N0042119R0018_Amendment_0004.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

See Section A.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Sep-2019

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 N0042119R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Aug-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Sep-2019

CODE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD-PAX-

CODE 2.5.1.14

21983 BUNDY ROAD

BLDG 441

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:

N0042119R0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

Amendment 0004:

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

1) Section M, Part A, paragraph 3.0 has been revised from, “Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below in descending order of importance” to, “Proposals will be evaluated using the factors and subfactors listed below, which are listed in descending order of importance.”

Amendment 0003:

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

1) Section C, Statement of Work paragraph 3.1.2.2, Physical Facilities, is revised to remove the requirement for facilities to maintain a SECRET clearance. No classified storage is required.

2) Attachment P6 Cost Summary, and Attachment P7 Fully Burdened Labor Rates are revised to correspond with the labor category titles, hours, and locations specified in the solicitation.

3) Section J, List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments, Description for Attachment P6 has changed from Cost Summary to Cost Summary_Rev1.

4) Section J, List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments, Description for Attachment P7 has changed from Fully Burdened Rates to Fully Burdened Rates_Rev1.

Amendment 0002:

The purpose of this amendment is to update/revise:

1) Updated language in Section L, Part A, 4.0.

Amendment 0001:

The purpose of this amendment is to update/revise:

1) Updated resume page limit in Section L, Part A, 3.0, paragraph 3, table 1.2,

2) Clarified language in Section L, Part B, 2.0, paragraph 4 and

3) Updated magnitude contract dollar value in Section M, Part B, 2.0, paragraph 2.

Government Points of Contact:

Contract Specialist: Erik Seastrand

Phone: 301-757-2532

Email: erik.seastrand@navy.mil

Contracting Officer: Lynn Kaniss

Phone: 301-757-3421

Email: lynn.kaniss@navy.mil

Contract Type:

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be a Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ).

Product Service Code:

The Product Service Code (PSC) for this solicitation is R706, Support – Management: Logistics Support.

Small Business Set-Aside:

This solicitation is reserved as a Total Small Business Set-Aside under NAICS Code 541330.

Proposal shall remain valid for 180 days after proposal due date, in accordance with Section L.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (JULY 2019)

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

For the Technical factor, 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 subfactors listed below, which are listed in descending order of importance.

TECHNICAL

o Sample Tasks o Workforce (Key Personnel Resumes)

PAST PERFORMANCE

PRICE/COST

PRICE/COST

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost. Technical is significantly 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 Offerors’ 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.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following:

1.1 Sample Tasks

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 provided in Section L.

1.2 Workforce Qualifications

The Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel and the supporting information to determine if they meet the minimum experience and education requirements. In addition, Key Personnel proposed to be utilized in the performance of this effort, whose labor qualifications exceed the minimum requirements in education and experience, may be considered strengths if the additional qualification(s) will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

• Scope: Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) programmatic support of multifaceted logistics technology in the areas of:

- Project Management, to include: identifying project scope, defining objectives, developing the course of action to achieve defined outcomes, authoring key management artifacts in support of efficient and effective cost/schedule/performance planning, execution, monitoring and control activities.

- Business Process Engineering & Reengineering, to include: framework and methodology for planning, implementation and support of the business process transformation-technology initiatives. Perform detailed research and analysis and provide written reports documenting mandatory elements of the BPR process, process assessment activities, identifying gaps, and identifying efficiencies for Government review and approval.

- Financial management, to include: support the NAVAIR PPBE processes by developing and instituting repeatable processes and artifacts, support to the POM process and required artifacts, use of DoN and NAVAIR toolsets used in planning and programming budgets, and support to program offices with various analyses.

- Facilitation and training, to include: Successful development and execution of both end user and ‘train the trainer’ methodologies and documentation.

- Logistics support system documentation/artifacts, to include: capability and functional requirements documentation; e.g. Plan of Action and Milestone (POA&M), sustainment strategies and plans, functional and capability requirements artifacts, traceability matrices, assist in transforming functional requirements technical requirements, project plans, testing and certification artifacts, user manuals, installation and operation manuals, and program management review briefs and artifacts.

- Lifecycle logistics, to include: acquisition, sustainment and disposal support of Total Lifecycle Logistics

Systems.

- Requirements analyses, to include: decomposition, facilitation, evaluation, and development of requirements ensuring requirements are traceable, complete, consistent, prioritized, unambiguous, validated and testable.

• Complexity: program management, logistics artifacts, transformation, and total lifecycle logistics support to current, new, and proposed technologies, rather than routine maintenance.

• Magnitude: contract dollar value (approximately $25M-$40M) and contract length (approximately five 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) controlling contract cost; and 3) managing the contracted effort. 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

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 geographic zone where the work is to be performed. The Government may compare a proposed direct labor rate to the rates identified for the applicable Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code, as referenced in Section C. 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.

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 years of the ordering period. 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.

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 $300,000 annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. A fully burdened labor cost that exceeds $300,000 annually per employee may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

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

5.0 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

The contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting, (DEVIATION 2019-

O0003),” 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, Attachment P6, and Volume

3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

6.0 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE:

The total evaluated price will be the sum of the CLINs 0001-0007 Most Probable Cost (MPC) for the entire period of performance listed in Section F.

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.

1.0 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 as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

2.0 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.

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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.

3.0 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.

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

4.0 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.

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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.

5.0 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)