N0018918RZ097_N0018918RZ097-0001.docx

N0018918RZ097

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The amendment contains a list of questions that were received in response to this RFP and their respective answers.

1) There is a response date of 31 August 2018 and a response date of 30 November 2018. Can you confirm the correct response date?

The correct response date is 30 November 2018.

2) Can you confirm if this opportunity has any small business setasides associated with it? Can you also provide incumbent contract information?

This requirement is unrestricted and there are no set-asides associated with the acquisition. The incumbent is Deloitte Consulting, LLP, CAGE Code 1TTG5.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L LOCAL CLAUSES

NOTICE OF INCLUSION OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE

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 support identified in the PWS 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

b) The basis for including an OCI clause is:

-The solicitation requires the contractor to exercise subjective judgment; and the exercise of that judgment could affect the contractor’s interests unrelated to the performance of the contract, -The Government’s concern that a contractor has had OR WILL HAVE a role in setting rules for a source selection, such as being the key architect of requirements documentation, in which the same contractor will compete, -The contractor could utilize other contractors’ proprietary information, gained during performance of this requirement, to enhance its own competitive status, -The contractor could be assessing and favoring its own products and/or capabilities, and -The contractor could utilize their access to the MPTE domain’s budget to give itself a competitive advantage.

c) 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 subject to revision, based on questions/concerns raised by prospective offerors to the attention of the Contracting Officer prior to solicitation response date.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS (CPFF BEST-VALUE TRADE-OFF)

I. GENERAL

The offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in, this solicitation section. The following instructions are provided in addition to instructions to offerors contained elsewhere in this solicitation.

Initial proposals and any modifications thereto are to be submitted to the Contracting Officer on or before the closing date and time cited elsewhere in the solicitation. Faxes, e-mails, and/or responses through NECO or any method other than Hard Copy format are not acceptable.

Hand-carried proposals are NOT encouraged. The Contracting Office is located on a secured compound. Only personnel with current DoD Common Access Cards (CACs) or appropriate military credentials will be able to access the compound. There will be no ability to drop off the proposals outside the compound.

Offerors shall submit their proposals in two separate volumes as follows:

Volume I Non-Cost Proposal Original and 1 electronic copy*

Volume II Cost Proposal Original and 1 electronic copy**

*Submission of proposal on a DVD or CD shall be in PDF format which should be searchable. In the event of a discrepancy between the hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy will govern. The offeror shall ensure that electronic submissions are virus-free.

** Submission of proposal on a DVD or CD shall be in Microsoft Excel format. In the event of a discrepancy between the hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy will govern. The offeror shall ensure that electronic submissions are virus-free.

**NOTE***

Volume II shall include the cost breakdown of the in an Excel spreadsheet which includes the calculations used to develop the fully burdened labor rates. Subcontractor's shall submit their unsanitized spreadsheets showing the breakdown of their fully burdened labor rates (or rate and fee/profit for those proposing T&M).

Also, in order to facilitate a quicker cost analysis on behalf of the Government, please structure the cost breakdown spreadsheet(s) so that the total direct labor cost, total fringe, total overhead, total G&A, total fee, etc., are tallied in separate columns in the spreadsheet. Please provide the fully burdened labor rate of each labor category in either the cost narrative or the spreadsheet.

In addition to the Cost Proposal, Offerors shall include the following in Volume II:

Solicitation cover sheet with appropriate blocks completed by the offeror.

Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments pursuant to FAR 52.215-1 (if not previously provided).

Representations and Certifications completed by the offeror in accordance with instructions contained elsewhere in this solicitation. If the offeror has completed all of the representations and certifications required by this solicitation in SAM (www.sam.gov) in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.204-7007 ALT A, then the offeror need not submit the hardcopy Representations and Certifications.

The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan (this Plan not required for Small Business offerors). The small business subcontracting goals are as follows:

Small Business=23% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)=5% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)=5% Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business (SDVOSB)= 3% HUBZone=3%

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will be considered the offeror’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this solicitation and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation. Any affirmative exception to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation will render the offer ineligible for award. Alternate proposals are not authorized.

Potential offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and, if they have questions concerning the solicitation, should submit one consolidated list of questions concerning the solicitation via email to the solicitation point of contact, NO LATER THAN 2:00 pm, Philadelphia time, on 12 Nov 2018. Questions should be submitted as early as feasible prior to the above date and time; questions received later may be answered at the discretion of the Navy.

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.

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

(1) Do not include CLASSIFIED data in your proposal.

(2) Introduction and Purpose - This section specifies the format that offerors should use in proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The intent is not to restrict the 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 proposals for evaluation purposes.

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

DUNS and CAGE of offeror.

Identification of original signature copies

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

(4) Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely sets forth the contractor’s response to the requirements of the solicitation. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, 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. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within its proposal.

(5) Page Limitations

Volume I, “Non-cost Proposal,” is limited to a maximum of 30 pages in length inclusive of any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. 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, table of contents (not to exceed one page per volume), tabs, and dividers will not count toward the page limit. The one exception to the font size requirement shown above is that the "corporate experience and past performance information forms," including any continuation sheets, may be completed with a point size of 10 or greater. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated. The Navy may exercise discretion in determining which specific pages are considered to be in excess of the page limitations. Volume II, “Cost Proposal,” is not page limited.

III. PROPOSAL CONTENT

(1) Volume I – Non-cost Proposal

Volume I of the proposal shall include all information required for the evaluation of the offeror’s Non-cost Proposal. It shall exclude any reference to the cost aspects of the proposal.

Each page of each copy should include the following legend:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

The Non-cost evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance with corporate experience and past performance being of equal importance and the socio-economic plan being significantly less important than any other factor:

(a) Performance Approach

The offeror shall provide in detail a performance/management approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS. To that end, the performance /management approach shall address each of the three major functional areas of the PWS: (1) Transformation/Technology Management, (2) Shared Services Center (My Navy Career Center) Support and (3) Transformation Analysis Support. Among the significant aspects of performance that should be addressed within those major functional areas, the following are considered particularly significant:

· With respect to Transformation/Technology Management:

· Approach to holistically and synergistically integrating business processes with the appropriate IT utilizing a "COTS First" approach.

· Approach to Organizational Change Management.

· Approach to Cloud Architecture and Infrastructure including the implementation of appropriate cybersecurity standards.

· Agile methodology and approach to software development and program/project management.

· Approach to transformation in an environment where there is no previously existing infrastructure (aka a “greenfield” environment).

· Approach to transformation in an environment where existing legacy infrastructure may no longer be utilized (aka a “brownfield” environment).

· Approach to program management for transformation efforts such as a notional Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and development of cost structures and cost estimating techniques for efforts of similar size and complexity.

· With respect to Shared Services Center (MyNavy Career Center) Support:

· Approach to call center stand-up that includes an evolving combination of legacy and new technology solutions from inception to Fully Operational Capability (FOC).

· With respect to Transformation Analysis Support:

· Implementation approach to “stand up” headquarters and field stations of prescriptive, predictive, and descriptive analytics to include IT strategy, analytics strategy, data science, and modeling.

· Approach to Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Execution (PPBE), and the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) processes and needs.

The offeror should describe any risks associated with the solicitation, including the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the offeror’s performance/management approach; describe any techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror. The offeror should provide any other information the offeror considers relevant to the solicitation.

(b) Management Approach

The offeror shall provide in detail a management approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS. The management approach shall also provide detail as to how the contractor will successfully engage DoN, DoD, and other government stakeholders. If a subcontractor or subcontractors are proposed, the management approach should address, in terms of scope and percentage of effort, what portion of the solicitation's requirements will be performed by each subcontractor. Team members other than the offeror are considered proposed subcontractors to the offeror. The management approach should address how the offeror will ensure effective communications both within its team and between the contractor and the Government (to include communicating at different Echelons). The offeror should describe any management risks associated with the solicitation, including the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the offeror's management approach; describe any techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror. The offeror should provide any other information the offeror considers relevant to the solicitation.

(c) Corporate Experience

The offeror shall demonstrate relevant corporate experience. Relevant corporate experience is experience within the past five years that is the same as, or similar to, the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work described by this solicitation.

To demonstrate its corporate experience, the offeror shall identify up to 3 of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years. The Offeror should complete a “Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted; the information in these forms will be assessed in the evaluation of both the Corporate Experience and Past Performance factors. The Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror may identify contracts or efforts for its proposed subcontractors among the 3 of corporate experience/past performance references provided in its proposal. If Corporate Experience/Past Performance references are provided for a subcontractor, the offeror’s proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. It is the offeror’s responsibility to adequately explain the relevance of a reference provided for a subcontractor’s corporate experience/past performance to the effort that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under the solicitation. Only a single set of up to 3 references shall be submitted. The “Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information 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 additional sheets of paper. Such continuation sheet(s) for submitted references will count toward the Volume I page limit. The degree of relevance of each offeror’s corporate experience is used as an indicator of the extent of risk of unsuccessful performance presented by the offeror’s proposal.

NOTE: The Corporate Experience factor focuses on what relevant experience the offeror has gained under specific contracts within the past five years while the Past Performance factor, addressed below, focuses on how well the offeror has performed with the primary focus on those contracts identified in the proposal that are found to be relevant to the solicitation’s requirements. While Corporate Experience and Past Performance are separate evaluation factors, they principally focus on different aspects of the same contracts. Accordingly, offerors shall submit a single set of corporate experience and past performance information (maximum of 3 of its most relevant contracts) to satisfy the submission requirements for both factors.

(c) 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 contacts or efforts (within the past five years) that is of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to that which is described in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the relevant references submitted under Corporate Experience factor and described on the “Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Form.” These forms should also provide information on any problems encountered on the identified contracts or efforts and the offeror’s corrective actions. Only a single set of up to 3 references shall be submitted for both factors.

The offeror should address its past performance in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, "Utilization of Small Business Concerns," and 52.219-9, "Small Business Subcontracting Plan."

(d) Socio-Economic Plan

The offeror shall address the extent of participation of in performance of any resultant contract. The solicitation, however, does not require participation by such entities. The offeror shall provide targets, expressed as percentages of total contract value, for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses in any of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Major Groups as determined by the Department of Commerce. The targets may provide for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor. Targets will be incorporated into and become part of any resultant contract.

If the offeror fails to provide targets for the contract and/or any of the seven socio-economic factors, the offeror's proposal will be evaluated at zero percent for the contract and/or any socio-economic factor for which a target is not provided. However, an offeror that provides no socio-economic plan in response to this factor may be considered ineligible for award.

Note: The Socio-economic Plan factor and the separate requirement for submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan are included in the solicitation in an effort to promote small business participation under the solicitation and the resultant contract. The Socio-Economic Plan is a non-cost evaluation factor and is separate and distinct from the requirement for an offeror to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The requirements for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan are set forth in the Section I of the solicitation under FAR clause 52.219-9.

Government small business participation objectives are set forth in Section I in conjunction with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The solicitation does not establish separate small business participation objectives for the Socio-economic Plan evaluation factor. As set forth in FAR 52.219-9, the offeror, if other than a small business, is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that includes the offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting goals, and the successful offeror’s approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporate into the Contract. While Contracting Officer approval of the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required prior to any contract award, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a component of the comparative evaluation of proposals; rather, it will be treated under the solicitation as a matter of contractor responsibility.

(2) Volume II –Cost

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

Each page of each copy of Volume II should include the following legend:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

The Cost Proposal in Volume II shall include the solicitation pricing pages completed by the offeror and a complete and detailed breakdown of the offeror’s cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) with all supporting documentation. The offeror’s cost proposal shall not deviate from the level of effort set forth in Section B of the solicitation. The cost proposal shall support the Non-cost proposal. The cost proposal shall include all elements of cost and such other cost information as considered appropriate to support the offeror’s proposal. The burden of proof for establishing the realism of all proposed costs rests with the offeror. The cost and pricing information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

(a) Separate cost and pricing information shall be submitted for each time period specified in the Solicitation Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices.

(b) Supporting data including labor rates and hours, burden rates, material lists and costs, travel charges, and “other direct costs” used in developing the cost breakdown should be furnished. The supporting data for “other direct costs” shall include an itemization of those costs and an explanation and justification for each cost so itemized.

(c) Uncompensated Overtime. Uncompensated overtime is not encouraged as work schedules averaging more than 40 hours per week can, over a period of time, lead to degradation of performance. Pursuant to FAR 52.237-10, “Identification of Uncompensated Overtime,” offerors are reminded (1) “Whenever there is uncompensated overtime, the adjusted hourly rate (including uncompensated overtime), rather than the hourly rate, shall be applied to all proposed hours, whether regular or overtime hours”, (2) “All proposed labor hours subject to the adjusted hourly rate (including uncompensated overtime) shall be identified as either regular or overtime hours, by labor categories, and described at the same level of detail. This is applicable to all proposals whether the labor hours are at the prime or subcontract level. This includes uncompensated overtime hours that are in indirect cost pools for personnel whose regular hours are normally charged direct.” In that 52.237-10 requires that the offeror’s accounting practices used to estimate uncompensated overtime be consistent with the offeror’s cost accounting practices used to accumulate and report uncompensated overtime hours, each offeror proposing on the basis of uncompensated overtime should provide evidence of that consistency. Also, pursuant to FAR 52.237-10, each offeror proposing on the basis of uncompensated overtime is required to include a copy of its policy addressing uncompensated overtime with its proposal. To the extent that an offeror is proposing on the basis of uncompensated overtime, the offeror shall explain why the use of uncompensated overtime will not degrade the level of technical expertise required to fulfill the Government’s requirements.

(d) Direct Labor Rates. In order to verify the realism of the offeror's proposed direct labor rates, all offerors should submit, as part of their Cost Proposal, documentation substantiating the realism of their proposed direct labor rates. To the extent that an Offeror is proposing a subcontractor on a cost-reimbursement basis, the documentation substantiating the accuracy of the subcontractor’s proposed direct labor rates is also requested. Acceptable documentation may include the following:

(1) Payroll data (if proposing current, named employees)

(2) Actual billing records showing direct labor rates (if proposing current, named employees).

In addition to the foregoing, the offeror should explain why it believes its proposed direct labor rates are realistic for the requirements to be performed, considering the technical and experiential qualifications necessary to accomplish the taskings.

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees,” Offerors shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the Contract, including first-tier subcontractor employees. Supporting information should 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. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulties. Offerors are cautioned that lower compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain professional service employees, and thus, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexities of the contract requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

(e) Indirect Costs. In order to verify the realism of the Offeror’s proposed indirect rates, all Offerors should submit, as part of their Cost Proposal, documentation substantiating the accuracy of its proposed indirect rates. To the extent that an Offeror is proposing a subcontractor on a cost-reimbursement basis, the documentation substantiating the accuracy of the subcontractor’s proposed indirect rates is also required. Acceptable documentation may include the following:

If the offeror is proposing subcontracts on other than a CPFF basis, the offeror should submit information as to whether the rates for the subcontractors are fixed based on a firm bilateral agreement with the subcontractor or merely proposed. In addition, the offeror shall explain why it believes the subcontractor can perform at those rates.

(f) For proposal purposes, the following ratios of Contractor facility and Government facility labor performance are established for all labor categories:

**See PWS**

(g) The offeror shall use the following estimated costs for travel and material amounts in preparing its cost proposal. These estimated amounts will be used as common evaluation amounts in all offerors’ proposals; the amounts specified below include no associated indirect costs. The offeror shall include the estimated travel and materials costs specified below in its cost proposal, and load the costs appropriately with indirect costs. The estimated amounts below, plus indirect costs, as determined cost realistic by the Government, will be used in the evaluation of proposals, and will be included in resultant contracts as “not-to exceed” amounts under which the offeror will be permitted to invoice its actual costs.

(i) Travel estimated above is for travel and subsistence associated with performance under any resultant contract which will be reimbursed in accordance with the PWS text entitled “Reimbursement of Travel Costs.”

(ii) Material estimated above is for incidental material and special materials as defined in the PWS text entitled, “Allowability of Material and General Business Expenses” and elsewhere in the solicitation.

(iii) Any offeror having an accounting system which includes, within its indirect costs, travel and/or material shall specifically state this fact within the cost proposal.

(h) Any and all subcontracts identified in the Non-cost proposal shall be identified and priced in the cost proposal. Subcontracts (regardless of dollar value) shall be adequately documented. Subcontractor cost breakdowns may be submitted in separate sealed envelopes.

(i) If the offeror is currently being audited, or has been audited, by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the name and location of the assigned DCAA office should be furnished with the cost proposal.

(j) The offeror shall demonstrate that, as required by FAR 16-301-3(a)(3), its accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. If the offeror has an accounting system that has been determined by DCAA to be adequate for a cost reimbursement contract, the offeror should provide documentation of DCAA’s determination. If an offeror’s accounting system has not been determined, by DCAA, to be adequate for determining costs applicable to cost reimbursement contracts, the offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award. If the offeror’s accounting system has not been determined by DCAA to be adequate for determining costs

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M LOCAL CLAUSES

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THE BASIS FOR AWARD (CPFF BEST-VALUE TRADE-OFF)

(1) Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section L as well as the evaluation criteria contained in this section. The Government intends to award contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors (and subfactors, if any) in the solicitation. The offeror’s responses to the “Instructions to Offerors” in Section L of the solicitation will form the basis of the evaluation of proposals as follows: A rating that is less than “Acceptable” in any non-cost evaluation factor and/or less than a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating in the Past Performance evaluation factor will render a proposal ineligible for award consideration as submitted. The evaluation of proposals will consider the non-cost/price proposal to be more important than cost/price.

(2) The non-cost evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance with corporate experience and past performance being of equal importance and the socio-economic plan being significantly less important than any other factor:

Performance Approach Management Approach

In considering the relevance of an offeror’s corporate experience, the corporate experience/past performance references provided by the offeror will be evaluated in the aggregate. In determining the rating for the Corporate Experience evaluation factor, the Government will give greater weight to the contracts or efforts which the Government determines to have greater relevance to the RFP. If subcontractor experience is provided as part of the 5 of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor experience will be given weight proportional to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the aspects of the work under the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed. Generally, only corporate experience performed within the five years prior to submission of initial proposals will be considered for evaluation purposes. However, if revised proposals are subsequently submitted, the initial five year period will be expanded for evaluation purposes to also include the period between the submission of initial and the submission of revised proposals.

In considering the relevance of an offeror’s past performance, the past performance references provided by the offeror will be evaluated individually and in the aggregate. If subcontractor past performance is provided as part of the 3 of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor past performance will be given weight proportional to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the aspects of the work under the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed. 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. When an offeror is determined to have relevant past performance, the quality of its relevant past performance will be evaluated. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably under the Past Performance factor. 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 and, thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offerors. The evaluation of Past Performance 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 how capable the offeror is of successfully accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. In determining the rating for the Past Performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater weight to the contracts or efforts which are determined to have greater relevance to the solicitation. An offeror whose past performance demonstrates either a low expectation or no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort will be considered ineligible for award.

For all non-cost factors (other than Past Performance), an offeror’s proposal must be determined to be Acceptable or better in order to be eligible for award. A rating that is less than “Acceptable” in any non-cost evaluation factor and/or less than a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating in the Past Performance evaluation factor will render a proposal ineligible for award consideration as submitted.

The Government reserves the right to award the contracts to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated CPFF.

Cost will be evaluated on the basis of cost realism pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(d); the method of cost realism analysis to be used is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Evaluation of personnel compensation will be part of the cost realism evaluation. Unrealistically low proposed personnel compensation may also be considered to reflect a lack of understanding of the solicitation’s requirements and/or create undue performance risk, and therefore may be assessed adversely as one of the considerations in making an award.

The evaluation of the offeror’s proposed Compensation for Professional Employees will be performed in accordance with FAR 52.222.46. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s total compensation plan for professional employees employed under the contract, including first-tier subcontractor employees, to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. 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. Additionally, proposals envisioning professional employee compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, and thus, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. To the extent that an offeror’s proposed Compensation for Professional Employees is evaluated as presenting a high risk to successful performance, the offeror’s proposal will be considered unawardable.

With regard to FAR 52.237-10, “Identification of Uncompensated Overtime,” proposals submitted that are based on the use of uncompensated overtime will be evaluated to ensure that the use of uncompensated overtime will not degrade the level of technical expertise required to fulfill the Government’s requirements. In addition, a risk assessment will be conducted on proposals to be awarded on the basis of uncompensated overtime, with such evaluation to include risk assessments such as (1) unrealistically low labor rates or other costs that may result in quality or service shortfalls and (2) unbalanced distribution of uncompensated overtime among skill levels and its use in key technical positions.

The evaluation of the offeror’s proposed Compensation for Professional Employees and proposed Uncompensated Overtime (if any), will be assessed for performance risk, aside from any adjustments to the offeror’s cost proposal that the Government sees as necessary for the cost realism evaluation. To the extent that an offeror’s proposed Compensation for Professional Employees and/or proposed Uncompensated Overtime is evaluated as presenting a high risk to successful performance, the offeror’s proposal will be considered unawardable.

The Government has estimated travel and material costs as specified below:

Travel Material

**See PWS**

The Government’s estimated travel and material costs (plus applicable burden) will be used for the purpose of evaluating the cost proposal. Application of material handling charges and/or G&A rates, as appropriate, will be allowed only if the contractor maintains separate accounts for such costs and will be in addition to the common evaluation amounts.

Cost Limitation Ceilings On Indirect Rates: If an offeror proposes cost limitation ceilings on indirect rates, the offeror is advised that the Government may evaluate the offeror’s cost proposal accordingly. The decision to propose cost limitations is the offeror’s decision. In the event that the offeror proposes indirect rate limitations, these same ceiling rate limitations may be incorporate into any resultant contract without discussion. Under any resultant cost reimbursement contract, the indirect rates billed shall be limited to the ceiling rate(s) identified in the contract. Any costs incurred above the ceiling rates are not allowable.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf