N6134023R0058 Amendment 0011.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 respond to questions from offerors.

Update section B, paragraph B.3, sub-paragraph iv and v.

Update section M, paragraph 4.0, add sub-paragraph H.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Jun-2023

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 N6134023R0058

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Apr-2023

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Jun-2023

CODE

NAWCTSD PROCUREMENT GROUP

GT27000

12211 SCIENCE DR

ORLANDO FL 32826-3224

N61340 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6134023R0058

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

B.1 ACRONYMS

The following definitions are provided for acronyms/symbols that may be used in this document:

ACO Administrative Contracting Officer ACOR Alternate Contracting Officer Representative ACRN Accounting Classification Reference Number AMSDL Acquisition Management System and Data Requirements Control List AMT Amount ANC Alaska Native Corporation CAF Contract Access Fee CAGE Commercial and Government Entity CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CCR Central Contractor Registration CDRL Contract Data Requirements List (DD Form 1423) CD-ROM Compact Disc – Read-Only Memory CLIN Contract Line Item Number COR Contracting Officer’s Representative COST Cost Reimbursable CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System CPFF Cost plus fixed fee CS Contract Specialist CSD Contract Start Date DIDs Data Item Descriptions DOD Department of Defense DODAAC Department of Defense Address Activity Code DOL Department of Labor DON Department of Navy DUNS Data Universal Numbering System EST Estimated EST Eastern Standard Time FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm Fixed Price FTR Federal Travel Regulations FY Fiscal Year G&A General and Administrative GFP Government Furnished Property HR Hour HUBZones Historically Underutilized Business Zones IA Information Assurance IAW In Accordance With IDV Indefinite Delivery Vehicle ID/IQ Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity ID/IQC Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract IPT Integrated Procurement Team

ISD Instructional Systems Development ISE In-Service Engineer ISEO In-Service Engineering Office IT Information Technology ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations JTR Joint Travel Regulation LH Labor hour LO Lot MAC Multiple Award Contract MO Month MOB Mobilization MSD Mobilization Start Date MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet N/A Not Applicable NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAF Naval Air Facility NAS Naval Air Station NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command NAWCTSD Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division NMCI Navy Marine Corps Intranet NDI Non-developmental item NLRB National Labor Relations Board NS Naval Station NSP Not Separately Priced NTE Not to Exceed OAWR Over and Above Work Request OCI Organizational Conflict of Interest ODC Other Direct Cost O&M Operations and Maintenance OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan QTR Quarter PBW Price Breakout Worksheet PCO Procuring Contracting Officer PEW Price Evaluation Worksheet PG Page PJM Project Manager POC Point of Contact PRST Performance Requirements Summary Table PST Pacific Standard Time QA Quality Assurance QTY Quantity REQ Required RFP Request for Proposals RPRT Report S/N Serial Number SAAR Systems Authorization Access Request SBA Small Business Administration SBC Small Business Concern SCA Service Contract Act SE Systems Engineering SLIN Sub-contract Line Item Number SOW Statement of Work SS Supply Support

SWMFTS Software Maintenance of Fielded Training Systems TBD To Be Determined TBN To Be Negotiated (For Purposes of the Basic Contract) TD Technical Directive TDR Training Device Relocation TDV Technical Data Verification TECH Technician T&M Time-and-Material TO Task Order TOM Task Order Manager TPOC Technical Point of Contact TSDM Training System Device Modifications TSM Training Systems Management UDIDs Unique Data Item Descriptions UIC Unit Identification Code WAWF Wide Area Work Flow WD Wage Determination

B.2 MOBILIZATION

CLIN 0001 is Firm Fixed Price Mobilization for the following sites:

Table B-2 Location FFP monthly unit price Whidbey Island, WA Jacksonville, FL Mayport, FL Orlando, FL Norfolk, VA Cherry Point, NC Beaufort, SC North Island, CA San Diego, CA Miramar, CA Camp Pendleton, CA Point Mugu, CA Fallon, NV Pensacola, FL Corpus Christi, TX Fort Worth, TX Kingsville, TX Newport, RI Iwakuni, Japan

B.3 STREAMLINED ORDERING FOR COST-PLUS FIXED FEE TERM LOE ORDERS

LOE Orders will be issued under this contract using the following streamlined ordering procedures:

(1) For each proposed order, the contracting officer will provide the contractor with a Task Order (TO) and an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The IGCE is an estimate of labor hours by labor category utilizing the estimated and negotiated Burdened Labor rates Table below to calculate the total estimated cost for the proposed TO. The TO fixed fee is calculated using Section H Clause 5252.232-9510 PAYMENT OF

FIXED FEE (NAVAIR).

(2) These Composite rates are estimates, and invoicing will be based on actual costs incurred. Ceiling for Other

Direct Costs (ODCs) will be priced in accordance with the Government estimate. TOs crossing multiple years will be estimated by the Government using the composite rates for each year in proportion to the period of performance of the TO.

(3) Requirements for contractor response:

(i) If the contractor agrees that it can perform the TO within the parameters of the IGCE, the contractor shall sign and return the DD1155 to the contracting officer within three (3) working days of receipt of the TO and IGCE. If the requirement remains valid, a priced order will be issued to the contactor.

(ii) If the contractor does not agree with the TO and/or IGCE, the contractor shall submit a proposal to the contracting officer within five (5) working days of receipt of the TO and IGCE, addressing only the specific areas of difference in labor categories and/or hours in the IGCE. Once the differences are resolved between the contracting officer and the contractor, and the requirement remains valid, a priced order will be issued to the contractor.

(iii) If the contractor fails to respond to the proposed order within five (5) working days of receipt of the

TO, the contracting officer may unilaterally issue the TO or extend the deadlines above when in the best interest of the Government.

(iv) For CPFF CLINs, the contractor’s maximum fixed fee rate to be applied to a CLIN’s estimated cost ceiling amount is (to be completed by the offeror – insert percentage)%. This percentage shall be used to determine the Fixed Fee dollar amounts on issued/awarded task orders. The fixed fee percentage shall apply throughout the duration of the contract (including any options exercised) for all task orders issued and shall not be negotiated on individual task orders. To determine a CPFF CLIN’s fixed fee amount, the government will multiply the CPFF CLIN’s estimated cost ceiling by the fixed fee rate(s), as applicable.

(v) Contractor shall complete Table B-3 below. Table B-3 shall match rates proposed in Attachment L-C1.

The rates provided in the table below are fully burdened rates Exclusive of Fee.

Table B-3 BASE PERIOD OPTION

PERIOD

Year

Year

Year

Year

Year

Year

Year

Whidbey

Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jacksonville

Software Engineer, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Technical Writer III $ $ $ $ $ $ System Administrator, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supply Technician $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Drafter/CAD Operator, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mayport

Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Orlando

Engineer/Scientist, Junior - Hardware Engineer

Norfolk

Software Engineer, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Electronics Technician Maintenance III $ $ $ $ $ $ $ System Administrator, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Technical Writer II $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Documentation Specialist $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cherry Point

Software Engineer, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Software Engineer, Junior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ System Administrator, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Documentation Specialist $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Computer Scientist, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Engineer/Scientist, Journeyman - Hardware Engineer

Technical Writer II $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Beaufort

System Administrator, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ North Island

Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Systems Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ San Diego

Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ System Administrator, Junior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Electronics Technician Maintenance III $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Miramar

Network Engineer $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Camp Pendleton

Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Point Mugu

Software Engineer, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pensacola

Software Engineer, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Electronics Technician Maintenance III $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Documentation Specialist $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Corpus Christi

Software Engineer, Junior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Fallon

Information Assurance Analyst, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ft. Worth

Software Engineer, Journeyman $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kingsville

Engineer/Scientist, Junior - Hardware Engineer

Newport

Electronics Technician Maintenance III $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supply Technician $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Iwakuni, Japan

System Administrator, Senior $ $ $ $ $ $ $

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS

Part A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal provides the best value, to the Government, using the trade-off analysis. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit 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 higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit any additional price.

The government will not evaluate classified proposals or any classified information.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

For the Technical factor an acceptable/unacceptable rating will be assigned. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” rating will be unawardable. If an offeror’s Technical proposal is Unacceptable, the government will not evaluate the other factors.

For Past Performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The assessment reflects the government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance.

The government will utilize a Cost Realism approach to determine the Probable Cost/Price (PC/P)/Price (PC/P). The higher of the PC/P or proposed cost/price will be used in the tradeoff.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors, listed below.

Each offeror will be evaluated based on the following factors:

(1) Technical

(2) Past Performance

(3) Cost/Price

Past-Performance is significantly more important than price/cost.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

1.1 Security Clearance. The government will confirm that the name, address, and CAGE Code listed in Attachment L-T1 is the prime contractor or JV Team Member and matches the information for one of the entities in the table in Administrative. If the information does not match that of the prime contractor or JV Team Member and the information in the table in Administrative, then the proposal is Unacceptable. If the information does match, then the government will check National Industrial Security System (NISS) using the name, address, and CAGE Code provided in Attachment L-T1. If that entity does not have a facility clearance in NISS at that time, then the proposal is Unacceptable.

1.2. Technical Experience. The government will review Attachment L-T2 and the related, submitted contract/order(s). The government will review the cited portion of the contract/order(s) to confirm the offeror was required to manage performance at a site in a foreign country (excluding U.S. territories) and at least two sites simultaneously CONUS. The government will only consider the contract/orders itself (not documents external to the contract/order like emails, report submittals, or self-assertions) in assessing whether the offeror demonstrates that the contract/order(s) required the management of the above sites. The government is not obligated to search the contract/order documents on any page/paragraph that is not cited in Attachment L-T2. If the contract/order(s) does not demonstrate that the offeror was required to manage performance at a site in a foreign country (excluding U.S.

territories) and at least two sites simultaneously CONUS, then the proposal is Unacceptable.

If either the Security Clearance element or the Technical Experience element is Unacceptable, then the proposal is unawardable and the government will not evaluate the other factors or further consider the proposal.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent and relevant 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 and subcontractors, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and demonstrated past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, the government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. 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.

The government will evaluate a maximum of two proposed past performance references. If the Offeror attempts to submit more than two references, the government will only evaluate the first two references listed in Attachment L- P1 of the Offeror’s proposal. The government will only consider Past Performance Questionnaires if no CPAR exists.

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed past performance references, specifically the portions of the references identified in the Offeror’s Attachment L-P2. The government has no duty to search for missing pieces of the contract or to search parts of the contract that is not cited by the Offeror in Attachment L-P2. Moreover, the government will not consider any statements or descriptions of the past performance references that are not included within the contracts themselves. For example, the government will not consider document deliverables under the contract or offeror self-descriptions of work performed.

2.1 Recency - The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. 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.

Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the final solicitation release date. If any portion of a reference’s performance occurred within the three year window, then the government will consider all performance under the contract (or order, in the case of orders under IDIQs). Past Performance that is not recent will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals.

For single-award indefinite delivery past performance references, only the task or delivery orders (maximum of two) submitted for consideration will be evaluated for recency, not the base contract.

2.2 Relevancy - 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 evaluate the past performance references to determine how relevant each is to this solicitation.

Any past performance reference found to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals.

In determining relevancy, the government will compare the contract types (cost or fixed price), the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort (CAGE Code), scope (tasking similar to Attachment J-1 SOW, paragraph 3.2.1), magnitude (total dollar value and dollar value on an annual basis), and complexity (number of total sites managed and number of sites outside the United States managed) of the past performance reference effort to the effort required by this solicitation.

For single award IDIQ contracts the Government will aggregate the information for up to a maximum of two orders submitted in the proposal when assessing relevance. Orders with performance at the same site will only count as one site when aggregated. Orders under MACs will be assessed as individual references.

Only past performance of the Offeror (including JV Team Members and major subcontractors) is relevant. The government will only consider past performance of some other CAGE Code if (1) the Offeror demonstrates that it acquired that other CAGE Code through a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger and the personnel, facilities, or other resources of that that other CAGE Code are now a part of the Offeror and will be used to perform the requirements of the solicitation, or (2) the government is required by 13 CFR 125.11 to consider the past performance where the Offeror submits the information required by 13 CFR 125.11.

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.

2.3 Demonstrated Past Performance - The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, MAJOR subcontractors, and JV team members’ performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

1) Technical: Quality of Product or Service,

2) Cost Control,

3) Management.

A separate demonstrated past performance rating will not be assigned.

For those cases where the Offeror may have had past performance problems likely to occur again, the government will assess whether the Offeror successfully applied improvements to resolve those problems. Problems not addressed by the Offeror are considered to still exist.

Sources of past performance evaluation information may include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation, information obtained from questionnaires, and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Past performance information that obviously does not relate to the order(s) submitted under a single award IDIQ will not be considered.

2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment - The Past Performance evaluation culminates in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects 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. While the government will evaluate the past performance references the Offeror submits as its best, most relevant references, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default on any contract performed within three years of the issuance date of the final solicitation. In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the source selection authority’s tradeoff decision:

a. 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.

b. Past performance of an entity proposed to perform a significant percentage of the work (as indicated in Attachment L-P1) is more significant than past performance of an entity proposed to perform relatively little work;

c. Past performance of an entity proposed to perform the Attached J-1, SOW, paragraph 3.2.1 tasking is more significant than past performance of an entity proposed to perform other portions of the Attachment J-1, SOW tasking;

d. Performance under United States government contracts, or under first tier sub contracts of small businesses under U.S Government contracts, is more significant than performance under commercial contracts.

e. Past Performance Questionnaires provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team, an entity affiliated with the Offeror (e.g. parent, subsidiary), or by a competing offeror is not given as much weight as information from the Government or a disinterested third party.

f. Past performance of prime contractor or a JV member is relatively more significant than past performance of a subcontractor

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.

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

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

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.

3.0 COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price Volume to assess: the probable price cost (PC/P), reasonableness, and cost realism.

3.1 Probable Cost/Price. The probable cost/price (PC/P) 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 PC/P also includes the firm fixed price efforts (mobilization), burdened ODCs, the Government-provided completion task estimates, and Government-calculated value of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government will calculate the value of the burdened ODCs by applying the rate proposed in G.2 to the Government provided estimates in Attachment L-C1, “ODC” tab. The Government will calculate the value of FAR 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services for evaluation purposes only by dividing the probable cost of Year 7 under every tab in the offeror’s completed Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet by 2.

The PC/P may differ from the proposed cost/price. The higher of the PC/P or proposed cost/price 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 cost/price.

3.2 Reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that the award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring 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 requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4. 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 the tripwire amount of $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.

3.3 Cost Realism. Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis in determining the probable cost/price (PC/P) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government will compare the Offeror’s proposal rates in the offeror’s completed Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet to the substantiating documents provided in the Offeror’s proposal. The Government may also consider other pertinent cost information, such as average labor rate information and DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead and G&A, Glassdoor.com, Indeed.com and Salary.com.

4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE

Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror completed the information requested in Section L Part B, paragraph 4 of this solicitation. The information below is not part of the source selection authority’s “best value” tradeoff, but some of the information may be necessary for an offeror’s proposal to be acceptable for contract award. Unless otherwise noted below, any questions to offerors to resolve issues with the items below are not considered “discussions” as that term is used at FAR subpart 15.3, even if the information below is necessary for contract award. Unless otherwise noted below, any questions to offerors to resolve issues with the items below are considered informalities or minor irregularities rather than deficiencies that make an offeror unacceptable for award, even if the information below is necessary for contract award. The failure to comply with the government’s requests, however, may adversely impact the offeror’s evaluation results, and could result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

This volume contains the following Information:

A. Offeror Representatives and Information B. Terms and Conditions statement C. Joint Venture Agreement, if proposing as a joint venture D. Signed Completed and signed SF33 for basic solicitation and completed and signed SF30(s) for all amendments.

E. Signed Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management

(SAM); completed copies of all certifications listed in Section K, F. Proposal validity for at least 270 days after proposal submission.

G. Documentation verifying that the Offeror, JV and Subcontractors has a DCMA approved Accounting

System in accordance with DFARS clause 252.242-7006, or state that it’s Accounting System has not been approved by DCMA.

H. Documentation verifying that the Offeror’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the orders issued under this contract.

I. Completed table from Section L, Part B, paragraph 4.I that complies with FAR 52.219-14.

J. Complete Table B-3 based on rates proposed in Attachment L-C1.

(End of Summary of Changes)