N00253-16-T-0144_0002.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 of this Amendment is to extend the close date to: 14 March 2016 at 10:00AM PST; Provide answ ers to Vendor Questions and to provide additional detail.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Mar-2016

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 N00253-16-T-0144

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Feb-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 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

04-Mar-2016

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

ATTN: LINDY CARLSON

MELINDA.CARLSON@NAVY.MIL

610 DOWELL ST

KEYPORT WA

N00253 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00253-16-T-0144

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:

VENDOR QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q1. Is there any additional information regarding the 2012 curricula available (describing what was presented, how it was received, etc.)?

A1. An outline of the program is provided below.

The original 2012 session included all senior leaders/Board of Directors members (approx. 25 participants). A general outline is below:

Kick-Off Session

Leadership Assessment Completion (Myers-Briggs, CPI Self-Assessment, LPI 360 Assessment)

Private Assessment Feedback/Coaching Session

Collective Vision/Overview of Results and Path Forward

Overall results were favorable, resulting in this procurement action.

Q2. Our team of instructors includes former military (flag and general) officers. Can you confirm the seniority

(rank) among the 180 students to be trained?

A2. Students will predominately consist of civilian employees in a supervisory or leadership capacity up to the

GS-15 (or equivalent) grade level.

Q3. Each of the six (6) increments is projected to last six weeks. Can you clarify if each six-week increment is to be "continuous" with a given class of 30 students (or will the NUWC require flexibility of the contractor to complete a "six week period of instruction" throughout "longer than a six week period of time?"

A3. Each session is estimated to take approximately 6 weeks; however flexibility may be required to allow additional time for completion of assessment tools, individual coaching sessions, etc. to be discussed and agreed upon.

Q4. The PWS 3.0 mentions assessment tools to be used such as the Kiersey Temperament Sorter/Myers-Briggs

Type indicator. The PWS 3.0 outlines that week’s (2) and (3) will be to "complete assessment tools." Please clarify if this means the application of specific tools, or the option of the contractor to develop other assessment tools it feels best meet the requirement to assess personality, cognitive type and temperament (is the contractor able to apply other assessment tools, other than the Myers-Briggs?).

A4. Weeks 2 and 3 of each session refer to the time when session attendees are completing the tools. Other tools may be discussed and agreed upon by NUWC.

Q5. How soon is the NUWC interested to begin classes? Para 5.0 requests copies of all session material 30 days before classes are to begin- what is the earliest date of this?

A5. The Leadership Assessment and Development Program is a Command priority and anticipates starting courses once appropriate marketing and coordination can be completed after the contract is in place.

Q6. Are there firmly set dates when subsequent increments of the six week classes are to be begin throughout the year? If so, what are those "start" dates for subsequent increments of the NUWC Leadership Development

Program?

A6. No, the period of performance will be effective from date of award through one year thereafter.

Q7. Para 9.0 mentions participation of off-site students. How many off-site students are envisioned? Which locations?

A7. At least 25 off-site students are anticipated in areas such as Hawaii, California, Nevada, etc.

Q8. In regards to the assessments – are you open to using assessments other than Myers-Briggs and Kiersey temperament Sorter? For Instance Everything DiSC Management or Work of Leaders which are highly effective, provide group reports and aligns with the Everything DiSC 363 Leader Assessment; and the Kolbe A Index, which determines an individual's unique method of operation, or actions you take as a result of your natural instincts (DiSC

Profile)

A8. Other tools may be discussed and agreed upon by NUWC.

Q9. There are 180 participants with approximately 30 per session – Do you consider each session a Group? Are there multiple Units with each group?

A9. Each session is a group and there are multiple work units within each group.

Q10. Please confirm that the private assessment review/coaching sessions with employees can be via telephone/Webinar?

A10. Coaching sessions for off-site employees will need to be conducted by phone. For on-site employees, coaching sessions may be completed via phone if agreed upon by NUWC (may require some flexibility based on participant needs).

Q11. Group review of Results - are you looking for a Group review of all of the Assessment results alone, or would you like to have a leadership training component to develop specific skills where gaps are identified?

A11. Group reviews will focus on the data in addition to identifying strengths and gaps in order to develop action plans by work unit to sustain strengths and mitigate gaps.

Q12. Do you have preference of how many days a “group” can be in training for the review of results and training?

A12. The group review will be scheduled for four hours; however may be broken down by work unit.

Q13. 3.0 Scope of Work: May some of the monthly status meetings be accomplished via Skype or VTC?

A13. VTC and/or conference calls will be considered for monthly status meetings.

Q14. 3.0 Scope of Work: Task and Schedule: It appears that a contractor could meet the contract requirements by being onsite at NUWC Keyport for one day during week one, and onsite some or all workdays of weeks 4, 5 and

6 for each session. Does that match the government's expectations? If not, please state expectations.

A14. Yes

Q15. 52.212-2 - Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability: 'The service information shall be submitted as commercial services literature.' Please clarify or define what is meant by service information and commercial services literature.

A15. Please review revised 52.212-2.

Q16. 52.212-2 - Factor 2 - Past Performance: 1. “The contracts identified must have been underway for at least six (6) or longer..."

A16. Six (6) months or longer

Q17. Must the contracts have been underway for six months or longer?

A17. Yes

Q18. Are there a maximum number of assessments that may be included in the proposal?

A18. No

Q19. If more than the Kiersey Temperament Sorter/MBTI and 360 assessment are included in the winning proposal, would more than one hour per individual be allowed for coaching sessions?

A19. A minimum of a one-hour coaching session is required. Additional time will be considered.

Q20. May sample reports be provided as attachments (not included in technical acceptability page limit)?

A20. Yes, sample reports can be provided and will not be considered as part of the technical acceptability page limit.

Q21. Would the cost of assessments be listed as a separate line item under item No. 0002? If not, where should it be listed?

A21. No. Cost of assessments to be included in CLIN 0001 pricing.

Q22. Should travel costs be included as part of item no. 0001? If not, where should they be included?

A22. Yes

Q23. Is there an incumbent?

A23. Ms. Wanda Thompson Allyn, WA 98524

Q24. In regards to Solicitation Number: N00253-16-T-0144, for the past performance section will you consider past performance for individual members of the team or does it have to be company specific past performance?

A24. Past Performance must be company specific..

Q25. "For the assessment tool provided you list both the Kiersey Temperament Sorter and the Meyers-Briggs

Type Indicator, I just wanted to clarify, it is the Kiersey or the Myers-Briggs test, not both, correct?"

A25. It is the Kiersey or the Myers-Briggs test, not both.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

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

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

Order of Importance:

Factor 1 Technical Acceptability: The offeror must be technically acceptable before further consideration will be given. Factor 2 Past Performance is significantly more important than Factor 3 Price.

Although Factor 3 - Price is important, it is NOT the most important evaluation factor. Offers will be evaluated and award will be based upon the best value to the Government. In making this determination, the Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between Factors 2 and 3. The closer Offerors' Past

Performance ratings are to one another, the greater the importance of Price in making the award determination.

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, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:

Page limitations identified will be treated as maximums. Proposal information exceeding the stated page limitation for the specific factor will not be considered. Pages exceeding the page count shall be removed from the end of the section of the proposal that exceeds the page count limit and will not be evaluated. Graphs, charts, and tables are included in the page count.

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability: (5 pages)

The offer must be determined to be technically acceptable before further consideration will be given. Offeror’s

Technical Proposals shall not exceed five (5) pages. If more than five (5) pages are submitted and the Technical

Proposal is clearly labeled as “Technical Proposal” or similar at the top of each page, the first five (5) pages of said proposal will be reviewed and considered. If the Technical Proposal is not so labeled, only the first five (5) pages of the package of material submitted (exclusive of any Sample Reports and Past Performance Worksheets therein) will be reviewed and considered.

The below information is not optional.

Service Information: To determine technical acceptability the offeror must provide all necessary information for a comprehensive technical evaluation. The service information shall be submitted as commercial services literature, i.e. existing commercial brochures, existing commercial literature, which must provide enough information to demonstrate that the proposed services meet the requirements in the performance work statement (PWS), the request for quote (RFQ), and any subsequent amendments.

Product Information: Offerors must ensure that any product requirements called out for in the PWS are identified by manufacturer name and have the commercial literature to demonstrate the capabilities. In the technical proposal there must be a determination written by the offeror that the supplied material meets or exceeds the Government’s performance requirements as set forth in the PWS, RFP, and any subsequent amendments.

Compliance/Exceptions: If services literature or product literature does not clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the PWS, the offeror must submit a Compliance/Exception document that clearly explains how the proposed services/product meets the PWS requirements. On a separate sheet of paper state: whether the offer complies or does not comply with the specifications; identify any “exceptions” to the specifications; and how the offered supplies/services differ from the applicable specification paragraph above. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in rejection of the offer.

Factor 2 – Past Performance: (no page limit)

Offerors are requested to submit the following information:

1. A list of five (5) relevant contracts for the offeror, that represent similar size, scope, and technical complexity to the efforts described herein. The contracts identified must have been underway for at least six (6) months or longer; and if completed, must have been completed within the past three (3) years. Include the below information about each contract. This information may be provided using Attachment 2, Past Performance

Questionnaire.

a. Contract Number and Title

b. Prime or Subcontractor

c. Short description of the requirement

d. If prime contractor, description of major subcontracts

e. Description of why contract is considered relevant. If performed as a subcontractor, describe the portion of work performed and its relevancy.

f. Name of the contracting agency/activity

g. Type of contract (e.g. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Blanket Purchase Agreement

(BPA), Cost Reimbursable or Firm Fixed Price, Incentive Fee, etc.)

h. Period of Performance

i. Potential Maximum Contract Value at time of award, including all options. If performing as a subcontractor, this value shall reflect the maximum value to be awarded to the subcontractor entity.

j. Final contract value. This value shall reflect work and options actually awarded and funded. If performing as a subcontractor, this value shall reflect the value awarded and funded to the subcontractor entity.

k. Program Manager and Contracting Officer name, telephone and facsimile number, and email address. Ensure accessible POC information is provided.

2. Past Performance references may include Federal, state, and local government contracts, private sector contracts, and performance on a subcontractor basis.

3. If the offeror has not performed similar projects, the offeror is requested to discuss other related projects that demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to perform work of similar size, scope, and technical complexity. This may include data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the information set forth above, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

4. The offeror is requested to include in its solicitation response written consent of its proposed major subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor’s past performance assessment(s) with the offeror.

Factor 3 – Price: Offerors are required to submit prices for all line items. Failure to submit a price for any line item may result in the offer being rejected as unacceptable.

EVALUATION INFORMATION:

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability:

Offers must meet or exceed the specifications in the solicitation and any subsequent amendments. The offer must be determined to be technically acceptable before further consideration will be given. The services and product information as specified in the proposal submittal requirements will be evaluated to determine if the proposed services/product(s) meets or exceeds the technical requirements as specified in the solicitation document.

Technical will be assessed according to the following evaluation ratings and criteria format provided in the below

Rating Table.

Technical Evaluation Rating Table

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 2 - Past Performance will be evaluated as follows:

1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s, past performance over the past three (3) years for relevance, which is considered to be whether the past performance cited is similar to the size, scope, and technical complexity of this effort. It is the responsibility of the offeror to relate past performance to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the

Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

Offerors are advised that the Government may consider information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror, including Federal, State and local Government agencies, better business bureaus, published media and electronic databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Additionally, the personal experience and evaluator knowledge of offeror performance may be utilized.

For those offerors who are determined by the Government to have no relevant past performance information, or for whom information on past performance is not available, a neutral past performance rating will be given.

Although the offeror will neither be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably on past performance, the Government will consider the potential impact to successful performance of the requirements of the contract, which may result from the contractor's lack of relevant past performance, in its overall risk assessment analysis.

2. In evaluating the Past Performance, the Government will consider:

Quality of Product or Service. The degree to which the products or services provided met the design, development, and testing requirements of this solicitation.

Delivery/Completion Schedule. The extent to which the offeror satisfied customer requirements for contract completion in accordance with agreed upon schedule.

Cost Control. The extent to which the offeror provided contract products or services at or below its initially proposed costs while maintaining customer desired level of quality and delivery, and limiting direct and indirect cost growth.

Factor 2 Past Performance Adjectival Ratings: The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the evaluation of Factor 2:

There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this procurement.

Relevancy: In conducting an assessment of relevancy, each contract/task order submitted, each will be assigned one of the ratings below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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 much of the 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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts/task orders.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

DEFINITIONS:

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Factor 3 - Price:

Price: Offerors are required to submit prices for all line items. Failure to submit a price for any line item may result in the offer being rejected as unacceptable. The prices will be compared to the Government Estimate, other offers received and/or other independent price and cost information.

Best Value & Trade-Off Analysis

Upon completion of the review of all technical, past performance, and price information, the Contracting Officer will select the offer, in conformance with the solicitation, which is considered most advantageous to the

Government. In determining best value to the Government, an analysis of the relative benefits of technical understanding, past performance, and price will be performed, if necessary. In determining the best value to the government, a trade-off analysis of the relative benefits of price and past performance will be performed, if necessary. Inherent in the trade-off analysis process is the assessment of risk, and its impact on contract performance.

Irrespective of assigned past performance ratings, if the Contracting Officer's best value analysis, based on the integration of the impact assessment and price evaluation results, concludes that award to the higher evaluated price superior Offeror is not in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award to a lower rated, lower evaluated price Offeror.

No award will be made at other than a fair and reasonable price.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)