N32205-18-R-1015_Amendment_4.docx

N3220518R1015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 31-Jul-2018 02:30 PM to 03-Aug-2018 04:30 PM.

The following have been modified:

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

(a) Basis for Award - The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Contractor whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is the most advantageous to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The Government will evaluate offers using a Tradeoff process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government intends to make a single award under this solicitation. Offers proposing less than the entire effort specified herein shall be determined to be unacceptable, and not eligible for award unless corrected. Offerors who do not provide evidence of a facility clearance in accordance with DD254 shall be ineligible for award. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The non-price evaluation criteria, which are of equal importance, include technical and past performance. If the evaluation of the non-price factors approaches equality between proposals, the importance of price in the evaluation for award will increase. The technical subfactors are of equal importance The Government will determine award by evaluating the following criteria:

1. Factor 1 – Technical

a. Subfactor 1: Organizational Experience

b. Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

c. Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Price

An overall adjectival rating will be assigned to each of the non-price factors as a result of the source selection evaluation. For the factor that contains subfactors, the subfactors will be assigned an adjectival rating, which will be rolled into one adjectival rating for the corresponding factor. Price will not be adjectivally rated.

Factor 1 – Technical

TECHNICAL / ADJECTIVAL RATINGS:

and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

NOTE: Any offeror which receives a rating of Unacceptable or Marginal on any Technical factor or subfactor cannot receive an award.

DEFINITIONS

(a) Strength - Strength means an aspect of the proposal relating to areas where trade-offs will occur that exceeds minimum requirements and expectations, or represents an added benefit to the Government and is expected to increase the quality of the offeror’s performance. Strengths are typically high quality personnel, facilities, organizational structures and or technical approaches that allow an offeror to perform the work price-effectively or at a higher level of quality.

(b) Weakness - Weakness means “a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A ‘significant weakness’ in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001).” Weaknesses can include less-than-average quality personnel, facilities, organizational structures or technical approaches. A weakness relates to areas where trade-offs will occur and does not necessarily render a proposal technically unacceptable.

(c) Deficiency - Deficiency means “A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001).” A deficiency may be an omission of data, which makes it impossible to assess compliance with the evaluation tradeoff factors/subfactors, or may be an ambiguity that must be resolved before an assessment of compliance can be made.

(d) Clarification – Limited exchange, between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. During clarifications, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

(e) Omission - An Omission is information requested in FAR Provision 52.212-1 and the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the RFP that was not provided in the proposal.

· Subfactor 1: Organizational Experience. The Government will consider each Offeror’s Organizational Experience narrative to determine the breadth, depth and relevance of an offeror’s experience performed since 1 September 2015. Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value. For evaluation purposes, ratings may be raised to the extent that the proposed organizational experience exceeds the desired criteria; similarly, ratings may be lowered to the extent that the organizational experience fails to meet the desired criteria.

· Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan . The Government will evaluate the staffing plan and approach to include key personnel resumes and ability to meet global 24/7 sustainment, maintenance, and network operations requirements submitted in accordance with 52.212-1. Each individual proposed as key personnel will be evaluated against the desired qualifications for the particular labor category listed in Section 20.1 of the PWS. For evaluation purposes, ratings may be raised to the extent that proposed personnel exceed the desired criteria; similarly, ratings may be lowered to the extent that proposed personnel fail to meet the desired criteria.

· Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of and approach to program management plan and approach to include management processes associated with cost, schedule, performance, risk, configuration management, requirements, and quality assurance submitted in accordance with 52.212-1. For evaluation purposes, ratings may be raised to the extent that the proposed program management plan exceeds the desired criteria; similarly, ratings may be lowered to the extent that the program management plan fails to meet the desired criteria.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. To develop an overall rating, the Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant and recent information submitted by each Offeror as part of its proposal and the Government’s assessment and evaluation of other sources of information. Other sources of information for past performance may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Report System (ESRS), other databases, questionnaires and interviews. The following ratings will be used in the past performance evaluation:

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.

(1) The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of past performance information compared to the requirements detailed in the PWS, the source of the information, the context of the data and general trends in the Offeror’s performance and any associated risk.

(2) The Government will consider the extent of the Offeror’s ability to perform a previous contract successfully in the areas of; (a) quality of product or services; (b) timeliness or scheduling of supplies/deliveries; (c) business relations/customer satisfaction; and (d) key personnel and staffing (including subcontractors).

(3) The Government will consider the company itself, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors who will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

(4) For all Offerors, the Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns).

The Government reserves the right to consider Past Performance Questionnaires received after the due date for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information and the right to consider other relevant past performance information. The Government may call customers, whether or not provided by the Offeror, to inquire about the Offeror’s past performance. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds with the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, but will receive a rating of unknown confidence (neutral) Factor 3 – Price

Price analysis techniques will be used to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price to the Government. The Government’s evaluated price will include all contract line item numbers (CLINs). The total price for services will be calculated by first multiplying the Offeror’s proposed labor rate for each labor category by the estimated labor hours provided by the Government in the rate table for that labor category, then summing those values to calculate the total price for services for each period of performance. Data submitted shall be evaluated for price reasonableness.

Price will not be an adjectivally scored factor in the evaluation of proposals and the importance of price does not bear a direct relationship to the importance of the non-price factors. The Contracting Officer will review proposed prices to determine whether they are materially unbalanced. The Contracting Officer will also review an unbalanced offer to assess the associated risks to the Government in awarding to such an Offeror, and whether award will result in unreasonably high price for contract performance. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf