N0018923R0009 0004 Modified Copy.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose for this amendment is to relocate the Subcontracting Plan section, w ithin the Instruction and Evaluation Criteria, to be submitted under Volume 2 instead of Volume 1.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Mar-2023

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 N0018923R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jan-2023

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 is extended, X 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

21-Mar-2023

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE

ATTN: A. BARNES

1968 GILBERT STREET STE 600

NORFOLK VA 23511-3392

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0018923R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

In addition to FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items,” and any other instructions contained elsewhere in this solicitation, the following information is provided. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all terms and conditions of the RFP, representation and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12, Part 15 and FAR Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is 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 Past Performance and Price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to award a FFP contract to other than the lowest priced proposal;

award a FFP contract without discussions; or award a FFP contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

QUESTIONS:

Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of the solicitation requirements directly to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer at amy.m.barnes14.civ@us.navy.mil and elizabeth.a.phelps14.civ@us.navy.mil (respectively). It is requested that all questions be received no later than February 8, 2023, as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to the receipt of proposals.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF PROPOSALS:

(1) Proposals shall be submitted to Amy Barnes and Elizabeth Phelps electronically no later than the due date of the solicitation via email amy.m.barnes14.civ@us.navy.mil and elizabeth.a.phelps14.civ@us.navy.mil. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals contained herein; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to confirm their proposal was received PRIOR to the closing date and time. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the Contracting Office has received their entire proposal, with all attachments, PRIOR to the solicitation closing date and time. Only the documents received prior to the solicitation closing date and time will be evaluated.

Offerors should include the following information in the Subject Line of their electronic submission

Proposal - N0018923R0009 – (Name of Offeror) – Email (#) of (#)

(2) All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Word. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. Only the price supporting information may be submitted utilizing Microsoft Office Excel. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use Times New Roman 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 Times New Roman font with a point size of 12 or greater. Lines shall, at a minimum, be selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. The offeror is 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, list of acronyms, compliance matrix, and table of contents.

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described within will not be evaluated.

GENERAL:

Proposals shall include the following legend on each page:

Source Selection Information - FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

PROPOSAL CONTENT:

The proposal should contain the following items in addition to other information required by this solicitation:

The cover page should indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Volume Number (I or II) Proposal Category (Factor/Sub-factor) Request for Proposal Number Name and Address of Offeror, CAGE Code, SAM Unique Entity ID, and applicable Tax I.D. Number

(TIN)

Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email address Proposal valid for 180 days after solicitation closing

Proposals shall be prepared in two (2) separate and distinct volumes (attachments):

- Volume I - Non-Price Proposal

- Factor I: Facilities Clearance

- Factor II: Technical Approach

- Sub-Factor I – Staffing Approach

- Sub-Factor II – Performance and Management Approach

- Factor III: Past Performance

- Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan

- Volume II – Price Proposal

- Factor V: Price

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

(3) Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of understanding of cost consciousness. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

(4) Proposal Page Limitations Volume I - Non-Price Proposal - The following page limitations are established:

Title Page Limit*

Non-Price Proposal – Factor I: Facilities Clearance No Limit

Non-Price Proposal – Factor II - Sub-Factor I: Staffing Approach 15 Pages

Non-Price Proposal – Factor II - Sub-Factor II: Performance and Management Approach 25 Pages

Non-Price Proposal – Factor III: Past Performance 12 Pages

Non-Price Proposal – Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan 10 Pages

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

The Facilities Clearance is not page-limited; however, the Facilities Clearance is to be strictly limited to a copy of the verification.

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

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

Title Limit*

Price Proposal – Factor V No limit

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

1. Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor I – Facilities Clearance

The offeror shall provide proof/verification that it possesses a current Top Secret Facility clearance at time of proposal submission. The proof/verification shall be in the form of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) verification or a letter from the offeror’s Corporate Officer certifying it possesses a current Top Secret Facility Clearance. The letter submission from its Corporate Officer shall include the following: Cage Code, Facility Name, Physical Location, Facility Clearance (FCL) Status/Level, Status Date/Issue Date, Safeguarding Level, Authorized Access To, FCL Limitation, Facility Security Officer, Facility Security Officer Phone Number, DCSA Field Office, and DCSA Field Office Phone Number. The verification must be dated within 30 days of the closing of the solicitation.

Include as an attachment to the solicitation. There is no page limitation.

Factor II – Technical Approach:

Sub-Factor I –Staffing Approach:

The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide the required support services, hire, and retain the appropriate mix and quantity of personnel resources with the skill set levels necessary as identified in the PWS. Specifically, offerors shall address the following:

The offeror shall detail utilization of the offeror’s personnel resources and demonstrated understanding of the skill sets and labor mix required to successfully accomplish the tasks identified in Section 4 and the qualifications identified in Section 5. The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that ensures a fully qualified work force is in place on the first day task order execution.

Methodology for identifying, recruiting, preparing, training, and retention of qualified personnel for performance that demonstrates the offeror’s plan to minimize staff turnover, as well as ensuring personnel have the appropriate security clearances.

Risks associated with its staffing approach and any risks associated with implementation of its approach to staffing describing 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 shall provide their historical attrition rates for the past three (3) years for similar work.

Sub-Factor II – Performance and Management Approach:

The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of, familiarity with, and ability to perform the specific technical requirements and tasks PWS paragraphs 4 through 17, to establish to the government that the offeror is capable of fully providing these services at the level of quality required. The offeror’s approach shall provide a plan that clearly describes the management controls, techniques, and procedures that will be used to ensure required work is performed in a timely, responsive, professional, and efficient manner and clearly details how this effort will be managed within the offeror’s corporate organizational structure. Additionally, the offeror should describe any risks associated with the solicitation, including the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the offeror’s performance 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 in the past.

Offerors are not limited to any specific performance and management approach as long as the approach taken meets PWS requirements.

Factor III: Past Performance

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must also reflect one year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts 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 shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. 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 issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. 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 may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal.

If a proposed subcontractor’s 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 also 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 may not be evaluated.

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 may not be evaluated.

The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor’s past performance.

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated.

The offeror shall complete a “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation.

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form attached to the solicitation and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Amy Barnes at amy.m.barnes14.civ@us.navy.mil and Elizabeth Phelps at elizabeth.a.phelps14.civ@us.navy.mil by the DUE DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

***The Past Performance submission is limited to 12 pages***

Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan

Vendors (large and small businesses) shall provide a Small Business Participation Plan. The Small Business Participation Plan shall address the following:

Identification of small business concerns the prime intends to use in support of this effort;

The level of commitment the prime has to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

A description of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

Vendors 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; and The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

***The Small Business Participation Plan submission is limited to 10 pages***

2. Volume 2: Price Proposal

Factor V: Price Price shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation. No price information shall be submitted in any other section of the proposal. Price proposals shall be held firm for 180 days. The price information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

A completed and signed Standard Form 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, and executed copies of any amendments.

Unless completed in the System for Award Management, the offeror shall complete the solicitation’s representations, certifications and other statements of offerors.

Complete the table located in Attachment I, Pricing Spreadsheet. (see below for additional instructions). An offeror must propose on all labor categories for all ordering periods in the table. Failure to do so shall be cause for rejection of the offer.

o Attachment 4 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 1 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 shall be utilized by the offeror in the preparation of FFP pricing at the Task Order level. A firm-fixed-price is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract.

o Offerors shall use the hours as listed in the spreadsheet for uniformity.

o The proposed fully burdened Firm Fixed Price hourly labor rates shall be provided by the offeror in Attachment 1 of the solicitation and will be incorporated into the resultant contract as the ceiling rates for each labor category. All proposed labor rates shall be expressed as a value and be rounded to two decimal places (no formulas). Failure to include a fully burdened hourly rate for all of the provided labor categories within Attachment 1 will make the price proposal not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers.

o The labor rates that are in effect on the start date of the base period of performance of the task order shall apply for that entire period. If the task order also includes option period(s), the rates that are in effect on the date the option period starts shall apply for that entire option period.

Offerors shall insert the Government estimated travel plug numbers provided in the chart below in their proposed price, in addition to any applicable General and Administrative (G&A) and/or Overhead (OH) rate in accordance with FAR Part 31 in their accounting system. Only G&A and/or OH indirect costs are allowable if an offeror’s accounting system automatically applies it, no profit or fee is allowed.

Period of Performance Travel Ordering Year 1 $38,064.00

Ordering Year 2 $38,064.00 Ordering Year 3 $38,064.00 Ordering Year 4 $38,064.00 Ordering Year 5 $38,064.00

FAR 52.217-8 $19,032.00

NOTE: If no G&A and/or OH are proposed, it will be determined that the offeror does not intend to apply any applicable indirect cost to any travel required.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (For Large Businesses)

Large business vendors shall also submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. Vendors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan so long as it is created in accordance with FAR 19.701 and FAR 19.704(b). Subcontracting Plans are not required from small business vendors.

It is the goal of this solicitation that prime contractors subcontract with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. For other than small (large) prime contractors, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals shall be expressed in terms of whole dollars and percentages based on total planned subcontracting dollars. Of the total planned subcontracting dollars, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include goals for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, HubZone Small Businesses, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. The Government will consider prior achievement of small business subcontracting plan goals as well as the proposed dollar values and percentages related to this solicitation. Small businesses are not required to submit a subcontracting plan, but are required to submit a small business participation plan.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute a quote and will indicate the vendor’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFQ and any attachments hereto. Alternate quotes are not authorized. Objections to any terms and conditions of the RFQ will constitute deficiency, which may make the quote unacceptable.

All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the price proposal. No price information shall be included in any other Volume including cover letters. The offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate its price proposal.

The price submission is not page limited, but is strictly limited to price information.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute deficiency, which may make the offer unacceptable.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 15. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is 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 non-price and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if later determined by the PCO to be necessary.

Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. 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 Government intends to award a FFP IDIQ to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation by utilizing the Tradeoff Source Selection process.

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

All proposals will be reviewed for timeliness. If the proposal is received after the closing date and does not meet the criteria for “late proposals” in the solicitation, the proposal will not be opened. Timely proposals will be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the proposal is not compliant to the solicitation, it will not be evaluated and the offeror will be notified that the proposal is non-responsive.

The selection of an offeror for award will be conducted in two (2) phases. Phase I will consist of evaluation of Factor I - Facility Security Clearance. Offers receiving an ‘Acceptable’ rating in Phase I shall move on to Phase II.

Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor I – Facility Clearance are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated. Phase II will consist of evaluation of Factor II - Technical Approach and its sub-factors:

Sub-factor I - Staffing Approach and Sub-factor II - Performance and Management Approach, Factor III - Past Performance, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, and and Volume II – Price. The evaluation of proposals that move on to Phase II will consider the Non-Price Proposal to be significantly more important than the Price Proposal. Within Phase II, Factor II is more important than Factor III and Factor III is more important than Factor IV. Factors II, III, and IV and their sub-factors are significantly more important than Price. Within Factor II, the two (2) sub-factors are weighted equally.

Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor II, or its sub-factors, are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Initially, proposals shall be ranked according to price, inclusive of all option pricing. An offeror’s proposed pricing will be determined by adding all extended amounts for the CLINs located on pages 3 and 4 of the RFP.

If the lowest priced offeror is evaluated to have a Factor I rated as ‘Acceptable’, a Factor II rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of ‘Substantial Confidence’, that offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other proposals. However, if the lowest priced offeror is not evaluated to have a Factor I rated as ‘Acceptable’, a Factor II rated as ‘Outstanding’ AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the next-lowest priced offeror will be evaluated. The evaluation process will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a proposal is evaluated to have a Factor I rated as ‘Acceptable’, a Factor II rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Government shall then make an integrated best-value award decision between that proposal rated with a Factor I rated as ‘Acceptable’, a Factor II rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating and all lower priced awardable proposals.

If no proposals are evaluated with a Factor I rated as ‘Acceptable’, Factor II rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment best-value award decision from among offerors rated with at least ‘Acceptable’ for factors I and II, and “Neutral Confidence” or better for Past Performance.

Although price is not the most important evaluation 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 offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offerors shall receive the award.

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Phase I

Factor I – Facilities Clearance

Factor I will be evaluated during Phase I and will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable based on content of the submission of proof/verification of the offeror’s Top Secret Facilities Clearance in accordance with the requirements as listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Ratings are detailed in the rating table identified as “Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 1”. Offerors receiving an “Acceptable” rating in Phase I will move on to Phase II. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating will be considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Phase II

Factor II – Technical Approach

The purpose of the technical factor and sub-factors is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the offeror’s proposed technical submittal. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor involves risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be considered in the evaluation of the technical factor and sub-factors.

The Technical Approach factor consists of Sub-factor I, Staffing Approach, and Sub-factor II, Performance and Management Approach. Sub-factors are weighted equally, and will result in one Technical Approach rating detailed in the rating table identified as “Combined Technical/Risk Table 2”. Offers simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/ parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may receive a rating of unacceptable.

Note: A rating of “Marginal” for any 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 and will not be further evaluated unless discussions are in the best interest of the Government. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered 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 factor or sub-factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Sub-factor I –Staffing Approach:

The offeror’s overall staffing approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to provide the required support services, hire, and retain the appropriate mix and quantity of personnel resources with the skill set levels necessary as identified in the PWS.

Specifically, the offeror’s performance and staffing approach will be evaluated on how well it clearly and effectively:

Details the offeror’s utilization of the offeror’s personnel resources and demonstrated understanding of the skill sets and labor mix required to successfully accomplish the tasks identified in Section 4 and the qualifications identified in Section 5 of the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to fully staff and be full performance ready on the first day of task order performance.

Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to identify, recruit, prepare, train, and retain qualified personnel for performance at each site. Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to minimize staff turnover.

Mitigates risks associated with its staffing approach and implementation of its approach.

Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to retain qualified candidates and reduce turnover with proven low attrition rates over the last three (3) years for similar work.

Sub-factor II – Performance and Management Approach:

The offeror’s proposed performance and management approach will be evaluated on feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its understanding of, familiarity with, and ability to perform the technical requirements and tasks in PWS paragraphs 4 through 17. The offeror will be evaluated on their ability to provide a plan that clearly describes the management controls, techniques, and procedures that will be used to ensure required work is performed in a timely, responsive, professional, and efficient manner and details how this effort will be managed within the offeror’s corporate organizational structure.

Additionally, the offeror will be evaluated on well it identified risks and any mitigation techniques and how those techniques have been successful in the past.

Factor III - 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 issuance date of this solicitation. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy: The past performance relevancy rating are defined in table 3 below. 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 described in the PWS.

Magnitude: 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.

The relevancy rating 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. References determined to be “Not Relevant” will not be further considered. Similarly, 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 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: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined 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 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 not reflecting one year of completed performance by the solicitation closing date will not be considered.

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.” Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

In order to evaluate Past Performance, the Government may also utilize existing data sources, including 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.

NOTE: A rating of “Limited Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror’s proposal. A proposal that includes a “Limited Confidence” rating is considered susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. A rating of “No Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable, is not susceptible to correction, and will not be further evaluated.

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan The Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows:

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

Past performance of the vendors 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; and The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

For the Small Business Participation Plan factor, the Rating Table entitled “Small Business Rating Table” will be used for the assignment of ratings.

Volume II: Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor V: Price Proposal

Price proposals will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all Ordering Years and all Option Periods.

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 receives the award. The contracting officer may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of prices proposed. The method of evaluation used by the contracting officer is solely within the discretion of the contracting officer.

Options, to include FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Evaluation of Travel

The requirement does include travel. The dollar values provided in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, under Volume II: Factor V - Price Proposal, provides the travel values, as these have been predetermined by the acquiring command, and shall be utilized for evaluation purposes in determining the total price for the contract.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (For Large Businesses): In accordance with FAR 19.702(a)(1), if the apparently successful vendor is a large business, the Contracting Officer shall review the apparently successful vendor’s Subcontracting Plan. The apparent successful vendor shall negotiate an acceptable Subcontracting Plan with the Contracting Officer prior to award. Failure to negotiate an acceptable Subcontracting Plan will make the vendor ineligible for award.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal e-mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal shall result in a binding task order without further action by either party.

Rating Tables

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 1

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase I, Factor I - Facilities Clearance.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Combined Technical/Risk Table 2

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor II – Technical Approach.

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength – an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength – an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of 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 technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty – any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 3 These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor III – Past Performance.

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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table 4

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor III – Past Performance.

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,…