicitation, specifically the PWS, through its management capabilities, expertise and experience. The offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on its feasibility and comprehensiveness and the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their understanding of, and familiarity with, the specific requirements of the PWS paragraphs 2.0 and 3.0 in support of the Divisions addressed in paragraph 4.0 and the Programs as identified in paragraph 6.0. Offeror will be evaluated on the effectiveness of their system for verifying and maintaining a high level of quality, and safety, which includes a process for careful planning, continuous inspection, corrective actions to ensure the deliverables described in paragraph 3.0 of the PWS are delivered. Offerors will be evaluated on their proposed techniques and actions to respond to scheduling changes.

Subfactor II: Staffing Plan

The Offeror will be evaluated on how well their staffing plan demonstrates their ability to identify and recruit the personnel identified in paragraph 4.0. The offeror’s methodology for recruiting qualified individuals will be evaluated on its effectiveness. Offerors will be evaluated on the feasibility of their proposed length of time for recruitment from issuance of a Task Order to Task Order start. The comprehensiveness of the offeror’s description of their anticipated challenges in recruitment will be evaluated. The Staffing Plan will be evaluated on the Offeror’s plan to retain and maintain qualified personnel once performance begins. Offerors will be further evaluated on their plan to monitor personnel performance, skill maintenance, and skill improvement. Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated capability to sustain retention of employees and proven capability to maintain low attrition rates.

Non-Price Factors - The Technical factor evaluation will be based on each proposal’s response to the requirements of FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items” and its Addendum included in the RFP. In the execution of the evaluations, both the proposal’s approach to meeting the Government’s requirements as defined in the RFP and the risk related to its proposed approach will be assessed.

The purpose of the Technical factor is to assess the proposal’s proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach. Risk assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the RFP may cause disruption of schedule, increased prices, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

A combined Technical/Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor I. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings specified above.

NOTE: A rating of “Marginal” for Factor I, or either of its sub-factors, means that the proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the proposal. A proposal which includes a “Marginal” rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial proposals. A proposal that receive a “Marginal” rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange is conducted.

NOTE: A rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor I, or either of its sub-factors, means that the proposal is not awardable and will not be further evaluated. A proposal that simply provides general statements, or paraphrases/parrots the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of “Unacceptable”.

Factor II: Past Performance: The past performance factor will be evaluated based on relevancy and confidence.

For the Past Performance factor, the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table and Past performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table will be utilized for the assignment of ratings for relevancy and confidence; based on the recent relevance and quality of the submitted contracts.

Past Performance will be assessed as follows: Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed that is the same as or similar to the scope, and magnitude, of the work described in this solicitation. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last five (5) years as of the closing date of this solicitation, will not be considered.

In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least six (6) months of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation; however, offerors are encouraged to provide references that meet scope and magnitude of work performed.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings - Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each Offeror’s Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS. The similarity of the PWS scope is reflected by the Offeror’s experience in performing the majority of the objectives as defined in paras 2.03 and 3.0 in support of Divisions addressed in para 4.0 and the programs as identified in para 6.0.

Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the Offeror’s contracts submitted for Past Performance considerations. .

Each offeror’s past performance submissions will be aggregated subsequent to evaluation to arrive at an overall offeror past performance relevancy assessment. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while not rated favorably or unfavorably for past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government. In this instance, the offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” in the past performance sub-factor.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings – The overall assigned rating for Past Performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assignment of this rating will be based on the quality of the relevant past performance and will also consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance rather the Offeror will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

In order to verify past performance information and determine the quality of the past performance submission, the Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires (i.e. the Past Performance Report Form), telephone interviews and existing data sources to include but not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. This past performance information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation sub-factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the requirement.

Overall Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Rating – Upon completion of the Non-Price evaluation, a composite rating for the overall Non-Price proposal will be assigned to each Offeror’s proposal. The assignment of this overall rating will be in consideration of the comparative weightings of the Technical Approach (including respective sub-factors) and Past Performance and will utilize the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table below.

Volume II Price Factor:

Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.404. The price contained in the “Schedule of Supplies/Services” shall be derived from completing the provided “Labor Category Rate” matrix. The price evaluation shall be conducted by comparing labor rates and total prices among the Offerors from the Labor Category Rate matrix. Option FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the price for the option to the total price for the requirement. Evaluation of the option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed for each year within the ordering period are significantly unbalanced. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

Although price is weighted in a manner that makes it less important than the non-price factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the proposal. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all proposals are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, or generally equivalent, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which proposal shall receive the award. The contracting officer may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of prices proposed.

Written Notice: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Rating Tables Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table (Table 1)

The Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table (Table 1) and the Risk Descriptions set forth in Table 2 will be used in the evaluation of Factor I: Technical. Table 1 will also be used for the Overall Non-Price Proposal Evaluation rating.

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.

Acceptable Proposal 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 met the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies; and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is awardable.

Risk Descriptions Table (Table 2)

Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. .

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Risk – (as it pertains to source selection) The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Non-Price technical factor or its sub-factors may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor II, Past Performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 ENTITLED “INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS –

COMMERCIAL ITEMS”

I. GENERAL

In addition to FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items” and any other instructions contained elsewhere in this solicitation, the following information is provided. Offerors are required to submit their proposals, hardcopy submission, in three separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Non-Priced Factors

• Factor I: Technical o Subfactor I: Management Plan o Subfactor II: Staffing Plan

• Factor II: Past Performance Volume II: Price Factor

Volume III: Nonpriced and Nonevaluated Organizational Conflict of Interest Information

Offers shall include the following completed solicitation documents (to be provided in Volume II):

• A complete and signed SF1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial items) and executed copy of

Amendments, if applicable, completed by the Offeror;

• RFP Section B “Schedule of Supplies/Services” completed by the Offeror;

• A completed Labor Category Rate Matrix provided as Attachment I to this RFP; and

• Unless completed in SAM, RFP Section “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” completed by the Offeror in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.204-7007 Alt. A.

NOTE: Hand-carried proposals will not be accepted

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the Offeror’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any of the terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute deficiency (see FAR 15.001) which will make the offer unacceptable.

Volume I – Non-Price Proposal

This volume shall address Technical and sub-factors (Management Plan, and Staffing Plan), and Past Performance, and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any pricing information.

Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Volume II – Price Proposal

This volume shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Volume III – Organizational Conflict of Interest Information

The Organizational Conflict of Interest Information shall be non-priced and non-evaluated information that is requested as specified in the Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest (FAR 9.507-1) and Organizational Conflict of Interest section herein.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation.

(2) In the event any person who is not a bona fide employee of the Offeror participated in the creation, formulation, or writing of any portion of the proposal, a certificate to this effect shall be included in the proposal which shall be signed by an officer of the Offeror. Such certificate shall identify the name of the person who is not a bona fide employee, that person’s employment capacity, the name of the person’s firm, the relationship of that firm to the Offeror, and the portion of the proposal in which the person participated.

(3) In order to ensure that all questions submitted by potential Offerors are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, one consolidated list of questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to the contract specialist, Monti Dutta at Monti.Dutta@navy.mil no later than 12:00 pm, Eastern Time (ET), on 22 March 2017. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, Offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government as early as possible.

(4) Proposals are to be submitted via hardcopy submission in the volumes, format and quantities as identified below. Offerors shall submit their hardcopy proposals to the address specified below. Proposals are due no later than the closing date and time identified on the front page of the SF 1449.

If sent Other than United States Postal Service:

NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk Mail and Material Processing Center Code 200 Attn: Mr. Monti Dutta 9550 Decatur Avenue Norfolk, VA 23511-3328

If sent using United States Postal Services:

NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk Contracting Department Attn: Mr. Monti Dutta 1968 Gilbert Street, Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23511-3392

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

(1) Introduction and Purpose: This section specifies the format that Offerors shall use in this Request for Proposal (RFP). The intent is not to restrict Offerors in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes.

(2) Each volume should contain the following items in addition to the other information required by this solicitation:

Cover: The cover should indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Volume Number (I or II) Proposal Category (Factor/Sub-Factor) Request for Proposal (RFP) Number Name and Address of Offeror, Cage Code, DUNS and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN) Identification if original or a copy of the proposal Proposal validity for ninety (90) calendar days after RFP closing date.

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located. The use of tabs and dividers is encouraged.

Requirements for Style: Each Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror’s lack of understanding of cost consciousness. Elaborate art work, expensive paper or bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, Offerors shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

(3) Proposal Page Limitations:

Volume I, Non-Price Proposal - The following page limitations are established:

Title Hardcopy Proposal Quantities Page Limit*

Non-Price Proposal – Technical Approach 1 Original, 5 Copies 50 Pages

Non-Price Proposal – Past Performance 1 Original, 5 Copies 12 Pages (Form, plus 3 additional pages per reference) The Non-Price Proposal factors are limited to the maximum number of pages as defined in the table above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) included in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ “ x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 ½" x 11" pages. The cover sheet, compliance matrix, and table of contents (not to exceed one page per attachment) will not count toward the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

Volume II, “Price Proposal,” is not page limited.

Title Hardcopy Proposal Quantities Limit* Software Price Proposal 1 Original No limit Microsoft Excel

The Price Proposal is not page limited; however, the Price Proposal is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

* Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

Volume III, “Organizational Conflict of Interest Information,” is not page limited.

Title Hardcopy Proposal Quantities Limit Organizational Conflict of Interest Information (Non-priced and Non-evaluated)

1 Original, 1 Copy No limit

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

1. Volume I Non-Price Proposal

The Non-price Proposal evaluation factors and sub-factors are listed below:

Factor I – Technical

This volume shall contain the following portion of the proposal, to include all data and information required for evaluation of the below mentioned sub-factors, excluding any reference to the pricing aspects of each offer.

Offerors that simply reiterate the requirements and state that they possess the capability to perform will be considered Unacceptable.

Sub-factor I - Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide a management plan that demonstrates their approach to accomplishing the requirements of the PWS through its’ management capabilities, expertise, and experience. This approach shall provide a demonstration of the Offeror's understanding of, and familiarity with, the specific requirements of the PWS paragraphs 2.0 and 3.0 in support of the Divisions addressed in paragraph 4.0 and the Programs as identified in paragraph 6.0; provide a description of its system for verifying and maintaining a high level of quality, and safety, which includes a process for careful planning, continuous inspection, corrective actions to ensure the deliverables described in paragraph 3.0 of the PWS are delivered; and provide a detailed description of the Offeror's approach to responding to scheduling changes.

Sub-factor II – Staffing Plan

The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan that demonstrates their approach for identifying and recruiting the personnel identified in paragraph 4.0. The Staffing Plan should include all methods to be utilized in recruiting, anticipated length of time for recruitment from issuance of a Task Order to Task Order start and anticipated challenges in recruitment. The Staffing Plan shall include a retention plan to maintain qualified personnel once performance begins; and monitor personnel performance, skill maintenance, and skill improvement. In addition, staffing plans shall demonstrate capability to sustain retention of employees and proven capability to maintain low attrition rates.

Factor II - Past Performance

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past five years prior to the solicitation closing date that is the same as or similar to, the scope and magnitude of the work described by this solicitation.

To demonstrate its past performance, the Offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation. Such a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must demonstrate at least six (6) months of completed performance; however, offerors are encouraged to provide references that meet scope and magnitude of work performed. All referenced work shall have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date.

Offerors may provide contracts describing their own experience as a subcontractor. Offerors shall describe the major or critical aspects of the work performed, as well as the dollar value of work performed, under the submitted contract.

Offerors may also submit contracts of subcontractors they propose to use under this contract. Offerors shall describe the major or critical aspects of the work subcontractors are proposed to perform under the contract. Offerors shall also describe the major or critical aspects of the work performed by the subcontractor, as well as the dollar value of work performed, under the submitted contract.

Subcontractor performance (either the offeror’s own subcontractor experience or proposed subcontractors experience) of major or critical aspects of this requirement will be considered as highly as prime contractor past performance information for the Offeror.

The Offeror shall complete a “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation. The forms will count toward the Volume I page limit described above. For additional information regarding a particular reference beyond that which will fit on the form, the Offeror may continue onto another sheet of paper. Such continuation sheet(s) for submitted references will count toward the Volume I page limit.

In addition to the information requested above, Offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the attached “Past Performance Report Form” and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Monti Dutta at monti.dutta@navy.mil by the DUE DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

1. Volume II – Price Proposal

The Price submission shall include a completed Labor Category Rate Matrix and a detailed breakdown of the rate.

Note that the estimated Travel and ODCs provided in the RFP are Not to Exceed (NTE), cost reimbursable CLINs;

therefore, all Offerors shall use these estimates in preparing their price proposal.

The price proposal shall include the following:

• SF1449 Section “Schedule of Supplies/Services” completed by the Offeror.

• A complete and signed Standard Form 1449, “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” and executed copy of Amendments, if applicable.

• Attachment I – Labor Category Rate Matrix completed by the Offeror (see below for additional instructions).

Attachment I, Labor Category Matrix, provides a template for Offerors to use in the preparation of their price proposal. The intent is not to restrict the Offerors in the manner in which they develop their pricing information but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. NOTE: Completing Attachment I does not alleviate Offerors from providing any additional information required by the RFP. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure all formulas are accurate and correct. Offerors shall ensure the required information is provided for each year within the ordering period.

• A total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work for prime contractors and subcontractors under the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

• Unless completed in SAM, “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” completed by the Offeror (to be provided in Volume II along with Price Proposal)

• All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the Price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES

This contract is one of a set of Multiple Award Contracts (MAC). As referred to in paragraph (b) of the “Indefinite Quantity” clause of this contracts, each MAC contract has a total contract minimum quantity of $2,500.00 worth of orders. The contract maximum for this individual contract is a total of $ Contract Specialist to insert individual contractor’s proposed amount at time of award worth of orders.

The maximum value of the MAC program is $ Contract Specialist to insert the value of the largest individual contract at time of award.

OCI

OCI

Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest (FAR 9.507-1)

a) This solicitation contains a clause entitled Organizational Conflict of Interest, pursuant to FAR subpart 9.5, which is to be included in any contract to be awarded hereunder. Prospective offerors are requested to furnish with their proposals, information pertaining to any existing contract between the offeror and the companies engaged in furnishing to the United States Government any services or supplies pertaining to the development, production or analysis of any of the weapon systems, equipment or programs identified in the statement of work of this solicitation or listed below, if any, which may have a bearing on any existing or potential conflict of interest within the meaning of the clause in the Schedule. Such information shall include:

-The identity of the company -A description of the work to be performed under the contract with the company or the relationship between the offeror and the company -The dollar amount of the contract or any other ownership interest -The period of performance -A description of the internal control taken by the offeror to avoid potential organizational conflict of interest.

(b) The basis for including an OCI clause is:

The Contractor may gain access to proprietary information of other companies during contract performance.

(c) Nature of the proposed restraint upon future contractor activities is outlined in the ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST section below; and

(d) This solicitation contains a clause entitled Organizational Conflict of Interest which is to be included in the contract to be awarded hereunder. The language of this clause is not subject to negotiation.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(a) Definitions - In this clause:

(i) “Contractor” means the firm signing this contract;

(ii) “System Supplier” means any firm engaged in or having a known or prospective interest in the development, production, or analysis of the weapon system, equipment or program which are identified in the statement of work of this contract.

(iii) “Affiliates” means employees or officers of the contractor and first tier subcontractors involved in the performance of this contract, or in the decision making process concerning this contract.

(iv) “Interest” means organizational or financial interest.

(v) “Term of this Contract” means the period of performance plus any extensions thereto.

(b) Warranty Against Existing Conflicts of Interest

(i) The contractor warrants that it and its affiliates do not have any contracts with or any substantial interest in the system suppliers identified in the statement of work of this contract, other than those disclosed to the Government and listed in the Section L solicitation provision entitled “Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest clause.”

(ii) The contractor recognizes that during the term of this contract additional weapon system, equipment or programs may be identified and added to the statement of work of this contract as a result of contract modifications.

In such event, the contractor agrees to immediately disclose to the Government information concerning any contract or interest between the contractor and its affiliates and any system supplier if the contract or interest arises during the term of this contract.

(iii) The contracting officer shall have the sole discretion to determine whether a potential organizational conflict of interest exists concerning any interest or contract which arises or is identified during the term of this contract. The contracting officer may take such steps as are necessary in the best interest of the Government to eliminate potential conflict of interest.

(c) Restrictions on Contracting

(i) The contractor agrees that during the term of this contract, and for a period of 24 months thereafter, neither it nor its affiliates shall (1) enter into any contract for supplies, services or materials, related to the work under this contract with the system suppliers; (2) create for themselves any interest in the system suppliers; (3) consult or discuss with the system supplier any aspects of work under this contract; or (4) furnish to the United States Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor any component of a system it has worked on or had access to under this contract.

(ii) The contractor further agrees that neither it nor its affiliates will conduct a review nor make recommendations under this contract concerning any item which is the product of work performed by the contractor or its affiliates under any other contract.

(d) Non-Disclosure of Proprietary Data

Certain information of a proprietary nature may be submitted to the Government by a system supplier.

While performing under this contract, the prime contractor and any subcontractors may receive this information.

The prime contractor and any subcontractors agree to use and examine this information exclusively in the performance of this contract and to take the necessary steps to prevent disclosure of such information to any party outside the Government, as long as it remains proprietary. The contractor and the subcontractors agree to indoctrinate their affiliates who will have access to this information as to the proprietary nature of the information and the relationship under which they have possession of the information. Affiliates will also be informed that they may not engage in any other action, venture or employment where this information will be used for profit of any party other than the party furnishing this information. Additionally, the contractor and subcontractor agree to execute agreements to this effect with companies providing proprietary data for performance under this contract.

The contractor and subcontractors will restrict access to proprietary information to the minimum number of employees for performance of this contract.

(e) Government Remedy

The contractor agrees that any breach or violation of the warranties, restrictions, disclosures or non-disclosures set forth in this conflict of interest clause shall constitute a material and substantial breach of terms, conditions, and provisions of the contract and that the Government may, in addition to any other remedy available, terminate the contract for default.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

For the

Analytical Operational Test and Evaluation Support Services

At COMOPTEVFOR Norfolk VA

1.0 Scope of Tasking. Contractor will provide technical and analytical support to Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR) in the definition, conduct and analysis of structured operational and integrated test and evaluation (IOT&E) of US Navy systems. This support will be required in one or more of the following forms: Documentation Review, Test Planning Support, Operational Test Design, Test Analysis and Reporting, Test Operations Support, Modeling and Simulation Support, and Program Management Support.

a. Place of Performance. Unless required to support mission accomplishment, work shall primarily be performed at the customer’s site. If the number of personnel exceeds onsite capabilities, unclassified work will be expected to be performed offsite. The customer location is:

Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force 7970 Diven Street Norfolk, VA 23505-1498

a. While onsite at COMOPTEVFOR, the contractor shall comply with OPNAVINST 5239 (series), with specific regard to non-government hardware and software. The IA program instruction may be found at:

http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services /05-200%20Management%20Program%20and%20Techniques%20Services/5239.1C.pdf

c. Travel. Travel will be required throughout the course of this contract. All travel costs shall be in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR). Invoices shall include actual costs experienced. Airfare shall be based on the lowest available cost for coach or economy in writing, in advance. Travel dates and locations are to be confirmed through the TA and approved by the COR in writing, prior to commencement of any travel.

d. The Contractor is not authorized to perform any travel that is not in conjunction with this contract. It is the Department of the Navy (DON) policy not to allow a charge of profit or fee on reimbursable items. The Government will make no reimbursements for a contractor’s local travel. In no instance shall the contractor exceed the amount specified in the contract for travel CLIN and ODC CLIN expenses. Locations include CONUS, OCONUS and at sea locations and any other location, which may be added on a task order basis based on future test requirements. For planning purposes any travel location OCONUS must be considered as a possible travel location unless travel restrictions at time of test do not permit entry. Possible OCONUS locations include the following:

Andros Island, Bahamas Darwin, Brisbane, Melborne, Newcastle, Perth, and Sydney, Australia;

London, England;

Honduras; Singapore La Spezia, Italy Guam Hawaii Halifax, Nova Scotia Nanoose, British Colombia Columbia Belize Guatemala Souda Bay Crete Mexico

And any other location, which may be added on a task order basis based on future test requirements.

e. Travel Instructions.

1. Ensure all Contractors supporting this requirement meet the minimum requirements of the…