19_R_0014_Amendment_0003.docx

N0042119R0014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-Oct-2019 02:00 PM to 29-Oct-2019 02:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

Q&A Q1. Attachment L-1, Tab PPD-X: Are Offerors allowed to change the page layout orientation to landscape and print all columns on one page to allow for ease of evaluation?

A - Yes that is acceptable.

Q2. Section L, Para. 2.0, Volume 2: Corporate Experience, Page 86 AND Section M, Part B, 1.0 Corporate Experience, Page 92: Functional Area A, Design Interface/Maintenance Planning lists “Related SOW Paragraphs” as 3.3.1.1-3.3.3.18. Section C, Page 15, lists 3.3.1 as “Level of Repair Analysis (LORA).” Does the Government want Offerors to include both LORA and Design Interface/Maintenance Planning in the response?

A – Each offeror should include all corporate experience relevant to the functional area they are proposing to. If the offeror has corporate experience for both LORA and Design Interface/Maintenance Planning then please include it in your response.

Q3. Section L, Para. 3.0, Volume 3: Past Performance, Page 87: Items f., Award Price; g., Total Labor-Hours on Effort; and i., Contract Deliverables, are not listed on the Attachment L-1, PPD-X tab. Would the Government clarify where Offerors should include this information?

A – Attachment L-1 PPD-X Tab has been updated to include these items.

Q4. Section L, Part A, 3.0, Page 83: For the Corporate experience volume does the 20 page limit include both the L-1 attachment and the written narrative? Additionally, please confirm that the narrative write-up does not need to be within the Attachment L-1 spreadsheet.

A - The 20 page limit only includes the written narrative. It does not include the L-1 attachment and it should be separate from the L-1 spreadsheet.

Q5. Section L, Part B, 2.0 Volume 2: Corporate Experience, Page 86: Section L states: “If the Offeror proposes to multiple Functional Areas, a separate Volume 2 and Volume 3 must be submitted for each area.” Is the 20-page limit for each functional area (20 pages for each volume 2 and 3) or a total of 20 pages for all Volumes 2 and 20 pages for all volumes 3? Further, would the Government confirm that a separate set of binders needs to be submitted for each Functional Area, resulting in a total of 72 binders should all six Functional Areas be addressed? (Volume 2, 3 and Annex A for each Functional Area X 6 Functional Areas X 4 Copies as required by RFP = 72 binders) A – Each functional area has a 20 page limit for each volume 2 and 3. Yes each functional area proposed needs to have a separate set of binders in accordance with the instructions in Section L.

Q6. Attachment L1: In attachment L1 should columns K and L (on the example tab) be added to the ES-1 tab and should they read Volume 2 and 3 respectively (instead of 3 and 4)?

A – These columns have been removed from the example tab.

Q7. Solicitation, Page 1: Please confirm the due date for the solicitation as this field is blank on the RFP.

A – The proposal due date is 29 October 2019 at 2:00 pm EST.

Q8. Section C, Para. 10.6, Professional Employee Experience and Education Level Definitions, Page 37: Section C reflects a BA/BS degree is required for Junior and Journeyman labor categories, and a MA/MS degree is required for Senior categories. In addition, paragraph 10.5 indicates that some labor categories use technical/vocational training as a substitute for a college degree. However, none of the labor categories list technical training as a substitute for education, and the “example” table on page 37 does not include substitution provisions. Will requirement owners specify degree substitution for each of the labor categories at the task order level?

A – Labor categories and education substitutions will be specified in each task order SOW.

Q9. In reviewing the RFP, we did not see Cost in the proposal content. Will that be a submission requirement at a later stage in the process?

A – Cost will be evaluated at the task order level only.

Q10. Section 2.0 of the RFP_19-R-0014_MAC states “If the Offeror proposes to multiple Functional Areas, a separate Volume 2 and Volume 3 must be submitted for each area.” Can the government confirm that labeling the separate functional area a-f volumes as “Volume 1a” / “Volume 2a” through “Volume 1f” / “Volume 2f” would be acceptable? If this would not be acceptable, can the government clarify how they would like these separate volumes to be labeled in order to remain compliant with the requirement from section 3.0 of the same document stating “The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction”?

A – Labeling the separate functional area volumes as “1a - 1f” is acceptable.

Q11. Section 2.0 of the RFP_19-R-0014_MAC states “If the Offeror proposes to multiple Functional Areas, a separate Volume 2 and Volume 3 must be submitted for each area.” Can the government confirm that each individual volume 1 and 2 for each functional area has a 20-page limit?

A – Each individual functional area proposed to has a 20 page limit for both volume 1 and volume 2.

Q12. Section 3.0 of the RFP_19-R-0014_MAC states tabs and dividers must be used for each volume. Can the government confirm that tabs and dividers are excluded from the page limitations?

A – Tabs and dividers are excluded from the page limits.

Q13. Volume 2 (Corporate Experience) and Volume 3 (Past Performance) – Part B of the RFP does not indicate a minimum number of relevant experience examples required. Can you confirm that only one (1) relevant experience example is required for each volume?

A – A minimum of one (1) relevant experience event is required. There is no maximum.

Q14. Could you provide the number of eventual awards planned on this MAC?

A – The actual number of planned task order awards is estimated to be a minimum of 13 task orders. This is just an approximation and will change based on customer requirements.

Q15. Section 4.0 of Part A of Section L indicates “The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP” however a date was not included in Block 9. Is the due date and time October 22nd, 2019 at 2pm EST, which is listed on the FBO page?

Q16. Are eventual awardees of this MAC restricted from adding additional teammates (beyond those listed in their response) to eventual task order responses that are solicited via the use of this MAC when appropriate?

A - No

Q17. Are sub-contractors restricted from responding in multiple Prime contractors responses to this MAC?

A – No Q18. Can you share further contact information for the awardee ' Team Logistics Small Business (TLOG) Joint Venture'?

A – No additional information is available Q19. If a contractor has a current Secret level facility clearance, will the Government consider sponsoring for a TS facility clearance?

A – The Government will not sponsor a Top Secret facility clearance. A separate DD254 will be used for each task order. At this time it is anticipated that only one task order will require a Top Secret facility clearance.

Q20. Reference 2.0 VOLUME 2: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE. It speaks to the functional areas that we propose to using the table below. However, it leaves out the functions listed under SOW paragraphs 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10, 3.3.11, 3.3.12, 3.3.15, 3.3.16, 3.3.17, 3.3.19, 3.3.21, 4.0 and 4.4. Please assign all these numbered SOW paragraphs to a functional area A through F. That way we can see clearly which functional areas we can qualify for with our past performance / experience.

A –Not all sections of the SOW will be used as functional areas for evaluation. Only the functional areas identified in Sections L and M will be used for evaluation purposes.

Q21. The SF-33 is labeled “Draft” and does not list a due date and time. The RFP states the due date as 10/22/19, but does not provide a specific time. Will there be a final SF-33 issued, and what time is the proposal due on 10/22/19?

A – This has been corrected and updated. The due date for proposals is 29 October 2019 by 2:00 pm EST.

Q22. 2.0 Volume 2 Describes Functional Area A, Design Interface/Maintenance Planning, as encompassing SOW 3.3.1.1 – 3.3.3.18. This would include LORA (3.3.1). Please confirm.

A – Sections L and M have been revised to change the LORA tasks as a separate Functional Area.

Q23. Do you have an anticipated date of the first Task Order to be issued on this contract?

A – It is anticipated the first task order will be competed in January 2020.

Q24. The solicitation has Clause 252.216-7006 on page 71 of 96 in the solicitation; the clause states “individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule”; Also on page 60 of 96 (E) (iv) the “contractor should explain any deviations from the Schedule of the contract” Will pricing schedule be required for this opportunity prior to any Task Order being requested and if so when?

A - No cost or pricing information will be evaluated at this time or prior to a task order request. Cost/Price will be evaluated for each individual task order.

Q25. Please define BLS SOC Code.

A – Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Q26: In the DD254 included with the solicitation in FBO, block 2.c. references a different solicitation number than the instant RFP. Will this DD254 be the applicable document stating security requirements for the basic MAC contract?

A – This DD254 (Section J) has been changed to “Sample/For Bidding Purposes Only”. Each task order will include a DD254 that specifies the applicable security requirements.

Q27: Must offerors possess a Facility Clearance at the referenced level (TS) at the time of proposal submission to be considered for award of the basic MAC contract?

A – No. It is anticipated that only one task order will require a Top Secret Facility Clearance.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

L – [ 1 ] CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SERVICES)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can comply with, or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may result in assessing weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor clearly may be considered a deficiency. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

Throughout these instructions, “Offeror” is defined as the prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF)-33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation when the prime contractor consists of more than one legal entity that form a single legal entity. “Team Members” are the entities that make up a Joint Venture. When either term “contractor name” or the term “entity” is used, they refer to the prime and JV team members. Throughout these instructions, a “key subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% (anticipated) of the total contract effort.

This solicitation will result in multiple-award IDIQ contracts issued for the same or similar services. Price and cost as an evaluation factor is excluded from the MAC awards. Cost and price will be evaluated only at the task order level.

This acquisition is a small business set-aside. At the task order level, the prime will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-14 (Deviation 2019-O0003). Cost of contract incurred for personnel includes direct labor cost, overhead that has only direct labor as its base, and the small business’s General and Administrative (G&A) rate multiplied by the labor cost.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. 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 and tables 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. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The Offeror will provide paper copies in accordance with table below plus one complete electronic copy of the proposal as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 programs and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the original proposal and required copies shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date and time stated in this solicitation. Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit. Any pages submitted exceeding the page limit shall be disregarded and NOT evaluated.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions. Page limitations for Annexes, if any, are specified below. The authorized Annexes are summarized in the table below.

*Table ES-1 Relevant Contract Summary

*Table(s) PPD-X Past Performance Contract Data

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The following table lists the attachments provided to the Offeror with Section L, to assist with proposal development.

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP.

Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.

Naval Air Systems Command Attn: Angela Herndon 21983 Bundy Road, Bldg 3272 Patuxent River, MD 20670 Solicitation Number: N0042119R0014

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address above, attention Rick Paskoski or Angela Herndon.

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible grouping like volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single person portable. One container shall include all Original Proposal volumes including the original/signed documents submitted as part of Volume 1, Executive Summary.

Each box should include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to www.FedBizOpps.gov.

8.0 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

Solicitation questions shall be emailed to the Contract Specialist Angela Herndon at Angela.Herndon@navy.mil and must be received no later than 15 days before the RFP closing date. The Government will answer all questions prior to the deadline for proposal submittal provided that those questions are received by 1400 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the question due date. Answers and questions will be sent to Offerors via a formal RFP amendment. Thus, Offerors are cautioned not to include proprietary information in the questions because the government may release it to all Offerors. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the date above. Accordingly, Offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal preparation cycle.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 VOLUME 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Volume Content

This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified below:

a. The original signed SF33 for the basic solicitation and each amendment (as applicable) including completion of any RFP clause or provision that requires a fill-in or response.

b. Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements or System for Award Management (SAM) reference.

c. Offeror Representatives and Information: Provide the name, title, phone number and email address and facility codes for the Offeror’s cognizant Contract Administration Office, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Government Paying Office for the prime contractor and all proposed key subcontractors and team members. In addition, please provide the name, telephone number, and email address for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

d. Business System Compliances: The Offeror shall indicate the most recent date which the Offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency/Defense Contract Administration Agency determined the adequacy of the Offeror’s systems (including but not limited to Accounting, Estimating, and Purchasing). If the Offeror’s systems’ status is not adequate, list the date of the last adequacy determination and the current status of any systems reviews or ongoing audits.

e. If proposing as a Joint Venture, the Offeror shall provide copies of any approved Joint Venture agreements or Joint Venture agreements submissions not yet approved. Additionally, the Offeror shall clearly indicate if it is proposing as a Populated or Unpopulated Joint Venture, as defined in 13 CFR 124.513. Identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and contractually bind the Offeror. The Offeror shall provide its company/division’s street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation.

When proposing as a contractor team arrangement, the Offeror shall provide a letter/agreement identifying who will be acting as a potential prime contractor and who will be acting as its subcontractor(s). This letter/agreement must be signed by all parties and submitted with the proposal. The letter/agreement shall clearly identify the prime contractor’s NAICS and size standards.

Throughout the Solicitation, “key subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who will perform at least 20% (anticipated) of the total contract effort. A letter of commitment shall be provided for each key subcontractor.

Written consent from key subcontractors and team members shall be provided that will allow the Government to coordinate potential past performance issues with the Offeror.

f. Terms and Conditions: This section must include a statement that all exceptions and deviations that the Offeror takes to the provisions of the RFP are identified in this section; or provide a statement that the Offeror has no exceptions or deviations from the RFP. An exception is where an Offeror states it will not comply with a requirement, usually involving contract terms and conditions. A deviation is where an Offeror states it will not comply with a requirement but proposes an alternative to meet the intent of the requirement, usually involving a specification or it is determined by the Government evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. An exception or deviation may be considered a deficiency. If proposing an exception or deviation, the Offeror shall provide the following in this section: (a) a detailed description for each exception of deviation, (b) identification of the portion of the RFP affected, and (c) an indication as to why the applicable requirement as stated in the RFP is difficult to meet. The Government will review the information and may elect to clarify the requirement via an amendment or clarify the requirement by holding discussions.

g. Guarantee the length of proposal validity (for at least 180 days after proposal due date).

2.0 VOLUME 2: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The Offeror shall select and propose to a minimum of one (1) of the Functional Areas listed below. Proposing to more than one area will increase the potential of receiving an award. The Offeror need only to qualify in one Functional Area to receive an award.

NOTE: The Corporate Experience factor focuses on what relevant experience the Offeror has gained under specific contracts within the past five years while the Past Performance factor, identified below, focuses on how well the Offeror has performed. The primary focus of the Past Performance evaluation will be on those contracts identified in the proposal that are found to be relevant to the Functional Area requirement(s). While Corporate Experience and Past Performance are separate evaluation factors, they principally focus on different aspects of the same contracts. Accordingly, Offerors shall submit a single set of corporate experience and past performance information to satisfy the submission requirements for both factors. If the Offeror proposes to multiple Functional Areas, a separate Volume 2 and Volume 3 must be submitted for each area.

For the selected Functional Area(s), the Offeror shall complete Table ES-1 (Relevant Contract Summary) provided in Attachment L-1 for all contracts proposed as relevant for Corporate Experience and Past Performance. Only contracts where the Prime, team members, or key subcontractors performed as the Prime will be evaluated. Key Subcontractor experience will only be considered if a Letter of Commitment is included in Volume 1. Complete the table according to the instructions within Attachment L-1 and submit it within this section.

The Offeror shall provide evidence of the Offeror’s and team members’ experience during the last five (5) years (from the issue date of the solicitation) that will demonstrate the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s experience. The Offer shall submit a narrative to demonstrate that this experience encompassed the relevancy (i.e. a measure of the extent of similarity between the scope, magnitude and complexity or other comparable attributes of past performance or corporate experience contract references and solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance or corporate experience is an indicator of future performance.), recency, and/or risks that will be associated with performing all of the Functional Area Related SOW Paragraphs. The Offeror shall provide experience that demonstrates the Offeror’s organizational and accounting controls of work similar to all of the tasks described in the Functional Area Related SOW Paragraphs, along with the ability to acquire the necessary personnel. The Offeror is to submit the PWS and/or SOW of this referenced work (or portions thereof) in Annex A, and clearly identify how the tasks performed under the Offeror’s past corporate experience are similar to the Functional Area the Offeror is proposing to. Experience provided shall only relate to Corporate Experience, which is the experience gained through contracted work at the organization level. The Government will not consider the individual experience of the Offeror’s personnel.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Questionnaires will be the primary customer feedback data used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. The Past Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be the primary method used to retrieve the CPARS for this source selection. For all contracts identified that do not have a CPARS, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the PPQ to that contract’s PCO, ACO, and PM; or commercial contractor equivalents. Please forward all applicable questionnaires within two weeks from this solicitation’s release date to allow adequate time for the recipient to respond. Note that the Offeror should not reference this solicitation’s number when distributing the past performance questionnaires to customers. The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Ms. Angela Herndon, Contract Specialist, at Angela.Herndon@navy.mil. The Offeror shall ensure that all points of contact are current and include an email address and phone number. The Offeror shall not conduct follow-up actions with regard to this questionnaire, other than to confirm receipt by the recipient. The Government may contact customers identified by the Offeror to obtain follow-up Past Performance Information as needed.

Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to use information to evaluate past performance obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may send additional questionnaires and/or obtain information from other sources. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance and systemic improvement information remains with the Offeror.

Contracts detailed in this volume shall be consistent with the contracts identified in Volume 2 (Corporate Experience). For each referenced contract identified in Table ES-1 (Relevant Contract Summary), the Offeror shall provide the following information:

a. Contract Number

b. Customer/Agency

c. Contracting Officer and Technical Point of Contact (names and telephone numbers)

d. Brief description of the scope of work

e. Contract type

f. Award price

g. Total Labor-Hours of Effort

h. Period of Performance

i. Contract deliverables

Offerors shall provide a description of performance in delivering quality services in each of the attributes identified below. Include in the descriptions any information that demonstrates the level of performance obtained; where available, provide quantifiable measures/trends to demonstrate past and current performance. Also describe past problems, including when they occurred, what the circumstances were surrounding the situation, and what the consequences were as a result of the problem.

(1) Technical Performance: meeting technical requirements (i.e., the quality of your technical performance, day-to-day performance at the site, flexibility at the site, etc.);

(2) Management Performance/Business Relations: managing the contracted effort (i.e., program management, e.g., cooperation with customer, responsiveness to contract changes, ability to quickly and efficiently respond to new requirements); and

(3) Management of Personnel: maintaining qualified personnel (i.e. effective staffing, e.g., mobilizing with qualified personnel, ability to effectively manage workforce turnover, ability to effectively conduct Union/CBA negotiations, etc.).

4.0 Government Furnished Information

4.1 Labor

The Government's estimate for Labor ceilings for the prime and all subcontract efforts, is listed below. Appropriation types will be determined at the task order level:

Base Ordering Period $141,560,772

Option Ordering Period $ 92,265,083

The values provided above are for informational purposes only. At the task orders, the Offeror will propose costs/prices for the Labor and ODC CLINs including burdens consistent with the Offeror’s accounting practices. (NO FEE SHALL BE APPLIED TO ODCs). Unused ceiling in the base ordering period may be utilized in the option ordering period upon the execution of a realignment modification.

4.2 Incumbent Information

The incumbent contractor is:

TEAM LOGISTICS JOINT VENTURE

12015 LEE JACKSON HIGHWAY

FAIRFAX VA 22033-3300

The incumbent subcontractors are:

1. Andromeda Systems, Inc.

2. Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute

3. Blue Heron Services, Inc.

4. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

5. CTEK Industries, Inc.

6. Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd.

7. Jahn Corporation

8. L-3 Services, Inc.

9. CDI Engineering Solutions Government Services

10. The M&T Company

11. MTG Services, Inc.

12. National Technologies Associates, Inc.

13. Pioneering Decisive Solutions, Inc.

14. Research and, Development, Inc.

15. Saddle Butte Systems, LLC

16. Sierra Management & Technologies, Inc.

17. Spalding Consulting, Inc.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

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

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government intends to award Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity type contracts.

The Government expects to award to each and all qualifying Offerors. A qualifying Offeror is an Offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. A technically acceptable proposal is one with an Acceptable Corporate Experience Rating and a Satisfactory (or Unknown) Past Performance Confidence Rating.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

In accordance with FAR 15.305, the Contracting Officer shall evaluate each proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors, in the manner described herein. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award multiple contracts without discussions. Each initial offer should, therefore, contain the Offeror’s best terms.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

Per Class Deviation 2018-00006 Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Tasks or Delivery Order Contracts, cost or price will be excluded as an evaluation factor for the contract award. Cost or price will be evaluated only at the task order level.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

A. Corporate Experience B. Past Performance

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated Corporate Experience in delivering services similar to the following Related SOW Paragraphs within the selected Functional Area:

The objective of this factor is to gauge the Offeror's management and technical experience as a prime contractor or JV in completing work similar to the Functional Area tasking. A relevant experience event is either a single contract or a collection of concurrent contracts that together demonstrate relevancy. The Government will assess Offerors’ relevant corporate experience for all of the SOW paragraphs within the selected Functional Area(s).

To be rated as Acceptable in the Corporate Experience factor, Offerors must provide a minimum of one (1) relevant event (contract or portion of a contract) completed or be substantially complete within the past five (5) years as of the initial date of the solicitation that is similar in scope and complexities to all of the Related SOW Paragraphs within the selected Functional Area(s).

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to all of the following Related SOW Paragraphs within the selected Functional Area:

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 years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed relevant work before. The relevancy and recency of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. The degree of relevancy assessed at the contract level may indicate the likelihood that relevant negative or positive findings associated with that contract may be found. However, it is the applicability of the finding, as well as its associated likelihood of occurrence and consequence, that will be used in determining the Performance Confidence Level Rating. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s Prime’s, JV team members’ (if applicable), and key subcontractor’s (if applicable) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on relevant work (e.g. CPARs, and questionnaires). When proposals are received from contractor entities specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition (e.g. joint ventures), the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member. Only past performance for worked performed as the Prime contractor will be evaluated; no past performance for work performed as a subcontractor will be evaluated.

PART C: EVALUATION RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

RELEVANCY RATINGS

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE RATINGS

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

3.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

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: A measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance or corporate experience reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance or corporate experience references are considered relevant. As it pertains to past performance and corporate experience, the time period for this solicitation is performance that is within 5 years from the RFP release date; and within that 5 year time period the more recent past performance references are more relevant.

Relevancy: A measure of the extent of similarity between the scope, magnitude and complexity or other comparable attributes of past performance or corporate experience contract references and solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance or corporate experience is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: 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) image1.wmf