N00421-16-R-0089-0003.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 correct the follow ing:

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jun-2017

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 N00421-16-R-0089

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-May-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Jun-2017

CODE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD (PAX)

CODE 2.5.1.5

22473 MILLSTONE ROAD

BLDG 505

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

N00421 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00421-16-R-0089

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Jun-2017 01:00 PM to 21-Jun-2017 10:00 AM.

The following have been modified:

POINTS OF CONTACT

AMENDMENT 0003

The purpose of this amendment is to make the revisions to the solicitation as outlined below:

Section M

- Section M, Part B, Paragraph 2.0: The “Aircraft Systems/Subsystems Integration” scope example in the table is hereby removed.

If an Offeror has already submitted a proposal or has submitted a proposal to the USPS or to a commercial carrier for delivery, they may revise the Past Performance information. If a revision is made, the Offeror shall deliver a complete revised Volume 2 (Past Performance) along with an acknowledgement of Amendment 0003. Delivery of the revised volume and acknowledgement may be hand delivered to the address indicated within the solicitation, Section L, part A, paragraph 4.0 or sent via e-mail to jeffery.t.smith6@navy.mil AND melinda.stann@navy.mil.

The new volume and acknowledgement must be received prior to the closing date and time of this solicitation.

If no change is made to the Past Performance Volume, the Offeror shall submit only the Amendment 0003 acknowledgement using the same delivery methods outlined in the paragraph above.

No other proposal Volumes or documents may be submitted electronically.

The closing date and time for solicitation N00421-16-R-0089 is changed to 21 June 2017 10:00 a.m. EST.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

AMENDMENT 0002

This purpose of this amendment is to make revisions to the solicitation as outlined below.

Section B

- Section B is revised to incorporate:

“Estimated Order Pricing

Attachment P8 Fully Burdened Labor Rates will be incorporated in the contract as Attachment 6 and the

Government will utilize the average proposed rates for purposes of developing the Independent Government

Cost Estimates (IGCE) and establishing a labor cost ceiling for each task order. These rates are estimates and invoicing will be based on actual costs incurred.”

Section L.

- Section L, Part A, paragraph 4.0 is revised to read:

“Offerors shall submit proposals in any one of the following manners:

mailto:melinda.stann@navy.mil

1) Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address below, attention: Melinda Stann, PCO (301-757-

0008) and/or Jeffrey Smith, Contract Specialist (301-757-1996).

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT CONTRACTS DIVISION

ATTN: JEFFREY SMITH; CODE: 2.5.1.5.6

22473 MILLSTONE ROAD, BLDG 505

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

2) Submit proposals via commercial delivery carrier (FedEx, UPS, etc.) using the address above.

3) Submit proposals via the United States Postal Service (USPS) using the address below:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT CONTRACTS DIVISION

ATTN: JEFFREY SMITH; CODE: 2.5.1.5.6

21983 BUNDY ROAD BLDG 441

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670-1127

All packages should be marked with the Solicitation Number: N00421-16-R-0036

Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.”

AMENDMENT 0001

This purpose of this amendment is to make revisions to the solicitation as outlined below. All questions received by industry have been addressed.

SF33

- Block 9 - The closing date and time is changed to 16 June 1:00 p.m. EST.

Section C

- Paragraph 3.1 is revised to remove the last sentence in the first paragraph with reference to the contractor facility location.

- Paragraph 4.4 is revised to delete the last sentence “The NAVAIR NMCI Clause, 5252.237-9503, will be added by 2.0 to Section H of the solicitation and contract.”

- Paragraph 4.5.1 is revised to read “Capabilities Development Document (CDD).”

- Paragraph 7.1 is revised to add “…NMCI computer as necessary…”

- Paragraph 11.7 is revised to change the BLS SOC from 15-1252 to BLS SOC 15-1130 for the Software

Engineer, Journey labor category.

- Paragraph 11.8 is revised to change the BLS SOC from 15-1253 to BLS SOC 15-1121 for the Systems

Specialist, Senior labor category.

- Paragraph 11.9 is revised to read “At least ten (10) years of recent and relevant experience in an engineering or operations analysis position…” for the Operations Research Analyst, Senior labor category.

- Paragraph 11.10 is revised to read “At least three (3) years of recent and relevant experience in an engineering or operations analysis position…” for the Operations Research Analyst, Journey Level labor category.

- Paragraph 11.11 is revised to add BLS SOC 13-1151 to the Engineering Training Specialist labor category.

- Paragraph 11.14 and 11.15 are revised to change the BLS SOC from 13-1111 to BLS SOC 11-3021 for the

Systems Analyst, Senior and the Systems Analyst Journey labor categories.

Section L

- Part A, paragraph 2.0 is revised to read “…Foldout pages shall only be utilized for drawings, charts, tables, graphs, and spreadsheets. When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs, charts, tables, and spreadsheets shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

There is no page limit for foldout pages.”

- Part A, paragraph 3.0, section 2.0 of the table is revised to include the language “not including Attachment P4 and P5” and is revised to include an Annex 1.

- Part B, paragraph 1.1.3 is revised to read “Offerors shall present…”

- Part B, paragraph 1.1.4 is revised to show the anticipated transition period is approximately 90 days.

- Part B, paragraph 1.3.2.1 is revised to include the following: “NOTE: During performance, the contractor shall be compliant with the terms of NAVAIR Clause 5252.237-9501 Addition or Substitution of Key Personnel.”

- Part B, paragraph 1.3.2.2 will be revised to change the reference to “Volume 4” to “Volume 3”.

- Part B, the third paragraph under 2.1 is revised to add: “Additionally, the Offeror shall state whether the work under the Past Performance was provided as a Prime, Subcontractor, or Team Member. Due to the printing limitations in the Attachment P4 form, the Offeror may utilize Annex 1 under Volume 2 to include an exact copy of the full text from the “Contract Effort Description” block of Attachment P4.”

- Part B, the second paragraph under 3.3 is revised to change the reference from Attachment 6 to Attachment P8.

- Part B, paragraph 3.3(c) is changed to read “…For contingent hires, the Offeror shall provide letters of intent outlining salary information for contingent hire employees…”

Section M

- Section M, Part B, paragraph 5.0 is renumbered as 4.0.

Attachments

- Attachment P6 is revised to represent contract Year I and is replaced in its entirety.

Note – In accordance with Section L, Part A, paragraph 1.0 additional questions may not be accepted.

POINTS OF CONTACT

CONTRACT SPECIALIST: Jeffrey Smith

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 301-757-1996

EMAIL ADDRESS: jeffrey.t.smith6@navy.mil

CONTRACTING OFFICER: Melinda Stann

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 301-757-0008

EMAIL ADDRESS: melinda.stann@navy.mil

CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE:

TO BE DETERMINED AT CONTRACT AWARD

SUMMARY

(1) This acquisition is a Small Business Set-Aside that will result in the placement of a Single Award Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. This IDIQ contract vehicle will permit specific term task orders to be issued, based on the general tasking outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW).

(2) NAVAIR clause 5252.211-9503 LEVEL OF EFFORT (COST REIMBURSEMENT)(NAVAIR)(DEC 2012) will be included in all LOE Task Orders.

(3) The NAICS for this procurement is 541330.

(4) The Product Service Code (PSC) for this procurement is R425.

(5) The resulting Single Award IDIQ contract will have an ordering period of five (5) years.

(6) This contract will have cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) and cost reimbursement (non-fee bearing) line items.

(7) Task Orders issued from this contract award will reflect CLINs by funding type.

(8) The Government aniticipates issuing twelve (12) Task Orders at the time of award.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (07FEB2017)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except minor clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price or cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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 mailto:jeffrey.t.smith6@navy.mil mailto:melinda.stann@navy proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

For all the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.

Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk

Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown

Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors (and any subfactors), listed below.

3.1 TECHNICAL (Factor)

Subfactors:

(a) Management Plan

(b) Understanding of the Work

(c) Workforce

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor)

3.3 PRICE/COST (Factor)

The evaluation factors, in descending order of importance, are: 1) Technical, 2) Past Performance and 3) Price/Cost.

Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price/Cost.

Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Offeror’s Technical and Past Performance proposals.

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality supply or service that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s Technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the Price/Cost proposal, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL (Factor)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management plan based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposed management plan to determine the Offeror understands the contract requirements, the soundness of the approach to meeting those requirements, the ability to plan, manage, staff, and execute the contract, and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

Understanding of the Work: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the responses for clarity, completeness and the extent to which the proposed approach will ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the Statement of Work (SOW) and the Offeror’s capability to meet contracts requirements based upon the information provided in response to the instructions provided in Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Sample Task responses to determine if the proposed approach to each sample task meets the sample task requirements based upon the information provided in response to the instructions in Section L.

Workforce: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s workforce based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel and the supporting information to determine how well the Offeror is suited to perform the tasks under the SOW. In addition, Key

Personnel proposed to be utilized in the performance of this effort, whose labor qualifications exceed the minimum requirements in such areas as education, experience, and security clearance levels, will be considered strengths.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor)

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the

Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Aspects used by the Government to determine relevancy for this evaluation: are outlined in Part C Paragraph 3.0.

Scope/Complexity/Magnitude Description of Work

Scope examples:

Technical Reviews Support the NAVAIR technical review process to outline the process and assign responsibilities for the planning and conduct of Systems

Engineering Technical Reviews (SETRs) of NAVAIR programs in accordance with NAVAIRINST 4355.19 (NAVAIR Instruction – SETR

Process). The Contractor shall research, analyze, collect and develop presentations to support the technical review process for the air platforms, weapon systems and related subsystems they will be supporting.

Requirements Management Requirements at the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) /

Capabilities Development Document (CDD) / Key Performance

Parameter (KPP) level. It also includes the performance specification, functional baseline requirements, allocated baseline requirements, preliminary product baseline requirements and the product baseline requirements. Software requirement specifications and software interface documents are also included. Change management processes are included in requirements management to include specification change notices and deviations. The Contractor shall support the requirements management process by researching, analyzing, collecting and developing presentations to support the development of the technical requirements for the air platforms, weapon systems and related subsystems they will be supporting.

Risk Management Support Support the risk management process in accordance with NAVAIRINST

5000.21B (Naval SYSCOM Risk Management Policy) and the latest applicable PEO guidance memo, that will be implemented to support issue, risk and opportunity identification; documentation in terms of root causes, current effects for issues and future affects for risks and opportunities; and analysis including likelihood (for risks and opportunities), severity of impact, prioritization according to urgency and required visibility (tier level) through researching, analyzing, collecting and developing presentations to support the risk management process for the applicable air platforms, weapons systems and subsystems they are assigned to support. The process will support the development and execution of issue handling plans via analysis of alternative solutions and cost effective strategies to successfully reduce the impact of an existing problem. The process will include the periodic review of risks, issues and opportunities as directed by the Government to improve the ability to make optimal technical, schedule and cost trade-off decisions.

System Engineering

Development and

Implementation Center

(SEDIC)

Study, analyze and develop systems engineering policies and practices that apply for all Navy programs across the entire life cycle of the program, based on current processes and practices during the transition, in support of the following:

a) Provide systems engineering expertise to enhance systems engineering processes to meet the needs of emerging programs and the needs of existing programs.

b) Develop and document processes and methods to improve system development efficiency.

c) Maintain, modify and enhance the systems engineering policy documents, processes, procedures, methods, systems engineering web site and system engineering tools (e.g., SETR Manager).

Provide teams, that when deployed to programs, are capable of assisting with, conducting, maintaining and communicating all the systems engineering processes and tools to accelerate program execution. The teams will be constructed based on the program and the life cycle phase the program is currently executing.

Analyze developments in Model Based System Engineering. Provide systems engineering analysis to ensure systems engineering processes, methods and tools can transition to the Model Centric Engineering methodology per the Systems Engineering Transformation.

Maintain, enhance and expand the functionality of the Integrated

Systems Engineering Environment.

Systems Engineering Policies, Processes, Training and

Education

Interface across NAVAIR competencies, programs and sites; with other

Navy Systems Commands, Navy Post Graduate School, Navy secretariat and OPNAV organizations; and with other military Services and OSD staff to review, analyze, comment and develop recommended changes to

NAVAIR, DoN and DoD policies, procedures, practices and guidance related to Systems Engineering. Support NAVAIR PMAs and

IPTs/EDTs in understanding and implementing core systems engineering policies, processes, training, education and guidance.

Develop, review and deliver training plans related to systems engineering. Examples of such plans include, but are not limited to:

techniques and tools for identifying and ensuring traceability of system requirements; developing architectures; managing system requirements data; preparing systems engineering plans and system design specifications; managing program risks, engineering change control and configuration management; conducting Systems Engineering Technical

Reviews and similar core systems engineering processes.

Develop, review and deliver applicable training and educational materials and courses. Training material shall not be identified as company proprietary. Provide instructors and/or facilitators for the training courses and conduct training for government civilian personnel at NAVAIR activity sites.

Complexity examples:

Simultaneous operations Simultaneous operations at various sites

Support for multiple customers Support services for multiple customers simultaneously

Magnitude:

Dollar value Contract total value greater than $30M, contract term of greater than 3 years.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost;

4) managing the contracted effort; and 5) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE/COST (Factor)

Cost Reimbursement CLINs:

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable Offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract. In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach) with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all

Offerors. The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The Government may evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

As part of its evaluation, be advised that the Government will be identifying all instances, during each year of the ordering period, whereby proposed "Fully Burdened Annualized Labor Rates" exceed the established hourly tripwire. A "Fully Burdened Annualized Labor Rate" for the prime Contractor is calculated by taking the prime

Contractor's fully burdened labor rate per hour (inclusive of fee), and multiplying that figure by 1,920 hours. The fully burdened labor cost for any proposed subcontractor labor will be calculated in a similar manner and will also be inclusive of all pass-through costs being applied by the prime.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-

1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

If this is a set-aside competition, the contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting,” 52.219-27 “Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Set Aside,” 52.219-29

“Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business

Concerns,” 52.219-30 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business

Concerns,” or 52.219-3 “Notice of Total HUBZone Set Aside or Sole Source Award,” as applicable, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachments (P6 ) and (P7), and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

4.0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated price/cost will also include the six (6) month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated price/cost of this six (6) month period will be calculated by dividing the final proposed final contract year by twelve (12) to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six (6) to establish the estimated cost for the six (6) month option to extend services.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

The table below provides the risk rating descriptions:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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.

3.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent 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 Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the

Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

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

15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR

15.001)

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.

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 or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)