2.04 N00244-20-Q-0033 0002_RELEASED.pdf

R5532120RCE1010

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 of this amendment is to answ er questions asked by the contractors and to reconcile language in Section L and M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-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 N0024420Q0033

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-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 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

12-May-2020

CODE

NAVSUP FLC SAN DIEGO

REGIONAL CONTRACTS (CODE 200)

3985 CUMMINGS ROAD

BUILDING 116 - 3RD FLOOR

SAN DIEGO CA 92136-4200

N00244 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

angelina.pinahardin@navy.milEMAIL:619-556-6198TEL:

ANGELINA L. PINAHARDIN / CONTRACT SPECIALIST

N0024420Q0033

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions and Answers for N00244‐20‐Q‐0033 Air Operations Support Services Dated: 5/6/2020 Questions 1‐3 Amendment 01 Up‐dated: 5/8/2020 Questions 4‐7 Amendment 02

Question 1:

In the pricing section that starts on pg 3 of the solicitation item # 0003 has a quantity of 2 per performance period, the same is replicated for 1003, 2003, 3003 & 4003. Yet in the PWS in section 3.3 it is asking for a quantity of 1 per performance period, it is also mentioned again at section 5.3.

Can we get clarification on the required quantity per performance period. Is it 1 or 2?

Answer 1: Quantities for CLINS 1003, 2003, 3003 & 4003 should be 1 each. Amendment 01 reflects the change.

Question 2:

In the pricing section that starts on pg 4 of the solicitation item # 0006 has a quantity of 1 per performance period, the same is replicated for 1006, 2006, 3006 & 4006.

Yet in the PWS in section 3.6 it is asking for a quantity of 2 per performance period, it is also mentioned again at section 5.6.

Can we get clarification on the required quantity per performance period. Is it 1 or 2?

Answer 2: Quantities for CLINS 1006, 2006, 3006 & 4006 should be 2 each. Amendment 01 reflects the change.

Question 3:

The 6 month extension item # 5001 ‐ 5009 has dates that are not in sync with the contract. Are they supposed to be an extension that starts 1st June, 2025 and expires 30th Nov, 2025?

Answer 3: 6‐month extension CLINs 5001‐5009 POP dates are 30‐APR‐2025 TO 30‐OCT‐2025. Amendment 01 reflects the change.

Question 4:

PWS 3.1 & 3.2

‐ The government requests the contractor to provide up to a total of 275 man days for PWS 3.1 and up to 760 man days for PWS 3.2. per CLIN and OPTION Year. Question: For the vendor’s scheduling purposes, what is the typical or average number of days required in every task order?

Answer 4: The numbers of instructors and riggers required each month (task orders) varies wildly from 0 up to 60 man days for riggers, and 0 up to 40 man days for instructors. Generally though, there is usually 2 ‐4 riggers in the paraloft most days conducting maintenance. In addition, there are four riggers and four instructors that take part during our air weeks which occur 5 to 6 times per years.

Questions 5:

SECTION M, FACTOR 1: Technical Approach & Matrix; bullet (i) ‐ Paragraph states, “Technical approach shall provide information on the qualifications and experience of the personnel to be provided, and shall not include specific proposed personnel names or proposed resumes. Quotes that provide specific names and/or resumes will not be considered for award.

Background: Because of the recent California Assembly Bill 5, vendors are required by California Law to employ staff such as parachute training instructors and special operations riggers as W‐2 employees.

Prior to the passing of Assembly Bill 5 before 2019, parachute training instructors and riggers were typically employed as independent contractors mainly since that availability of these professionals that possess the required certifications and experience is extremely limited within the military parachute training industry.

Question: Since Section M; Factor 1 advises that proposals do not include specific names and/or resumes, how can the government distinguish and confirm that a vendor in fact possesses the personnel required to fulfill the contract and not proposing staff who belong to other vendors? Will the government allow vendors to include names or resumes to ensure the integrity of the proposed staff requirements?

Answer 5: Per Section L (page 94) of the solicitation, “The offeror must demonstrate that employees have all listed experience, certs and licenses at time of proposal submission and must provide proof of all experience, certs, licenses with their proposal.” Therefore, an amendment will be forthcoming to update Section M to reflect the requirement of experience and certifications.

Question 6:

PWS 9.1

‐ Would the government consider adding the following location as a potential place of performance

(capabilities statement attached) which is a sole‐use military parachute training facility?

o Area 33 Advance Training Center, Desert Center, CA

Answer 6: The locations listed in section 9.1 of the PWS are the only locations that EOD has agreements/contracts with to conduct air operations. Therefore, the services of the instructors and riggers listed in section 3.1 and 3.2 would not be required at the Desert Center location listed below. We do not anticipate these locations changing during this contract's POP. Additionally, the location is not within 80 miles of San Diego as required by the PWS so it would not be acceptable to conduct any of the 6 courses on this contract.

Question 7:

On Page 92, within the first paragraph, this statement appears :

"All personnel shall have a Secret clearance by contract start date”

Can you please clarify?

Answer 7: As no training will take place on a government facility, a secret clearance will not be required for individuals.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

The single award resulting from this solicitation for non-personal support services related to Local Air Operations Support services for EODGRU-1 will be a Firm Fixed-Price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract. It will be awarded as a competitive tradeoff source selection procurement under FAR Part 16 and consist of a one-year base period with four, one-year option periods to be exercised at the discretion of the Government. All option years will be considered in the award decision. This solicitation is issued as a Small Business Set-aside. Offerors shall provide up to 760 man-days to include up to four (4) Special Operation Parachute Rigger (SOPRs) per training evolution of qualified/certified support to EODTEU-1 air operations. Must be qualified to pack and maintain military parachutes systems to include, but not limited to the following: MT2XX main/reserve, RA-1, MC-6, T- 11R, cargo delivery and non-standard main/reserve. A man-day is defined for the purpose of this work statement as a 12 hour period. Qualifications and certifications are listed in paragraph 4.2 of the PWS. A Secret clearance will be required at time of time of proposal submission in accordance with the DD 254 Contract Security Classification Specification. Contractors shall have DBIDS Access if base access is required.

Proposals must be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist. Email below.

Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions in this solicitation for the format and content of the proposals;

proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

Proposals sent by email, unless specifically authorized in advance by the Contracting Officer, will not be accepted.

Offerors must comply with all Portal instructions for uploading attachments and inserting “CLIN dollar amounts” and “Bid Amount.” Proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

All questions related to the solicitation must be submitted via email to the contract specialist at angelina.pinahardin@navy.mil. All questions related to the solicitation must be submitted no later than 4:00 pm PST 15 May 2020. Questions submitted after this deadline may not be guaranteed a response.

The following page limitations are established:

Title Page Limit* Volume I – Technical Approach & Matrix 20 Pages Volume II – Past Performance 9 Pages (Information Form provided, plus two (2) additional pages per reference) Volume III – Price No limit

The Technical Approach & Matrix is limited to the maximum number of pages as defined in the table above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and matrix, in addition to any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the quote may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. In the event photo reduction is used for graphs and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. The cover sheet will not count towards the page limit. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, single-sided, 8 ½ “ x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12 point font). If both sides of a sheet of paper contain material, it will be counted as two (2) pages. Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Vendor submissions shall not include hyperlinks. *Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

The Price submission is not page limited; however, the Price submission is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described below in the section entitled Submission Content.

All pages shall be numbered. A table of contents identifying the major sections of the total proposal and showing location by page references shall be included. This table will not be charged against the total page count as discussed later in this solicitation. Also, an index that cross references the requirements of the solicitation by paragraph/section to the Offeror's response by page/paragraph/section shall be included. This cross-reference index will not be charged against the total page count, nor will it be subject to formal evaluation procedures.

The proposal shall not contain classified information. The company name of the Offeror shall appear at the top of each page. The words “Source Selection Information - See FAR 3.104” shall appear at the bottom of each page. The Offeror must state explicitly whether or not any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

If so, the Offeror should list, and provide its rationale, for any such exception. Any comments or exceptions to the specifications, terms and/or conditions must be addressed in this section and may form the basis for an Offeror to be considered ineligible for award. Alternate proposals are not authorized and will be rejected.

Each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that there are no discrepancies presented within the information contained in its offer.

Potential Offerors are hereby notified that in the event there are discrepancies within the information received by the Government, or in comparison to Government information provided in the solicitation, the Government reserves the right to apply its judgment to resolve such discrepancies during the evaluation of the proposals without conducting discussions.

Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are complete and clear in all respects without a need for additional explanation or information. Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or insubstantial statements that prevent or render difficult the concise evaluation of the proposal. The proposal must be sufficient and complete to demonstrate how the Offeror proposes to comply with the contract requirements. “Brochuremanship” is not desired; clarity and completeness are essential. Offerors are cautioned against re-stating the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements in its proposal, particularly with regard to technical requirements and must state how all of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as “the Offeror understands” and “the Offeror shall/can comply,” along with responses that paraphrase the RFP, are inadequate. The use of phrases such as “standard practices” (with a specific Government reference or industry reference) does not indicate that an Offeror understands the requirements and will likely result in a diminished evaluation rating (i.e. unacceptable).

Data, even though previously submitted, or presumed to be known (i.e., previous projects performed for the Government), must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal in order to ensure that it will be considered as part of the Offeror's proposal. Although the Government reserves the right to use data in its possession and from other sources, Offerors cannot assume other data will be considered. Offerors are hereby notified that the Government may contact references submitted by Offerors and may use information in Government files or from other sources to verify information provided in the Offeror's proposal.

Offers shall be presented in 3 volumes: Technical Capability Volume, Past Performance Volume, and Price Volume.

The Technical Capability Volume shall include 3 sections: Technical Approach; Certifications; and Quality Control Plan. The Past Performance Volume shall include no more than three (3) previous contracts. The Price Volume shall be presented in 3 sections: Prime Price Summary; Subcontractor Price (if applicable) and Additional Information.

Each Volume shall include an initial title page with the following information:

The item nomenclature and solicitation number of the request for proposal;

The full company name of the Offeror;

The address of the Offeror;

The Offeror's position regarding disclosure of proposed data in accordance with the provision entitled, "Restrictions on Disclosure and Use of Data in Proposals;" and Contractual Point of Contact, including title, telephone number, fax number, email address.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The technical submission shall clearly convince the government that they are able to provide qualified personnel who are technically capable of performing the work required with the expertise identified within the PWS by contract start date. The contractor is not required to provide a copy of the PWS; however, the response must clearly indicate the technical capability of the offeror to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS. Additionally, the technical approach shall provide a demonstration of the offeror's understanding of and familiarity with, the specific requirements of the PWS. All personnel shall have a Secret clearance by contract start date. The quote shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items”.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjectival rating is not allowed.

Section 1: Technical Approach

The Offeror shall provide a narrative explanation of its general understanding of the methodology and ability to perform all tasks listed in the PWS 3.1 through 3.8, including all tasks and subtasks. The technical approach should demonstrate that the Offeror can accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, timely, price effective manner with a minimum of risk to the Government. The narrative should provide a complete analysis of the performance requirements and explain the processes, best practices and other methods the Offeror will use to meet each requirement stated in the PWS. The technical approach is not to be a restatement of the information contained in the PWS.

The offeror must demonstrate that employees have all listed experience, certs and licenses at time of proposal submission and must provide proof of all experience, certs, licenses with their proposal.

Section 2: Certification Requirement

Safety is of the utmost concern to the government and the end user during each event due to the risks that are presented, especially during the military freefall HALO/HAHO portion of every training event. It is imperative that the instructors facilitating this course have the highest level of experience and the formal training qualifications required to ensure the risk to all is mitigated to an acceptable level. To ensure the government and the end user receive the safest and most comprehensive training support possible the following qualifications are mandatory:

EOD Air Operations Instructors: The contractor is required to have extensive experience and certifications as listed below. The contractor shall be required to maintain all said licenses and certifications for the complete duration of the contract period, at the discretion of the government:

a. United States Parachute Organization (USPA) member with current D license

b. Current USPA Accelerated Free-fall Instructor

c. Current Vertical Wind Tunnel Coach (Level 4 IAW International Body flight association)

d. 5+ years (EOD or SOF) Air Operations experience in support of static-line, freefall personnel and cargo delivery.

e. Air-to-air videographer

f. Air Operations Trainer Examiner or MFF Instructor.

g. Military Instructor or Equivalent

h. Military Freefall Jump Master

i. Drop Zone Safety Officer qualification

j. Must complete JQR’s and keep on file with

Special Operations Parachute Rigging Services: SOPRs must be familiar with all EODGRU-1 parachuting and ancillary equipment used during P3 Operations. SOPRs must be familiar with EOD airborne operation, policies and procedures. All rigger support provided will have the following qualifications/certifications and be in accordance with OPNAVINST 3501.225 (series):

a. FAA Senior and/or Master Parachute Rigger License

b. Received formal NET for equipment required to maintain from either the Original Equipment

Manufacturer (OEM), U.S. Army Aerial Delivery Field Services Division (ADFSD Fort Lee, or Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit (CNATTU) Norfolk, Learning Site for Fort Lee.

c. 5+ years (NSW/EOD) SOPR maintenance experience in support of static-line, freefall personnel and cargo delivery.

d. Complete command JQR’s, and provide copies to be maintained by EODTEU-1 Personnel.

e. Be designated in writing by the Commanding officer.

Military Canopy Course of Instruction: The contractor is required to have extensive experience and certifications as listed below. The contractor shall be required to maintain all said licenses and certifications for the complete

a. United States Parachute Organization (USPA) member with current D license and PRO rating.

b. Current USPA Accelerated Free-fall Instructor

c. 5+ years (EOD or SOF) Air Operations experience in support of static-line, freefall personnel and cargo delivery.

d. The ability to teach, demonstrate, debrief and mentor all aspects of Canopy Control for military free fall parachuting.

USPA Accelerated Freefall Instructor: The contractor is required to have extensive experience and certifications as listed below. The contractor shall be required to maintain all said licenses and certifications for the complete

a. USPA Advanced Freefall Instructor Examiner or Above

b. USPA Safety and Training Advisor or Above

USPA Coach: The contractor is required to have extensive experience and certifications as listed below. The contractor shall be required to maintain all said licenses and certifications for the complete duration of the contract period, at the discretion of the government:

a. USPA Coach Examiner or Above

International Bodyflight Association (IBA) Military VWT Coach: The contractor is required to have extensive experience and certifications as listed below. The contractor shall be required to maintain all said licenses and certifications for the complete duration of the contract period, at the discretion of the government:

a. IBA Trainer Level 4

FAA Senior Parachute Rigger Training Course: FAA Senior Rigger Instructors must be familiar with all EODGRU-1 parachuting and ancillary equipment used during P3 Operations. FAA Senior Rigger Instructors must be familiar with EOD airborne operation, policies and procedures. All rigger support provided will have the following qualifications/certifications and be in accordance with OPNAVINST 3501.225 (series):

a. FAA Master Parachute Rigger License

Manufacturer (OEM), U.S. Army Aerial Delivery Field Services Division (ADFSD Fort Lee, or Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit (CNATTU) Norfolk, Learning Site for Fort Lee.

c. 5+ years (NSW/EOD) SOPR maintenance experience in support of static-line, freefall personnel and cargo delivery.

d. Complete command JQR’s, and provide copies to be maintained by EODTEU-1 Personnel.

e. Be designated in writing by the Commanding officer.

EOD Cargo Rigging Course: EOD Cargo Rigger Instructors must be familiar with all EODGRU-1 parachuting and ancillary equipment used during P3 Operations. EOD Cargo Rigger Instructors must be familiar with EOD airborne operation, policies and procedures. All rigger support provided will have the following qualifications/certifications and be in accordance with OPNAVINST 3501.225 (series):

a. FAA Senior and/or Master Parachute Rigger License

Manufacturer (OEM), U.S. Army Aerial Delivery Field Services Division (ADFSD Fort Lee, or Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit (CNATTU) Norfolk, Learning Site for Fort Lee.

c. 5+ years (NSW/EOD) SOPR maintenance experience in support of static-line, freefall personnel and cargo delivery.

d. Have 5+ year’s experience rigging all cargo loads required for the course.

e. Must have been previous qualified JAI.

f. Complete command JQR’s, and provide copies to be maintained by EODTEU-1 Personnel.

g. Be designated in writing by the Commanding officer.

Section 3: Quality Control Plan

The Quality Control Plan (QCP) will describe contractor self-monitoring, performance measurement, and documented compliance of the PWS and associated Performance Standards requirements. QCP will address the following areas:

a. Self-monitoring methods;

b. Performance measurements metrics;

c. Documenting compliance with the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) and PWS; Methodology to be used for discrepancy resolution of any discrepancies, to include the ability to incorporate and address unplanned events and circumstances; and

d. Plan for ensuring prime contractor and subcontractor’s adherence to the OCI. If the offer fails to provide an acceptable OCI plan, the Offeror's proposal may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Volume II: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

In order to facilitate the Government’s evaluation of this factor, the quoter shall provide information on no more than three (3) previous contracts whose effort was relevant to the effort required by this solicitation; the contracts provided should have been performed within the last three (3) years. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet-to-be performed work and experience prior to the last three (3) years will not be considered.

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 to include but not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. This past performance information will be used for the evaluation of past performance. The following minimum information shall be provided within the contractor submitted references:

Contract Number/Task Order Number Contract Type Annual Contract/Task Order Cost Description of Work Valid Name, Phone Number and E-mail Address of Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's

Representative/Task Order Manager

In the description of work, quoters should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts in terms of scope to the requirements of the RFQ for purposes of relevancy.

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. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that past performance information (PPI) be collected (FAR Part 42) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 13.5). The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) process establishes procedures for the collection of PPI. CPARS generated PPI will be one of many tools used to communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials and contracting officers.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solictation’s requirements. The past performance evaluation consideres each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplyin services that meets the contract’s requirement. In accordance with FAR 15.205(a)(2), the currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency: The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is crticial to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency is considered contracts awarded within the last five years.

Relevance: The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror is capable of satisfying the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are four ratings of relevancy as shown in Table M-2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table M-2 Relevancy Rating

Table M-2 Relevancy Rating Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Note: In the case of a quoter without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Quoter shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

In addition, the Offeror shall identify any Government contract that has been terminated for Cause or Default within the past five years. For each terminated contract, identify (i) the contract number, (ii) the requiring agency, (iii) name and phone number of the contracting officer, and (iv) purpose of the contract. The Offeror shall describe the circumstances in the case of any cost overruns. The Offeror shall describe the circumstances in the case of any claims or requests for equitable adjustment and how they were resolved.

Volume III – PRICE

3.1 Price Proposal

Price Quotes will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-3 Award and documentation.

For the purpose of preparing a price quote, the Offeror shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one

(1) base year, four (4) one-year option periods and one (1) 6-month option extension. The Government will evaluate the price quote for the base year and each option period.

The vendor’s quoted price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. The evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

a. Price comparison with other Offerors

b. Comparison with independent Government cost estimates.

The Government may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of prices proposed. Vendors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request vendors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted quote.

Options 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).

For purposes of the evaluation, the IDIQ award offered shall be for the performance of work specified in SECTION B of the RFP with the date of award and anticipated commencement of performance to be 21 May 2020.

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. Options will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options.

If the prime and/or subcontractor(s) are subject to DCAA provisonal rates, the prime and/or its subcontractor(s) should provide the latest copy of its DCAA provisional rate letter as an attachment. If the prime and/or subcontractor(s) are subject to formal Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) with DCMA or other agency, the prime and/or subcontractor(s) should provide the latest copy of the FPRA as an attachment.

All price spreadsheets must be in MS Excel format and not in .pdf or read-only format. The use of macro commands is neither desired nor encouraged. Contractor price spreadsheets are to be included in one work file to alleviate the need to combine, add, or transfer data from different work files. Excel files shall include equations used for calculations.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD:

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Issuing a contract without discussions is authorized by FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements in the technical volume will not be considered for award; therefore, any exception to the Government’s technical requirements must be resolved prior to the solicitation closing date.

To be considered eligible for award, each Offeror must submit a single proposal that contains a complete and accurate response to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will accept only one offer. No multiple awards will be made. Any inconsistency, within the cost proposal or between the technical or cost proposals, should be fully explained, or it may be considered a discrepancy within the offer and a risk in the Offerors’ ability to perform, which may result in a rating of “unacceptable” in a factor. The proposal(s) shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in Section L entitled Instructions for Preparation of Proposals. Offers will be evaluated on each of the following evaluation factors:

Factor I – Technical Approach & Matrix Factor II - Past Performance Factor III – Price

Factor I - Technical will be evaluated based on 3 sub-factors.

1. Technical Approach & Matrix

2. Certification Requirements

3. Quality Control Plan

Factor I: Technical Approach & Matrix:

The vendor’s technical approach shall convince the government that the vendor is capable of fully providing the services identified in the PWS by the contract start date. The technical approach shall demonstrate an understanding of and the capability to meet all of the requirements of the PWS. The vendor is not required to provide a copy of the PWS; however, the response must clearly articulate the technical capability and demonstrate the vendor’s ability to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS by completing and submitting the attached matrix. The vendor’s response shall correspond directly with each subsequent area of the matrix.

i) Technical approach shall provide information on the qualifications and experience of the personnel to be provided, and shall not include specific proposed personnel names or proposed resumes. Quotes that provide specific names and/or resumes will not be considered for award. The offeror must demonstrate that employees have all listed experience, certs and licenses at time of proposal submission and must provide proof of all experience, certs, licenses with their proposal.

ii) Technical approach shall not regurgitate the PWS, but shall clearly articulate the vendor’s understanding of and familiarity with the specific task requirements. Quotes that regurgitate the PWS will not be considered for award.

Furthermore, the vendor shall identify its methods for identifying and resolving problems and its comprehension of potential issues included in the goals of the overall effort. The vendor should provide any other information the vendor considers relevant to its proposed approach. The vendor should describe any risks associated with the solicitation, including the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the vendor’s technical 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 vendor in the past.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjectival rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Good (G) 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 (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Unacceptable (U) 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.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

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

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

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

d. 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.

2. Factor 2: Past Performance

In order to facilitate the Government’s evaluation of this factor, the quoter shall provide information on no more than three (3) previous contracts whose effort was relevant to the effort required by this solicitation; the contracts provided should have been performed within the last three (3) years. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet-to-be performed work and experience prior to the last three (3) years will not be considered.

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 to include but not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. This past performance information will be used for the evaluation of past performance. The following minimum information shall be provided within the contractor submitted references:

Contract Number/Task Order Number Contract Type Annual Contract/Task Order Cost Description of Work Valid Name, Phone Number and E-mail Address of Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's

Representative/Task Order Manager

In the description of work, quoters should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts in terms of scope to the requirements of the RFQ for purposes of relevancy.

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. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that past performance information (PPI) be collected (FAR Part 42) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 13.5). The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) process establishes procedures for the collection of PPI. CPARS generated PPI will be one of many tools used to communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials and contracting officers.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solictation’s requirements. The past performance evaluation consideres each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplyin services that meets the contract’s requirement. In accordance with FAR 15.205(a)(2), the currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency: The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is crticial to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency is considered contracts awarded within the last five years.

Relevance: The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror is capable of satisfying the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are four ratings of relevancy as shown in Table M-2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table M-2 Relevancy Rating

Table M-2 Relevancy Rating

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Note: In the case of a quoter without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Quoter shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a web-based system used to input data on contractor performance. Once the data is input to the CPARS system, this data is then uploaded to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database and is made available for use in source selections.

These contractor performance assessment reports (CPARS) will be used as an aid in awarding contracts to contractors that consistently provide quality, on-time products and services that conform to contractual requirements. CPARS can be used to effectively communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials. During the source selection process, offerors are hereby notified that relevant past performance data derived from their CPARS (via PPIRS) could lead to a negative rating. The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance competence assessment.

3. Price Quote Evaluation Criteria

Although cost is less significant than the other factors, it should not be ignored. The degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of proposals in relation to Technical Capability and Past Performance.

Conversely, the significance of cost will decrease when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the government.

For the purpose of preparing a price quote, the quoter shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one

(1) base year with four (4) one-year option periods.