Amendment_3.docx

N00189-17-R-0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 06-Apr-2017 09:00 AM to 01-May-2017 09:00 AM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION

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.

Risk Descriptions Table (Table 2)

Description

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

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

I. Labor Category Rate Matrix II. Past Performance Information Form III. Past Performance Report/Questionnaire Form IV. DD Form 254 V. Contract Administration Plan VI. Organizational Conflict of Interest – List VII. Questions and Answers VIII. Questions and Answers – Round Two

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:

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 COMUSFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLTINST 6320.3B, dtd 07Apr14, Medical Screening for U.S. Government Civilian Employees, Contractor Employee’s, and Guests and Visitors Prior to Embarking Fleet Units.

2. Any travel OCONUS by the Contractor will need to review the Foreign Clearance Guide at http://www.fcg.pentagon.mil and select the country of intended travel.

3. During OCONUS travel, the contractor shall operate in accordance with International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) Part 124, approved by US Department of State, Office of Defense Trade Controls. Specific guidance can be found at: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.

g. Personal Services. This is not a personal services contract. The contractors/sub-contractors should be well educated in respect to “personal services”. No one (Government employee or military) may task the contractor to perform work that is not listed in the delivery order, nor do the contractors take direction in the performance of their task from anyone other than their corporate manager and/or prime contractor, as appropriate.

h. Privity Defined. The legal term that defines the relationship between two parties of a contract, does not exist between the Government and the sub-contractor. Therefore, the Prime contractor is responsible for ensuring, through its own internal processes, that quality work is performed and delivered on time, by any subcontractors to meet the objectives of the prime contract. Formal direction to sub-contractors flows only thought the prime contractor. There can be simultaneous communication between the prime contractor and the subcontractor, but the Government and the subcontractor cannot bypass the prime contractor to communicate directly with each other.

1.2. ADP Requirements: The Government will provide, if required, the necessary computer, work station/system access for on-site work. Those offerors assigned as Off-site will not be assigned government furnished ADP assets. Additionally, the offerors assigned ADP GFP will be held accountable to respond to the governments ADP inventory requirements conducted semi-annually re-occurring every Mar and Sep to ensure 100% accountability of all ADP assets. Any offeror not adhering to this call for inventory of ADP assets may be directed to forfeit their ADP GFP at no additional cost to the government. IAW FAR 52.245-1

1.3. Other Direct Costs (ODCs). ODCs consist of test equipment and supplies as required for performance of Task Orders. In no instance shall the contractor exceed the amount specified in the contract for ODC CLIN expenses.

2.0 Specific Tasking. In accordance with the PWS and the basic contract the contractor shall provide support in evaluating the operational effectiveness and suitability of the projects listed in paragraph6, and any other project subsequently assigned to COMOPTEVFOR by the CNO for OT&E, in accordance with the format prescribed in COTFINST 3980.2 series, Operational Test Director’s Guide (or other governing references listed in paragraph 5 as applicable). The manual maybe found at: http://www.public.navy.mil/cotf/OTD/OTD%20Manual.pdf

a. Documentation Review (Associated CDRL: A001)

(1) Review program documentation, including but not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation: Required Operational Capability (ROC) Projected Operational Environment (POE), Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Operational Requirements Documents (ORD), Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), Mission Needs Statement (MNS), Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Document (CDD), and Capability Production Document (CPD), Navy System Training Plan (NTSP), manning documents, Program Acquisition Logistics Support Plan (ALSP), training manuals, and operator and maintenance manuals, information support plan, Systems Security Authorization Agreements (SSAA), IA Strategy, Authority to Operate (ATO) or Interim ATO, Platform IT Risk Approval (PRA) or Interim PRA, Interim PRA POA&M, IA certification and accreditation package and provide comments, assist in the staffing and subsequent inclusion of the governments adjudicated comments from the Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) associated with the program/s being directly supported.

b. Operational Test Design Development (Associated CDRL: A005, A010, A011, A012, A013, A014)

(1) Assist in use of Mission Based Test Design (MBTD), Plan and design operational tests, and analyze the resulting data in order to obtain objective conclusions in support of Integrated Testing, in conjunction with mission-based Critical Operational Issues (COI), cross-referenced with Navy Mission Essential Task Lists (NMETL) and/or Joint Mission Essential Task Lists (JMETL). Operational Tests are to be conducted in conjunction with the IOT&E methodology, in accordance with existing COMOPTEVFOR Operational Test Director Manual.

(2) Conduct background research and provide analytical support and recommendations for the development of data collection plans for testing the operational effectiveness and suitability.

c. TEMP/MTP Development (Associated CDRL: A003)

(1) Draft TEMP/MTP comments and applicable portions of the respective document. During the TEMP/MTP review process, the contractor should ensure the minimum acceptable operational performance requirements (older programs) or Measures of Effectiveness, Measures of Suitability (MOE/MOS) (newer programs) from the approved ORD/ICD/CDD/CPD are incorporated. COMOPTEVFOR contributes to all parts of the TEMP (in working sessions, through comment letters, or other means of communication.) and provides the OT&E portions throughout the document. This requires familiarity with other program documentation (MNS, ORD, ICD/CDD/CPD, Information Assurance (IA) strategy, ONI Capstone TA, etc.) and close coordination with the Decision Authority (DA), particularly during program changes.

(2) Revisions to the draft TEMP/MTP may be required due to internal and external staffing of a Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM), these revisions will be required to be made by the contractor after government adjudication of any/all comments received.

d. Operational Test Planning (Associated CDRL: A002, A004, A005, A011, A012, A013, )

(1) Assist in development of Test plans for Operational Testing (OT), Developmental Testing (DT) assists (to include Data Collection Plans (DCP’s)), Early Operational Assessments (EOA), Operational Assessments (OA), Joint Concept Technology Demonstrations (JCTD), Quick Reaction Assessments (QRA), Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), and Follow-on Test and Evaluations (FOT&E), Verification Correction of Deficiencies (VCD) and compile data necessary to draft the test plans (both integrated and operational).

(2) Conduct background research and provide analytical support and recommendations for the development of data collection plans for testing the operational effectiveness and suitability.

(3) Devise test matrices and procedures to satisfy COMOPTEVFOR testing objectives.

(4) Determine data reduction/reconstruction requirements (including hardware and software resources necessary for the collection and storage); identify facilities which can provide this processing; and prepare appropriate documentation to support the required service(s).

(5) Draft Test plans (deliverables Touchpoint A through E) shall include the purpose of test, SuT/SoS descriptions, COI discussions, limitations, data qualified for OT, the test schedule, detailed method of test, data collection plan, and the data analysis plan.

(6) Revisions to the draft test plan may be required due to internal and external staffing of a Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM), these revisions will be required to be made by the contractor after government adjudication of any/all comments received.

e. Operational Test Execution and Data Collection (Associated CDRL: A005, A015)

(1) Provide support in conducting liaison with model proponents, Verification and Validation (V&V) agents, developing agencies, Navy laboratories, service Cryptologic Agencies, Navy operational commands, other U.S. Government agencies, and hardware/software contractors to ensure that Modeling and Simulation (M&S) OT&E requirements are adequately addressed to permit timely and effective accreditation of M&S in support of OT&E.

(2) Provide support in maintaining an M&S database that consists of the version and accreditation status of all M&S used in OT&E.

(3) Support OTD in test execution and compile test event data collection packages (CONUS/OCONUS) for subsequent analysis

(4) Attend program review meetings with the Operational Test Director (OTD) during the timeframe in various locations and provide technical reports and observe demonstrations/test events as appropriate with OTD, collect test data, and provide technical reports.

(5) Assist OTD as required in briefing test participants, emphasizing the objectives of the test event and specific data-gathering requirements for each participant.

f. Operational Test Data Analysis (Associated CDRL: A005, A014)

(1) Perform data reduction and preliminary analysis of data to ensure data validity, prior to more detailed data processing. Assist the OTD and OTC when making assessments regarding specific issues, risk or deficiencies based on the results of data analysis. Utilization of a comment resolution matrix will be optimized to ensure adjudication of all comments by the government.

(2) Correlate data using appropriate statistical techniques to analyze operational effectiveness and suitability tests and provide follow-up assistance as necessary on test reports and briefs.

(3) Provide analysis to support COI resolution on all data identified critical for subtask/COI resolution, including Key Performance Parameters (KPP), Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) and Measures of Suitability (MOS) that will be included in the applicable section of the test reports. This data will also include reliability growth curves, key response variables, and any other data that the government feels is pertinent to the issue or deficiency development or COI resolution.

g. Operational Test Reporting (Associated CDRL: A006)

(1) Shall provide the following reports, but not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation; Operational Test Agency Assessment Report (OAR) and Operational Test Agency Milestone Assessment Report (OMAR), OAR/OMAR, Operational Evaluation Report (OER) or Operational Test Agency Follow-on Evaluation Report (OFER), Letter of Observation (LOO), Operational Utility Assessment (OUA) report, Independent Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) report.

h. Administrative Support (Associated CDRL: A007, A008, A009, A010, A015)

(1) Provide the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) with following reports (but not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation) the Trip/Technical Reports, Monthly Progress Reports, Annual Summary Reports progress of work on assigned tasks, conferences/meetings attended, work plans, and the expenditure of funds and labor hours during the month.

(2) Provide support in conducting liaison with developing agencies, Navy laboratories, Navy Operational Commands, other U.S. Government agencies, and hardware/software contractors to ensure that OT&E requirements are adequately addressed to permit timely and effective testing.

(3) When supporting multi-national projects (e.g. Joint Strike Fighter) the contractor will comply with ITAR and TAA regulations. : https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.

3.0 Deliverables. The Government reserves the right to specify deliverables at the task order level. Data items required from the contractor are specified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), DD Form 1423. Not every CDRL will apply to each order. Quantities, delivery dates, and other particulars will be identified in the individual task orders issued under this contract.

a. CDRL A001 Documentation Review

(1) Review program documentation, including but not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation: Required Operational Capability (ROC)/Predicted Operational Environment (POE), Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Operational Requirements Documents (ORD), Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Document (CDD), and Capability Production Document (CPD), Navy System Training Plan, manning documents, Program Acquisition Logistics Support Plan (ALSP), training manuals, and operator and maintenance manuals, and provide comments, assist in the staffing and subsequent inclusion of the governments adjudicated comments from the Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) associated with the program/s your directly supporting.

b. CDRL A002 Test Planning and Project Operations Support

(1) Assist In The Development Of Critical Operational Issues (COI) Integrated Evaluation Framework (IEF) For Operational Testing (OT), Developmental Testing (DT) Assists, Early Operational Assessments (EOA), Operational Assessments (OA), Joint Concept Technology Demonstrations (JCTD), Observation Of Operational Capabilities (OOC), Independent Operational Test And Evaluation (IOT&E), And Follow-On Test And Evaluations (FOT&E), and compile data necessary to draft the tests (both integrated and operational).

(2) Conduct background research and provide analytical support and recommendations for the development of data collection plans for testing the operational effectiveness and suitability.

(3) Devise test matrices and procedures to satisfy COMOPTEVFOR testing objectives.

(4) Determine data reduction/reconstruction requirements (including hardware and software resources necessary for the collection and storage); identify facilities which can provide this processing; and prepare appropriate documentation to support the required service(s).

(5) Revisions to the draft test plan may be required due to internal and external staffing of a Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM), these revisions will be required to be made by the contractor after government adjudication of any/all comments received.

c. CDRL A003 TEMP/MTP input

(1) Draft TEMP/MTP comments and applicable portions of TEMP/MTP.

(2) During the TEMP/MTP review process, the contractor should ensure the minimum acceptable operational performance requirements (older programs) or MOE/MOS (newer programs) from the approved ORD/ICD/CDD/CPD are incorporated.

(3) Draft TEMP comments and TEMP Part III and applicable portions of Part IV.

(4) Provide input to all parts of the TEMP/MTP (in working sessions, through comment letters, or other means of communication.) derived from familiarity with other program documentation (MNS, ORD, ICD/CDD/CPD, Information Assurance (IA) strategy, ONI Capstone TA, etc.) and close coordination with the DA, particularly during program changes.

(5) Revisions to the draft TEMP/MTP may be required due to internal and external staffing of a Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM), these revisions will be required to be made by the contractor after government adjudication of any/all comments received.

d. CDRL A004 Draft Test Plan Input

(1) Draft Test plans (deliverables Touchpoint A through E) shall include the purpose of test, Sut/SoS descriptions, COI discussions, limitations, data qualified for OT, the test schedule, detailed method of test, data collection plan, and the data analysis plan.

e. CDRL A005, M&S Accreditation Support Documentation

(1) Provide support in conducting liaison with model proponents, V&V agents, developing agencies, Navy laboratories, service Cryptologic Agencies, Navy operational commands, other U.S. Government agencies, and hardware/software contractors to ensure that M&S IOT&E requirements are adequately addressed to permit timely and effective accreditation of M&S in support of IOT&E.

(2) Provide support in maintaining an M&S database which consists of the version and accreditation status of all M&S used in IOT&E.

f. CDRL A006, Draft Final Report

(1) Draft deliverable in COMOPTEVFOR format to be submitted within fifteen days earlier of the designated completion time for the respective product in accordance with prescribed time lines contained within the OTD Manual unless otherwise agreed upon in advance with the OTD.

(2) Final report can be; Letter of Observation (LOO), Observation of Operational Capabilities (OOC), Early Operational Assessment (EOA) or Operational Assessment (OA), Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), Follow On Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) or Verification Correction of Deficiencies(VCD).

g. CDRL A007, Trip/Technical Report

(1) Contractor format acceptable. The contractor shall prepare a trip report detailing key information issued at the program meeting attended within five (5) working days after returning from the meeting.

(2) Electronic versions are preferred and are to be submitted in MS Office-compatible media; contractor format of contents acceptable.

h. CDRL A008, Monthly Progress and Status Report

(1) Contractor format acceptable. The contractor shall prepare a progress, performance and funds expenditure report by the 15th of the month starting one month after contract award, unless otherwise agreed upon with the OTD.

i. CDRL A009, Annual Summary Report

(1) Contractor format acceptable. The contractor shall prepare a progress, performance and funds expenditure report within 30 days after the base year or option year ends.

j. CDRL A010, MBTD Database Output

(1) MBTD Output formats. Contractor shall prepare Database Output reports based on completed MBTD steps.

(2) Outputs include, but are not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation, COI Listing, Sub-Task hierarchy, Conditions and Attributes to Sub-Task cross reference, Attribute matrix, Conditions matrix, Vignette to Data Requirements to Test Methods Matrix, Vignette Resource Matrix and corrections documented within a comment resolution matrix.

k. CDRL A011, Design of Experiment IEF Inputs

(1) Contractor shall produce a statistical package based on the IEF Test Design section format, containing the Factors (Conditions), Response Variables (Measures) and Run Matrix (test design samples) using information gathered during the MBTD Process.

(2) Included in the package shall be Sigma (standard deviation), Delta (effect size), Alpha and resulting Confidence, and Beta and resulting Power values for each of the test vignettes determined by the MBTD process.

l. CDRL A012, IEF Document Input

(1) Contractor shall provide inputs to and develop IEF documents for various programs based on MBTD outputs.

(2) This includes, but is not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation, COI Tables, Vignette Tables, Subtask Hierarchy Tables, Conditions, Attributes to Subtask Tables, Vignette to Data Requirements to Test Method Tables, Attribute Tables, Filtered Conditions Tables, Data Element Tables, Resource Tables, Survey Sheets and DOE write-ups.

m. CDRL A013, Technical Editor Review

(1) Provides complex technical writing and editing this includes but is not limited to and subject to minor fluctuation;

(a) Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), comment and forwarding letters, Test Plans, Evaluation Reports, several other variations of test reports in multiple formats, evaluation assessments, tactics guides, modeling and simulation accreditation and other documents associated with IOT&E.

(2) Ensures continuity with project details is maintained, and that all operational, technical, and analytical issues and objectives have been addressed.

(3) The contractor provides technical writing, and editorial support directed toward ensuring the quality assurance and quality control, accuracy, logic, content, clarity, reliability, format, and grammar of OPTEVFOR documentation associated with IOT&E.

(4) Contractor must ensure official markings, downgrading instructions and distribution statements are correctly used on all documents applicable.

n. CDRL A014, Analysis Working Group (AWG) Design of Experiment Working Group (DWG) and System Evaluation Review Board (SERB) Process Documentation

(1) The AWG, DWG and SERB process documentation will include (but not be limited to) all data that is identified critical for subtask/COI resolution, including Key Performance Parameters (KPP), Measures of Effectiveness and Measures of Suitability that will be included in the applicable section of the test reports.

o. CDRL A015, Test Execution and Data Collection.

(1) Support OTD in test execution and compile test event data collection packages (CONUS/OCONUS) for subsequent analysis

(2) Develop briefings as required for test participants, emphasizing the objectives of the test event and specific data gathering requirements for each participant.

4.0 Minimum Personnel Requirements. The contractor will be required to submit within the LPTA Matrix at the task order level for identified labor categories for review and approval prior to performance on any applicable task order award. As described in the minimum personnel requirements relative and comparative emphasis is given where applicable between the testing, analytical and/or writing competencies within respective labor categories. In addition to the warfare specific labor categories, note the following over-arching categories which may be also be required:

· Program Manager

· Information Systems Security Manager

· Psychometric Scientist

· Modeling and Simulation Specialist

· Statistician

· Technical Editor

4.1. Minimum Requirements for All Offerors. Within the last 5 years (unless stated otherwise), all personnel shall:

a. Possess U.S. citizenship.

b. Required. A minimum-security clearance of SECRET is required for personnel supporting tasks in any/all divisions. Any personnel proposed to work on any effort shall be eligible for necessary clearances to immediately begin performance at the time of task award. A minimum-security clearance of TOP SECRET may be required on individual Task Orders and will be identified on a separate DD254 at time of task order solicitation.

c. Demonstrated familiarity with MS-Office software.

4.2 Minimum Requirements for each Personnel Position

a. Program Manager

(1) In addition to the requirements listed in paragraph 4.1, the following personnel qualifications are required over the life cycle of the contract:

(a) Must have 8 years (within the last ten years) of experience in planning and organizing work tasks, developing test plans, collecting data, and performing reconstruction and analysis for the test and evaluation or tactical operations related efforts. Of the 8 years, four must be in a project or program management capacity.

(b) Must have current working knowledge of the Navy and multi-service missions, operations, logistics, management, and organizational responsibilities.

(c) Must have working knowledge of the DoD 5000 series, OPNAVINST 5000.42 series, as well as SECNAVINST 5000 series instructions. DOD 5000.01, DOD 5000.02 , SECNAVINST 5000 series http://doni.daps.dla.mil/opnav.aspx?RootFolder=%2fDirectives%2f05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services&View=%7bDEF0EB11%2d3785%2d4F67%2dB5A1%2dAE9F8EB752BC%7d

(d) Must have demonstrated the ability to interact effectively within the naval community and have a demonstrated ability to communicate the results of the operational analysis to sponsoring activities and decision makers.

b. Information Systems Security Manager

(a) Must possess demonstrated experience in the certification and accreditation (C&A) process, vulnerability assessment and remediation, Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS) and Risk Management Framework (RMF).

(b) Must possess demonstrated experience performing and supporting computer network defense operations and analysis and evaluation of data pertaining to the cyber security system.

(c) Must possess demonstrated experience to perform functions related to the protection of information systems, the detection of intruders or malicious code and the response against cyber-attacks.

(d) Must possess demonstrated experience interpreting and analyzing existing Information Technology (IT) policies and guidelines to make technical and cyber security decisions on IT capabilities.

(e) Must possess demonstrated experience developing, modifying, rewriting and coordinating short and long range policies and programs for effective management of current cyber operations.

(f) Must possess demonstrated experience developing test and evaluation procedures and methodologies to ensure adequate testing of cyber security systems and the generation of Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M).

(g) Must have a minimum of 10 years cyber security experience with 5 of those 10 years occurring within the past 5 years.

(h) Must possess the proper and current cyber security and operating system certifications to perform IT privileged administrative functions in accordance with DoD Directive 8140.01 and DoD 8570.01-M (Table AP3.T1),Cyber Security Workforce (CSWF) Improvement Program for an IAM Level III.

c. Psychometric Scientist

(a) Demonstrated knowledge in psychometrics or demonstrated expertise in survey construction Graduate level credits in the following two areas:

(1) Social science research methods (e.g., for Psychology/demography/behavioral economics/or similar) (2) Development of test/measures/surveys, which addressed reliability & validity.

d. M & S Specialist

Provide support in conducting liaison with model proponents, IV&V agents, developing agencies, Navy laboratories, service Cryptologic Agencies, Navy operational commands, other U.S. Government agencies, and hardware/software contractors to ensure that M&S OT&E requirements are adequately addressed to permit timely and effective accreditation of M&S in support of OT&E.

(1) A 4yr degree is required in one of the required disciplines: Statistics, Applied Mathematics, Operations Research, or Engineering.

(2) Test and evaluation experience within the last five years. The offeror must have a minimum of one year experience applying Design of Experiments or M&S to test and evaluation problems.

(3) Undergraduate level training in conducting scientific research, conducting surveys, or performing data analysis using statistical methodologies.

e.…