20RQ008-001.pdf

N0018920RQ008

N0018920RC8AMAC

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

The reason for this amendment is to make minor corrections as detailed in the follow ing pages and extend proposal due date to 8 June 2020 at 12:00 PM ET.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-May-2020

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 N0018920RQ008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-May-2020

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 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

22-May-2020

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

MECHANICSBURG OFFICE

5450 CARLISLE PIKE, PO BOX 2020

MECHANICSBURG PA 17055

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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 29-May-2020 12:00 PM to 08-Jun-2020 12:00 PM.

The following have been added by reference:

252.204-7016 Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services

-- Representation

DEC 2019

252.204-7017 Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services -- Representation

DEC 2019

252.204-7018 Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services

DEC 2019

252.225-7974 (Dev) Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime (DEVIATION 2020-O0005)

FEB 2020

252.245-7002 (Dev) Reporting Loss of Government Property (DEVIATION 2020- O0004)

FEB 2020

The following have been added by full text:

52.219-6 NOTICE OF TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE (MAR 2020)

(a) Definition.

"Small business concern," as used in this clause, means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the size standards in this solicitation.

(b) Applicability. This clause applies only to--

(1) Contracts that have been totally set aside for small business concerns; and

(2) Orders set aside for small business concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F).

(c) General. (1) Offers are solicited only from small business concerns. Offers received from concerns that are not small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected.

(2) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made to a small business concern.

(End of clause)

52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (DEVIATION 2020-O0008) (MAR 2020)

(a) This clause does not apply to the unrestricted portion of a partial set-aside.

(b) Definition. “Similarly situated entity,” as used in this clause, means a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that—

(1) Has the same small business program status as that which qualified the prime contractor for the award (e.g., for a small business set-aside contract, any small business concern, without regard to its socioeconomic status); and

(2) Is considered small for the size standard under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code the prime contractor assigned to the subcontract.

(c) Applicability. This clause applies only to—

(1) Contracts that have been set aside for small business concerns or 8(a) participants;

(2) Part or parts of a multiple-award contract that have been set aside for small business concerns or 8(a) participants;

(3) Contracts that have been awarded on a sole-source basis in accordance with subpart 19.8;

(4) Orders set aside for small business concerns under multiple-award contracts, as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), if the order amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold;

(5) Orders competed among 8(a) participants in accordance with subpart 19.8 under multiple-award contracts, as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), regardless of dollar value;

(6) Contracts using the HUBZone price evaluation preference to award to a HUBZone small business concern unless the concern waived the evaluation preference; and

(7) Orders issued directly to small business concerns or 8(a) participants under multiple-award contracts as described in 19.504(c)(1)(ii).

(d) Independent contractors. An independent contractor shall be considered a subcontractor.

(e) Limitations on subcontracting. By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Contractor agrees that in performance of a contract assigned a NAICS code for—

(1) Services (except construction), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract. Other direct costs are excluded to the extent they are not the principal purpose of the contract and cannot be obtained from small business concerns;

(2) Supplies (other than procurement from a nonmanufacturer of such supplies), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both supplies and services, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the supply portion of the contract;

(3) General construction, it will not pay more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 85 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded; or

(4) Construction by special trade contractors, it will not pay more than 75 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 75 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded.

(f) A joint venture agrees that, in the performance of the contract, the applicable percentage specified in paragraph

(e) of this clause will be performed by the aggregate of the joint venture participants.

(g) The Contractor shall comply with the limitations on subcontracting as follows:

(1) For contracts, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this clause— [Contracting Officer check as appropriate.] ___ By the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period; or X By the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract.

(2) For orders, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this clause, by the end of the performance period for the order.

(End of clause)

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors

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.

Initial proposals and any modifications thereto are to be submitted to the Contract Specialist on or before the closing date and time cited elsewhere in this solicitation. Faxes, hard copy, and/or responses through Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) or any method other than email copy are not acceptable.

HAND-CARRIED PROPOSALS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED

The proposal shall consist of the following separate volumes:

Volume I – Non-Price Proposal

Factor I: Staffing Approach

Factor II: Past Performance

Volume II – Price Proposal

Factor I: Price

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation. 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, questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to the Contract Specialist, Jessica Daniels at Jessica.a.daniels@navy.mil no later than 12:00 pm, Eastern Time (ET), on 15 May 2020. 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 early in the proposal timeframe.

(4) Proposals are to be submitted via electronic submission in the volumes, format and quantities as identified below. All electronic files and versions of offerors proposal shall be compatible with Microsoft Office Suite version 2010. Offerors shall submit their hardcopy proposals to the email address specified below.

Proposals are due no later than 12:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) 8 June 2020.

Note 1: Hand-carried and mail delivered proposals will not be accepted.

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

1. This section specifies the format that offerors shall use in this solicitation. The intent is not to restrict offerors in the manner in which they will perform the 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:

The cover should indicate the following:

Title of the submission Volume number (1, 2, 3, or 4) Solicitation number Name and address of offeror, point of contact information (name, phone number, and email address), CAGE code, DUNS number, applicable tax identification number (TIN) Submission validity (180 days from solicitation closing date)

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

1. Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a submission that clearly and concisely describes and defines the offeror’s response to the requirements contained in the solicitation. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective submission are not desired. Elaborate artwork and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The submission shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the submission 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 submission.

2. Page Limitations:

Title Submission Quantities

Page Limit*

Volume 1: Non-price Proposal 1 electronic copy 15 pages

Staffing Approach 5 pages

Past Performance 10 pages

Volume 2: Price 1 electronic copy 5 pages

Each volume is 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 submission 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 10 or greater (e.g., “Times New Roman” style with 10 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. 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. Offerors are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, tabs, and dividers. Tables of contents and any compliance matrices may exceed one page, which will not be included in the page count. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

Submit proposals to:

Jessica Daniels Contract Specialist Jessica.a.daniels@navy.mil

III. PROPOSAL CONTENT

52.212-1 Addendum

Factor I - Staffing Approach

The Staffing Approach is limited to 5 pages (not including the Staffing Matrix) of narrative to explain how the staffing approach relates to the labor category matrix. The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide and retain the required mix and quantity of personnel resources with the skill set levels necessary to fulfill the functional areas of the PWS from the start to the end of the period of performoance on a task order award. The offerors response should demonstrate their understanding of the requirements in the PWS and how they tie to the proposed staffing approach to achieve successful outcomes.

At a minimum, the staffing plan shall include the following:

1. The offeror shall include a staffing matrix that indicates if the proposed resource is currently on staff with the prime, currently on staff with a proposed sub, or to be assigned upon award of a task order. A joint venture established and approved through the Small Business Administration (SBA) is considered the prime.

2. General staffing approach for utilization of the offeror’s personnel resources that demonstrates an understanding of the functional areas of the PWS and how the proposed staffing matrix demonstrates the contractor’s ability to provide qualified resources from the start to the end of the period of performance for a task order award.

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 performed within the past five years that is the same as; or similar to, the scope and magnitude of the work described by this solicitation. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least 1 year of completed performance within the five years prior to the closing date of this solicitation.

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts performed within the past five (5) years, as determined by the closing date of this solicitation. Offerors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation. For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance.

Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation closing date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance during that five-year period. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each. A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required will not be evaluated.

a. If proposed subcontractor past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement must be stated. The offeror’s submittal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform will not be evaluated.

b. If the prime offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort will not be evaluated, 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. Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity will result in the contract reference not being evaluated.

The following minimum information shall be provided within contractor submitted references:

Contract Number/Delivery Order Number Contract Type Annual Contract Cost Period of Performance Description of Work Valid name, phone number and e-mail address of Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s representative or Prime Contractor (if company was subcontracted). In the description of work, offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts, in terms of scope, and magnitude, to the requirements of the solicitation for purposes of the relevancy review

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete Attachment– Past Performance Report Form (attachment 1) and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Jessica Daniels at Jessica.a.daniels@navy.mil by the DUE DATE AND TIME 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.

Factor III – Price

The Price Proposal shall include the completed solicitation documents. The price proposal shall include all elements of price and other price information considered appropriate to support the offeror’s proposal. The pricing information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

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

Separate pricing information shall be submitted for each year of the services as well as a total for all five (5) years of the ordering period.

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

Attachment I –Pricing Spreadsheet completed by the offeror (see below for additional instructions).

o Attachment I 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.

o The Firm-Fixed Price rates submitted in this Attachment will be incorporated into the resultant contract as the ceiling labor rates and shall be utilized by the offeror in the preparation of FFP pricing at the Task Order level.

Unless completed in SAM, “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” completed by the offeror (to be provided 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.

Proposal shall be valid for 180 days from solicitation closing date.

Offerors shall insert the Government estimated travel plug numbers provided below in their proposed price.

Period Travel Estimate 5 Year Ordering Period $250,000.00

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THE BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government reserves the right to award five or less multiple award Firm Fixed Price (FFP) ID/IQ contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposal(s) is/are most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a staffing approach, past performance and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror; award a contract without discussions; or award a contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government. The evaluation and award are being conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12, (Acquisition of Commercial Items) and FAR Part 15, (Contracting by Negotiation).

The offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in solicitation.

The Overall Non-Price Factors will be evaluated based upon the Staffing Approach and Past Performance. The Non-Price factors being equal, will be more important than price.

The Government reserves the right to award five or less multiple award contracts.

The government will perform evaluations by starting with the lowest overall proposed price and evaluate technical submission, and award to the first (1 up to 5) of the lowest priced responsible offerors receiving an Outstanding Staffing Approach rating and a Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating whose overall price has been determined fair and reasonable. The government will only continue evaluations if (1-5) offerors have not received Outstanding Staffing Approach, and Substantial Confidence Past Performance ratings, the Government will then perform a trade-off among the remaining offerors to determine which offerors represent the best value to the Government.

Factor I – Staffing Approach

The offeror’s proposed Staffing Approach shall be evaluated on the basis of how well the offeror demonstrates the ability to provide and retain the required mix and quantity of personnel resources with the skill set levels necessary to fulfill the functional areas of the PWS at the start of and throughout the period of performance for a task order award.

Summary

A combined Technical/Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation of the Non-Price Proposal Factor I – Staffing Approach. 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 Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings provided below.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

Note: A rating of “Marginal” for any Technical factor or sub-factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror’s proposal. A proposal which includes a “Marginal” rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted.

Note: Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for any Technical factor or sub-factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II - Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the contract’s requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within five (5) years as of the closing date of this solicitation. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one (1) year of completed performance prior to the closing date of this solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy:

Regarding relevancy, the aggregate of each offeror’s past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that offeror’s past performance.

The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS.

Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror’s referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation.

Aggregate: The whole established by combining several disparate contracts or order.

Using Table 3 below, the relevancy assessment assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Quality Assessment: Each past performance reference under an offeror’s Past Performance submission that is found to have at least some relevance to the instant requirement will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance under that reference. 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 references will be evaluated in the aggregate in order to allow offerors who may not have the entire scope and magnitude of the requirement under one individual contract or order to still be evaluated for quality of past performance with the full scope and magnitude of the requirement can be demonstrated within the allotted number of references as described above.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in Table 4 below. The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’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. Evaluation will focus only on work already performed. Work yet-to-be performed and work prior 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 one (1) year of completed performance prior to the closing date of this solicitation.

If the offeror’s aggregated past performance is determined to be not relevant as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the offeror’s past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment and the past performance factor will be rated as “Neutral Confidence.” If an offeror’s aggregate past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the offeror’s past performance submission that contributed to the determination of aggregate relevance (i.e., each reference that is rated at least somewhat relevant) will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance under that reference. The quality of performance on contract references that are rated not relevant is not evaluated even when the overall past performance is found to be relevant.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

This consideration 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.

In order to determine the quality of performance, the Government may utilize existing data sources, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror’s customer’s organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. 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 information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating 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 solicitation.

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Description Table

Relevancy Description

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 this solicitation requires.

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

Table 4 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

Rating Description

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.

Factor III – Price Proposal The offeror’s price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to determine the evaluated price to support the selection of the best value offeror(s). The evaluation may include, but is not limited to, the price analysis techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Although price is considered 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 the 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 offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, or generally equivalent, Non-Price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offeror shall receive the award. The PCO may evaluate any and all information submitted by the offeror to support the reasonableness of prices proposed. The method of evaluation used by the PCO/SSA is solely within the discretion of the PCO/SSA.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES (FFP, MULTIPLE AWARD IDIQ) (SEP 2015)

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 $5,000.00 worth of orders. The contract maximum for this individual contract is a total of $ insert individual contractor’s proposed amount at time of award worth of orders.

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

(End of text)

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement (PWS) Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Business Systems Center (BSC) Program Support Services for IT, Supply Chain and Logistics

1.0 Introduction

The Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Business Systems Center (BSC) has the need for contractor support services to support a variety of initiatives to improve overall organizational effectiveness and operational efficiency. Support services are required for emergent program support needs, in the areas of information technology, supply chain and logistics areas.

2.0 Background:

NAVSUP BSC works closely with their stakeholders to provide information systems and program support through its Business Systems Center. NAVSUP BSC is the Navy's premier Information Technology provider of choice with responsibility to design, develop, and maintain information systems supporting numerous activities in the functional areas of logistics, supply chain management, transportation, finance and accounting.

2.1 Requiring Organization

The organization requiring the services outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) is:

NAVSUP Business Systems Center 5450 Carlisle Pike Bldg. 409

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

2.2 Project Description

NAVSUP BSC must collaborate with their stakeholders on a wide range of mission and business challenges so that the services, processes, and policies of NAVSUP are enabled by information systems that are efficient, effective, and affordable. NAVSUP BSC and their stakeholders both rely on the ability to bring together a superior workforce to accomplish their shared mission through a combination of Government and contractor personnel and delivery teams. This Performance Work Statement (PWS) sets the parameters for obtaining contractor support under an IDIQ contract for services that are intended to benefit both the stakeholders and NAVSUP BSC.

It is anticipated that individual task orders will be formalized around specific tasks supporting ongoing or upcoming project requirements included in the scope of work defined in the PWS. Specific details of task assignments, deliverables, documentation and applicable standards will be provided in awarded task orders.

3.0 Scope

The scope of this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is to provide the necessary level of professional and technical support required to facilitate shared objectives of stakeholders and NAVSUP BSC.

The goal of this PWS is to obtain contractor support services to provide program support services to the NAVSUP BSC staff in the areas of IT, business support services and analysis positions to be introduced in the requirements sections of this document and fully within individual task orders.

4.0 Directives

The contractor shall comply with the following directives, and any updated/future versions as they are released, and consider them in developing their technical proposal and management plan:

Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (“FISMA”) DoD Instruction 5400.11, DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Programs, 29 January 2019 DoD Directive 8000.01, Management of the DoD Information Enterprise, 17 March 2016 (incorporating

Change 1 July 2017) DoD Directive 8140.01, Cyberspace Workforce Management, 11 August 2015 (incorporating Change 1, 31

July 2017) DoD Instruction 4161.02, Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property, 27 April

2012 (incorporating Change 2, 31 August 2018) DoD Instruction 8320.07, Implementing the Sharing of Data, Information, and Information Technology

(IT) Services in the Department of Defense, 3 August 2015 (incorporating Change 1, 5 December 2017) DoD Instruction 8500.01, Cybersecurity, 14 March 2014, Change 1, 7 October 2019 DoD Instruction 8510.01, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology, 12

March 2014 (incorporating Change 2, 28 July 2017) DoD Instruction 8582.01, Security of Non-DoD Information Systems Processing Unclassified Nonpublic

DoD Information, 9 December 2019 SECNAVINST 5510.36B, DoN Information Security Program, 12 July 2019 DoD 5400.11-R, Department of Defense Privacy Program, 14 May 2007 DoD 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program, 19 December 2005

(incorporating Change 4, 10 November 2015) SECNAV Instruction 5211.5F, Department of the Navy Privacy Program, 20 May 2019 SECNAV Instruction 5239.3C, DON Cybersecurity Policy, 2 May 2016 SECNAV M-5239.1, DoN Information Assurance Manual, November 2005 OPNAVINST 5239.1D, U.S. Navy Cybersecurity Program, 18 July 2018 OPNAVINST 5239.4, Chief of Naval Operations Cybersecurity Safety Program, 14 September 2018 SECNAV Manual M-5239.2, DON Cyberspace Information Technology and Cybersecurity Workforce

Management and Qualification Manual, 27 June 2016 SECNAV Manual M-5510.30, Department of the Navy Personnel Security Program, 1 June 2006 CJCSI 6211.02D, Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) Responsibilities, 24 January 2012

DoD Public Key Infrastructure (https://cyber.mil/pki-pke) ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 Systems and Software Engineering – Software Life Cycle Processes ANSI/EIA 649C-2019 – Configuration Management Standard ANSI/EIA 836B-2015 – Configuration Management Data Exchange and Interoperability Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (“FedRAMP”) Department of Defense Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide, Version 1, Release 3, dated 6

March 2017 All applicable Security Requirements Guides, Security Technical Implementation Guides, and National

Security Agency security configuration guides when assessment and authorization is required Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security Assurance

Components, April 2017, Version 3.1, Revision 5, CCMB-2017-04-003 NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations, December 2018 U.S. Navy Risk Management Framework Process Guide, Version 3.1, 3 February 2020 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and

Organizations, April 2013, includes updates as of 22 January 2015 NIST SP 800-53A Revision 4, Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations, December 2014, includes updates as of 18 December 2014 NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and

Organizations, February 2020 NIST SP 800-171A, Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information, June 2018 NAVSUPINST 5239.5, Cybersecurity and Defensive Cyberspace Operations Policy, 25 March 2019 ISO/IEC 19770-1:2017 – Information Technology – IT Asset Management – Part 1: IT Asset Management

Systems - Requirements ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 - Information Technology -- Software Asset Management -- Part 2: Software

Identification Tag ISO/IEC 19770 Series - Information Technology – IT Asset Management A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) - Sixth Edition Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 7

August 1998)

SECNAVINST 5720.44C - Department of the Navy Policy for Content of Publically Accessible World Wide Web Sites, 21 February 2012 (incorporating Change 1, 14 October 2014)

SECNAVINST 5510.30C, Department of Navy Personnel Security Program, 24 January 2020 Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for

Federal Employees and Contractors, 27 August 2004 DoD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP), 3 April 2017 DoD Manual 5200.08-R, Physical Security Program, 27 May 2009, 3 April 2017 NTTP 3-13.3, Operations Security (OPSEC), September 2017 DoD Instruction 5200.48, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), March 6, 2020 NSAMECHINST 5530.1C CH-1, Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg Installation Access Control, 23

August 2019 The following Directives are only applicable for classified Task Orders (Secret or higher clearance required):

Executive Order 13467 as amended, Establish the Roles and Responsibilities of the National Background Investigations Bureau and Related Matters, 30 June 2008

Executive Order 13526, Original Classification Authority, 29 December 2009 DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, 18 May 2016 DoD 5220.22, Volume 2, National Industrial Security Program: Security Procedures for Government

Activities Operating Manual, 1 August 2018 DoDM 5200.01 Volume 1, DoD Information Security Program: Overview, Classification, and

Declassification, 4 May 2018 DoDM 5200.01 Volume 2, DoD Information Security Program: Marking of Information, 14 May 2019

DoDM 5200.01 Volume 3, DoD Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information, 19 March 2013

5.0 Requirements/Tasks

Not every performance requirement has a related performance standard or assessment measure expressed in this document. In such cases, the performance standard or performance measure is either inherent in the requirement or performance is to be in accordance with NAVSUP BSC standards which will be provided upon award.

Per DFARS 211.106, contractor employees shall identify themselves as contractor personnel by introducing themselves or being introduced as contractor personnel and displaying distinguishing badges or other visible identification for meetings with Government personnel. In addition, contractor personnel shall appropriately identify themselves as contractor employees in telephone conversations and in formal and informal written correspondence.

5.1 Requirements Group 1 - Software Development Services

5.1.1 IT Software Engineering

The contractor shall provide IT software engineering support including:

analyzing and refining systems requirements;

translating systems requirements into applications prototypes;

planning and designing systems architecture;

writing, debugging, and maintaining code;

determining and designing applications architecture;

determining output media/formats;

designing user interfaces;

working with customers to test applications;

assuring software and systems quality and functionality;

integrating hardware and software components;

writing and maintaining program documentation;

evaluating new applications software technologies; and ensuring the rigorous application of information security/ information assurance policies, principles, and practices to the delivery of application software services.