5088_Amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide questions and answ ers to inquiries received in response to the subject procurement to all potential Offerors and to extend the closing date.

See page tw o.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Dec-2016

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 N64498-16-R-5088

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Nov-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

23-Dec-2016

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 02311, CHRISTIE COLAIANNI

215-897-1883, CHRISTIE.COLAIANNI@NAVY.MIL

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112

N64498 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N64498-16-R-5088

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

PART I

The following change has been made:

1. SF33, Block 9, closing date has been changed.

2. Section B, Notes to Section B has been revised.

3. Section L, PD-L01 has been revised.

4. Section M, PD-M01 has been revised.

PART II

This amendment provides a list of questions and comments received in response to the solicitation. The questions and comments are provided for all potential Offerors to review. Note that questions may have been edited for clarity and duplicative questions may have been combined or deleted. All available, necessary information and any necessary changes to the solicitation resulting from consideration of the below questions and comments have been incorporated into the solicitation in PART I of this Amendment. As a result of this amendment, the solicitation is considered to be clear.

Q1: Page 83 of 106 of the RFP identifies FAR Clause 252.215-7009 - Proposal Adequacy Checklist – as incorporated by reference. Would the Government please clarify in what proposal volume this checklist should be provided, and please confirm that it is exempt from any associated page limitations?

A1: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist (Checklist) shall be submitted as a separate document from the Solicitation and Proposals. The Checklist is excluded from page limitations delineated in the RFP. The RFP is considered clear and has been amended for clarification.

Q2: Would the Government allow the use of 10 point Times New Roman font in tables/exhibits, as well as headers and footers?

A2: No, the proposal requirements in regards to font and size were clarified in Amendment 0002, Question and Answer #1.

Q3. Amendment 0002, Question and Answer #23 removes the roman numerals from the Labor Category Table. Due to the time of year, would it be acceptable for Offerors to leave the roman numerals in cost packages that have already been delivered or are in transit?

A3: It is acceptable for Offerors to leave Roman Numerals in cost packages if there is a clarification provided by the Offeror within their proposal stating that reference to the Roman Numerals shall be disregarded.

Q4: Would the Government consider increasing the Technical Proposal page limitation to allow for the addition of Technical Approach narrative (how) in Subfactor 1B and Offeror’s Earned Value Management System?

A4: No, the Technical Proposal page limitation remains unchanged at thirty (30) pages as delineated on pages 93 and 94 of the RFP.

Q5: When does the Government intend to issue an amendment that incorporates the changes identified in the answers to questions listed in Part II of Amendment 2? For example font and resume requirements?

A5: All changes to the Solicitation issued per Amendments are included in the Solicitation and are reflected within Amendments 0002 and 0003.

Q6: Will the Government allow organization charts and flow charts to help present the management “reporting structure”?

A6: Yes, the Government will allow organization or flow charts for the technical evaluation of Subfactor 1B, Management Approach. Any organizational or flow charts provided shall be included in the page limitations set forth in Section L on pages 93 and 94 of the Solicitation.

Q7: Request the Government allow Offerors to use an 11 x 17 foldout page for tabular data, to count as a single page in lieu of an 8 ½ x 11 page.

A7: No, the proposal requirements were clarified in Amendment 0002, Question and Answer #1.

Q8: Request the Government defines “graphics” in regards to Amendment 0002, Question and Answer #1.

A8: For the purpose of this RFP, "graphics" are defined as anything other than text. Graphics are not to be included in Offeror's proposals unless it is an organizational or flow chart as described in Question and Answer #6 of this Amendment 0003.

Q9: Request the Government remove the Earned Value Management System Clause 252.234-7002 from the Solicitation.

A9: The Earned Value Management System Clause, 252.234-7002, is mandatory and shall remain included in the subject Solicitation.

Q10: In regards to Q31 and A31 associated with Amendment 0002, the Government has directed Offerors to include “a full explanation” of the “items delineated in the Section C, Statement of Work”. Section C Statement of Work is 12 pages. A full explanation of the entire 12 page Statement of Work will take up most of the 30 pages allowed for the technical proposal. Please clarify if the Government wants a full explanation of only Section 3, Scope of Work of the Statement of Work, or does the Government does indeed want Offerors to respond to all items in the Statement of Work (as currently required). This would include Section 1 Scope, Section 2 Applicable Documents, etc.

A10: Upon further review, Section L, Clause PD-L01, has been revised to remove the following sentence: “This includes a full explanation of the techniques, disciplines, and procedures proposed to be followed.” Additionally, to clarify the requirements of Technical Proposal submission the Government offers the following (paraphrased from Section M, Clause PD-M01, Paragraph C):

Offeror’s will be evaluated on their technical capability to perform the requirements in the Solicitation, considering the information provided on the Offeror’s Personnel, Management Approach, Corporate Experience, and Subcontracting Commitment. Based on this, the technical proposal should address Section C, Statement of Work, as it pertains to the technical evaluation factor/subfactor.

The closing date and time has been changed to 11 January 2017 at 3:00pm local time.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Dec-2016 03:00 PM to 11-Jan-2017 03:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

NOTES TO SECTION B:

1. CONTRACT TYPE: The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) located in Philadelphia, PA proposes to award one or more Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee type Contract(s) providing support services as described in Section C, Statement of Work. The resultant Contract(s) will also contain provisions for Task Orders to be awarded on a fixed price basis when feasible. The Contract(s) shall have an ordering period from date of Contract award through sixty (60) months thereafter. The Period of Performance shall be from date of Contract award through seventy-two (72) months thereafter.

2. BASIS OF COMPETITION:

a. At the Task Order level, award determination will be conducted in accordance with clause PD-I02 “ORDERING

PROCEDURES FOR DELIVERY/TASK ORDERS ISSUED UNDER MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS”.

b. At the Task Order level, the Procuring Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment which includes factors such as: market research on current MAC holders with regards to capability to perform the requirement; the similar size and complexity of the requirement; ongoing work currently being performed by the Contractors awarded Contracts under the MAC; ship schedules and required Period of Performance.

3. MULTIPLE AWARDS: As detailed in Section M, award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose offer(s) are determined to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will make award to no more than four

(4) Offerors.

a. The Multiple Award Contract resulting from this RFP will be considered complete (ineligible for issuance of additional Task Orders) when any of the following occur:

1. The ordering Period of Performance period specified in the Contract(s) has expired, OR;

2. The Government Estimate for the Program being supported by the Multiple Award Contract has been reached. The Government Estimate for the Program will be specified in the resultant award(s). OR;

3. The ceiling of any of the individual Contracts resulting from this RFP has been reached. If the ceiling of any of the Contracts is reached, the entire Multiple Award Contract is complete.

An individual awardee may be considered ineligible to compete for a Task Order if the ceiling remaining on their Contract is clearly less than the Independent Government Cost Estimate for that Task Order. In the event an awardee is permitted to compete for a Task Order, are the apparent awardee, and a resultant order would result in their exceeding their Contract cost ceiling: exceeding the Contract cost is permissible for that final order, however, any fee amount exceeding the FIXED FEE amount in the basic Contract is not allowable, and will not be included in the resultant Task Order.

b. The Contractor shall not be obligated to continue performance beyond the estimated total hours estimated in this

RFP.

c. The minimum value of services (including Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee) that must be ordered from each awardee will be $100,000.00. The minimum shall be satisfied by the issuance of the first Task Order issued under each resultant Contract award.

d. The rate of man-hours used may fluctuate throughout the term of the Contract provided such fluctuation does not result in the utilization of the total man-hours of effort prior to expiration of the term. If at any time during the performance of this Contract, the number of direct labor hours (not including “excess hours*”) utilized under this Contract exceeds 75% of the total estimated hours, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer of such circumstances. *Excess hours represent hours exceeding the estimated LOE amount.

e. Nothing herein shall be construed to alter or waive any of the rights or obligations of either party pursuant to the clause hereof entitled “Limitation of Cost” and/or “Limitation of Funds”.

f. It is understood and agreed that the number of hours and total dollar amount of each labor category specified in any Task Order issued under these Contracts are estimates only and shall not limit the use of hours or dollar amounts in any labor category which may be required and provided for under an individual Task Order.

g. The Government intends to reimburse Other Direct Costs (CLIN 0002) on the basis of actual reasonable and allowable costs incurred plus applicable indirect markup rates (i.e. G&A and material handling). (NO FEE WILL

BE PAID FOR ODC’S)

h. As part of its Cost Proposal submission, the Contractor is required to complete the Labor Rate Substantiation Table (See Section J) and provide all pertinent supporting information (DCAA Audit or rate check information) to facilitate the cost realism analysis of proposed direct labor rates and all indirect rates (i.e., G&A, Overhead, etc).

i. OTHER DIRECT COSTS

CLIN 0002 covers Other Direct Costs, which includes incidental material and travel. Offerors are required to provide as part of their proposal any indirect markup rates (i.e. G&A and material handling) as detailed in Sections L and M. It is intended to reimburse support and subContract costs on the basis of actual reasonable and allowable costs. For evaluation purposes, the Government will add the Offeror’s proposed markup costs (i.e. G&A and material handling) to the stated base support costs as follows:

Line Item Not To Exceed (NTE) Amount

Proposed Indirect

Markup Costs

TOTAL Not To Exceed (NTE) Amount

CLIN 0002- In Support of CLIN 0001 $8,406,874.05 (X) (Y) X + Y = TOTAL NTE Amount for CLIN The resulting cost (base plus any markup) will be a Not-To-Exceed amount in the Contract award.

A breakdown of Not to Exceed (NTE) ODCs per year is as follows:

YEAR ODC NTE AMOUNT

ONE $1,575,587.86

TWO $1,632,862.15

THREE $1,681,848.02

FOUR $1,732,303.46

FIVE $1,784,272.56

j. SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

As detailed in Section L of this solicitation, Offerors are required to submit both a technical and a cost proposal as part of their offer. Offerors who are large business concerns are also required to submit a proposed SubContracting Plan in accordance with Clauses 52.219-9 entitled “Small Business SubContracting Plan” and 252.219-7003 entitled “Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business SubContracting Plan (DOD Contracts).” Offerors are advised of the requirements contained in Clauses 52.219-8, entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” 52.244-2 entitled “SubContracts - Alternate I” and 52.244-5 entitled “Competition in SubContracting” concerning proposed subContracting. Offerors are required to furnish all applicable information required by Clause 52.244-2, entitled “SubContracts - Alternate I”, as part of their offer. Failure to comply with the instructions set forth in Section L of this Solicitation or to provide all information requested may result in the determination that the proposal is nonresponsive and ineligible for Contract award(s).

k. TABLE OF LABOR CATEGORIES AND HOURS The level of effort (LOE) for the performance of this Contract is based upon an anticipated total estimated LOE of 565,650 man-hours of direct labor for the entire Contract Period of Performance. The total number of man-hours of direct labor includes subcontracted labor hours, but does not include holiday, sick leave, vacation, and other absence hours. The anticipated labor hours to be expended hereunder is estimated below; the quantity set forth herein or as expressly changed by formal modification thereto, is hereafter referred to as “estimated total hours”. Work will be split between Contractor and Government sites.

Labor Table Contractor Site LABOR CATEGORY Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Program Manager * 800 800 800 800 800 4,000 Senior Engineer * 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 19,200 Engineer 15,360 15,360 15,360 15,360 15,360 76,800 Junior Engineer 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600 Field Service Engineer/Technician 15,360 15,360 15,360 15,360 15,360 76,800 Gas Turbine Engineering Technician 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Electrical Field Technician 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 19,200 Electrical Field Technician (OT) 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 Mechanical Field Technician 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 Mechanical Field Technician (OT) 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 Junior Field Technician 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 28,800 Junior Field Technician (OT) 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 Drafter/CAD Operator 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Logistician 11,520 11,520 11,520 11,520 11,520 57,600 Junior Logistician 7,680 7,680 7,680 7,680 7,680 38,400 Program Support Assistant 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 28,800

Contractor Site Sub Totals: 77,040 77,040 77,040 77,040 77,040 385,200

Government Site LABOR CATEGORY Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Electrical Engineer * 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600 Senior Test Lab Engineering Technician *

1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600

Senior LCAC Engineering Technician *

850 850 850 850 850 4,250

HED Engineer 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600

Engineer 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 19,200 Junior Engineer 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600 Test Lab Engineering Technician

5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 28,800

LCAC Engineering Technician 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 11,000 Electrical Technician 7,680 7,680 7,680 7,680 7,680 38,400 Electrical Technician (OT) 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 Technical Instructor/Course Developer

1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600

Configuration Management Specialist

1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 9,600

Program Support Assistant 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 19,200

Government Site Sub Totals: 36,090 36,090 36,090 36,090 36,090 180,450

Overall Totals: 113,130 113,130 113,130 113,130 113,130 565,650

* Denotes key labor category

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

PD-L01 PROPOSAL PREPARATION REQUIREMENT (JUL 2007)

It is requested that Offerors prepare their proposals in accordance with the following organization, content and format requirements to assist the Government in making a complete and thorough evaluation of all proposals. Proposals shall be submitted as three separate documents, as follows:

Documents Original Copies Solicitation, Offer and Award Document (SF-33) 1 0 Technical Proposal 1 3 Cost Proposal 1 0

The “originals” shall be clearly identified as the “ORIGINAL”, and bear the original signature(s) of the Offeror. The “copies” shall be complete and clearly identified as “COPY” or “DUPLICATE”.

Proposal Delivery Instructions:

There is no depository located at NSWCPD for proposal deliverance. If offers are hand carried they are to be delivered to the address specified in Block 7 on page 1 of the RFP. If offers are mailed via USPS, UPS, FedEx or any other commercial carrier, they are to be sent using the following address:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia ATTN: Christie Colaianni, Code 02 1601 Langley Avenue, Building 542

Philadelphia, PA 19112-5051

In order to facilitate the evaluation process, it is requested that Offerors also submit their cost proposal spreadsheets on a CD-ROM (in addition to the hard copy requirements stated above). It is requested that spreadsheet files be compatible with Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft Office Excel 2003. The submission of spreadsheet files on compact disk in no way relinquishes the Offeror's responsibility to provide hard copies of the cost proposal.

The proposal shall be prepared in accordance with the following formatting requirements:

- 8.5 x 11 inch paper

- Single-spaced typed lines

- No graphics or pictures

- 1 inch margins

- 12-point Times New Roman Font in text

EVALUATION FACTORS:

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR 1A- PERSONNEL

SUBFACTOR 1B- MANAGEMENT APPROACH

SUBFACTOR 1C- CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

SUBFACTOR 1D- SUBCONTRACTING COMMITMENT

FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3- COST

(1) SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS (SF-33 RFP)

This document, which may be used as part of the contract award document, shall be fully executed and returned as a separate document from the technical and cost proposals. Special attention should be taken to accurately enter the prices required in Section B, complete all Representations and Certifications in Section K and ensure that an authorized person signs the offer in Block 17 of Page 1.

If the Offeror takes any exceptions to any provisions in the RFP, all such qualifications shall be listed in a cover letter to the proposal.

(2) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

It is noted that the entire technical proposal shall not exceed THIRTY (30) PAGES in length, not including Resumes, Table of Contents, Disclosure Data, and Proposal Adequacy Checklist. An Appendix shall only include Resumes, Disclosure Data, and Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Any information other than Resumes, Disclosure Data, or the Proposal Adequacy Checklist included in the Appendix shall not be evaluated or considered for award.

INTRODUCTION (Maximum length: 2 pages)

The introduction shall provide any necessary background information and an overview of the proposal which the Offeror believes will assist in the understanding and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Maximum length: 28 pages)

The Technical Proposal shall contain sufficient information to enable Government personnel to make a thorough evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether the technical proposal demonstrates the Offerors ability to understand and comply with the solicitation’s requirements. The technical proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete.

The technical proposal should be written to allow a thorough evaluation as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of this solicitation.

Proposals shall clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective Contractor has a thorough understanding of the technical requirements contained in Section C, of this solicitation.

Statements such as "the Offeror understands," "will comply with the statement of work," "standard procedures will be employed," "well known techniques will be used" and general paraphrasing of the Statement of Work are considered inadequate. The technical proposal must provide details concerning what the Contractor will do and how it will be done.

The technical proposal shall not contain any reference to cost; however, information concerning labor allocation and categories, consultants, travel, materials, equipment and any information of interest to technical reviewers shall be contained in the technical proposal in sufficient detail so that the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be adequately evaluated. The technical proposal shall be page numbered, contain a table of contents, be organized in the following two (2) Sections (FACTORS), and shall address in detail the following information:

SECTION 1: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR 1A – PERSONNEL

The Offeror shall include a resume for each "Key Personnel" labor category in the quantity specified in Section C. In the event Section C fails to specify the exact quantity of resumes, the Offerors shall include a resume for the number of individuals that would be required to perform the entire Level of Effort for each Key Personnel category. (A Level of Effort of 1,920 labor hours per man year should be utilized.)

Resumes shall contain the following:

(1) Labor Category

(2) Name

(3) Current Employer

(4) Education/Experience (list any diplomas and/or degrees, institution, year obtained)

(5) Level of Current Security Clearance

(6) Work Experience:

Directly Related or similar work experience (list each relevant job title, the inclusive dates of employment (month/year), the employer, and a brief synopsis for each job listed on how this experience is directly related to the statement of work.

Resume Length: Maximum - 2 pages (Letters of intent are not included in the 2 page Limit for Resumes)

A signed “letter of intent” shall be submitted for all proposed key personnel who are not currently employed by the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor. Only contingency hires with “letters of intent” will be considered in the evaluation. For follow-on efforts where the Offeror is not the incumbent, a proposed plan to hire incumbent personnel is not acceptable without “letters of intent”.

Resumes for subcontractors proposed as key personnel shall be included in this section, with the present company affiliation clearly identified. All of the requirements of this section shall apply to the use of subcontractor personnel, as well as the prime Contractor’s personnel.

Key Personnel – The qualifications and resume quantity requirements for the KEY LABOR CATEGORIES are specified in Section C. Target and/or Minimum qualifications for KEY LABOR CATEGORIES may also be specified.

Non-Key Personnel – Minimum qualifications for NON-KEY LABOR CATEGORIES (if applicable) may also be specified in Section C. The proposed non-key personnel shall meet the prescribed minimum requirements for each category. Resumes are not required for non-key personnel. However, as part of their Technical Proposal, the Offeror shall provide an affirmative statement within the Personnel Subfactor that all proposed non-key personnel meet the minimum education and experience requirements specified for each non-key labor category.

SUBFACTOR 1B – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Under this subfactor, the Offeror shall provide information on the following areas:

a. Resources.

The Offeror shall provide information on its staffing resources for the tasks described in Section C, Statement of Work. The Offeror shall address its ability to respond to workload fluctuations, and to perform overlapping and separate tasks in a timely manner. The Offeror shall also discuss its plan to engage in full performance of the Contract once the firm receives notice of award.

b. Organizational Structure, Responsibilities, and Relationships.

The Offeror shall describe the proposed organizational responsibilities and reporting structure. The information provided shall include the Offeror’s plans for: facilitation of the Statement of Work tasks and execution and monitoring of performance; effective communication with the Contracting Officer and COR; meeting reporting requirements of the solicitation; and cost and schedule control.

c. Subcontract Management.

The Offeror shall discuss the use of proposed subcontractors and the extent of the subcontractor's involvement in the performance of the Contract. The Offeror shall identify the proposed subcontractor(s), and provide a description of the services it intends to subcontract, the type of subcontract, and its basis for selecting the subcontractor. For teaming and subcontractor arrangements, the Offeror shall clearly describe the responsibility of each party and explain how and to what extent Contract requirements, data and schedules will be passed down to subcontractors. Subcontractors proposed in the technical proposal must be fully priced in the cost proposal to be considered in the evaluation. Subcontractors should be accounted for consistently in both the cost and technical proposals.

SUBFACTOR 1C - CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Offerors shall submit a narrative demonstrating their relevant corporate experience in performing work that is the same or similar to the requirements in the Statement of Work. Offerors shall demonstrate performance of work of the same or similar magnitude, complexity and time of performance relative to the services to be furnished under the present solicitation.

SUBFACTOR 1D – SUBCONTRACTING COMMITMENT

Offerors shall provide information on the extent of participation of small businesses it intends to use in the performance of the Contract. This shall include information on the identity of the proposed small business subcontract, the amount, type and complexity of work to be subcontracted, and the nature of the commitment. Offerors are encouraged to review DOD Small Business Prime Contracting Goals (available at the DOD Office of Small Business Programs Website:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/index.shtml) when completing their offer. Although the information to be provided under this subfactor is different than the information required under Clause 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” it should be in consonance with any subcontracting plan, if required, and with the information presented in its technical and cost proposal.

*Note: Even an Offeror who is a small business and who is not required to submit a subcontracting plan must address this factor.

SECTION 2: FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of the Prime Offeror and subcontractors proposed to perform a major portion of the requirement. “Major” is defined for the purposes of this requirement as proposed total contract value in excess of $10,000,000. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

For evaluation of Past Performance the Government may use information from any sources available including, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases. The Government may review other relevant past performance information from other sources or conduct questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

Offerors should provide relevant past performance information for similar or related work under contracts completed during the last three years. Each Offeror has the opportunity to provide in its proposal any information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the Government's requirement that it would like the Government to consider. Such information may be in the nature of additional information to that which the Government has readily available, or which is already included in PPIRS or other databases, or which the Offeror considers essential to the Government's evaluation or explanatory information of substandard or poor performance and the corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

The Government reserves the right to verify statements and representations made in an Offeror's proposal.

The Offeror may include Federal, State and Local Government and private sector contracts.

Offerors shall provide the following information for the Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractors:

1. Contract Number

2. Customer/Agency

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

4. Brief description of the scope of work

5. Contract type

6. Award Price

7. Total Labor-Hours of Effort

8. Period of Performance

9. Contract Deliverables

To obtain information, the Government may contact the points of contact listed by Offerors, however, the Government is not required to contact the points of contact provided by Offerors and may limit the number of references it decides to contact. The Government is also free to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror to evaluate past performance of Offerors.

(3) COST PROPOSAL (no page limit)

FACTOR 3- COST

Offerors shall provide separate price information containing prices for each and every line item as designated in the solicitation and should ensure that all certifications and representations within Section K of the solicitation have been accurately completed. Unless exempt pursuant to FAR 19.702(b)(1), Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR subpart 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9, Alt II with the initial submission of the proposal.

To assist the Government in determining cost reasonableness/realism for this effort, the Offeror shall provide sufficient detailed cost information with the proposal to make this determination. In preparing the cost proposal, it is essential that the Offeror breakout and identify separately for each year of the contract, the following types of cost elements listed below.

The following is a non-exclusive list which serves as an example of the various types of cost elements which may be applicable:

Direct Labor Costs:

(1) Information including the name, title, and actual hourly rate shall be provided by the Offeror for each individual proposed for the labor categories identified in Section B (Offerors are to propose on the labor categories and hour estimates provided as the Level of Effort. Offerors who propose other than what is specified in the solicitation may be considered nonresponsive.) If the Offeror proposes direct labor rates based on a composite rate structure, then the Offeror should clearly identify the basis of the composite.

(2) If an Offeror's proposed labor category differs in name from those listed in Section B, a chart should be included which identifies how these categories correspond to the ones listed in the solicitation.

(3) The Offeror shall identify any escalation rates utilized in the preparation of their cost proposal, and should provide historical information pertaining to the actual escalation rate experienced over the past three (3) year period.

(4) Offerors are reminded that the staff proposed in the technical proposal must be the same staff proposed in the cost proposal.

(5) The Offeror shall provide a copy of the letter of intent to hire for any individual proposed who is not currently employed by the Offeror or subcontractor (if proposed).

Subcontracting Costs: The proposal shall include subcontract cost data in the same level of detail as provided for the Offeror. Any subcontracting costs shall be supported. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that this support documentation is received by the Government within the timeframe (i.e. closing date) established for this solicitation.

Consultants: If applicable, provide a detailed listing of consultants expected to be used, rationale for selection and associated costs which are proposed for reimbursement. Include those items of costs associated with consultants (i.e. hour’s proposed and hourly rate). A copy of the Consultant Agreement shall also be provided by the Offeror.

Indirect Rates: Offerors shall list the cost elements that comprise the overhead, general and administrative expenses, and the other indirect pools. All indirect rates shall be summarized. Offerors shall list proposed indirect rates, DCAA recommended rates, and historical actuals (audited and unaudited) for the past three (3) years. If proposed rates reflect negotiated forward pricing rates, a copy of the current forward pricing rate agreement shall be provided. If the rates are not negotiated forward pricing rates, then the basis for the proposed rates shall be explained.

Facilities Capital Cost of Money: If this cost element is proposed, the Offeror should provide information pertaining to the derivation of the FCCOM costs (i.e. FCCOM factors and application bases).

FCCOM is non-fee bearing.

Fee: Identify the fee rate and total amount proposed and identify the various cost elements to which the fee is being applied.

Other Direct Costs: These costs represent material, travel and incidental subcontracting costs. For proposal purposed, the estimated base amounts for support costs have been pre-established and specified in Section B. Offerors are required to clearly identify as part of their proposal any indirect markup rates (i.e. G&A and material handling) which will be applicable to base support costs. The proposed amount for CLINs identified as Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs in Section B, shall include the estimated base amount and the Offeror’s proposed markup costs, which will be used for evaluation purposes. It is intended to reimburse support costs on the basis of actual reasonable and allowable costs. Lastly, it should be noted that all Other Direct Costs are non-fee bearing costs.

Accounting System: In order to obtain a cost-reimbursement type contract, the Offeror’s accounting system must be considered adequate by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). Accordingly, an Offeror's cost proposal must provide information demonstrating their accounting system has been found to be (or is in the process of being found to be) adequate by DCAA.

OFFERORS AND EACH SUBCONTRACTOR ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE DCAA

BRANCH OFFICE FOR THEIR COMPANY, WITH THE NAME, PHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL

ADDRESS OF A COGNIZANT DCAA POINT OF CONTACT WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THEIR

COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION IF KNOWN

DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED COSTS AND DCAA

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Notes:

1. As part of your Cost Proposal submission, the Contractor is required to complete the Labor Rate substantiation table (See Section J) and provide all pertinent supporting information (DCAA Audit or rate check information) to facilitate the cost realism analysis of your proposed direct labor rate and all indirect rates (i.e. G&A, Overhead, etc).

2. Offerors are cautioned that proposals unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PD-M01 AGENCY SPECIFIC PROVISION - EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS (OCT 2003)

(a) General. Careful, full and impartial consideration will be given to all offers received pursuant to this solicitation, and the evaluation will be applied in a similar manner.

(b) Initial Evaluation of Offers. An evaluation plan has been established to evaluate offers pursuant to the factors set forth in (c) below and all offers received will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel in accordance with the plan. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are determined to represent the best value based on a tradeoff of technical factors and price. The Government will make no more than four (4) awards resulting from this solicitation.

(c) Evaluation Approach. The following evaluation approach will be used:

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR 1A- PERSONNEL

SUBFACTOR 1B- MANAGEMENT APPROACH

SUBFACTOR 1C- CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

SUBFACTOR 1D- SUBCONTRACTING COMMITMENT

FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3- COST

The specific factors to be used in the evaluation process are identified below:

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate each Offerors's technical capability to perform the requirements in the solicitation, considering the Offerors's Personnel, Management Approach, Corporate Experience, and Subcontracting Commitment as specified in Section L.

Subfactor 1A: Personnel. Key Personnel will be evaluated in terms of experience, education and training as stated in the target and/or minimum qualifications in the labor categories listed in Section C. The Government will evaluate the resumes submitted by each Offerors by comparing the education and experience of proposed personnel against the qualifications indicated. Targets are not considered absolute requirements; however, minimums are, and must be met.

Subfactor 1B: Management Approach.

The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of each Offerors's management approach to perform the requirements in the solicitation. Offerors who demonstrate mature and effective management processes may receive a higher rating.

a. Resources. Offerors will be evaluated on staffing resources, the ability to respond to workload fluctuations and overlapping tasks in a timely manner, and the ability to engage in full performance of the Contract once the firm receives notice of award.

b. Organizational Structure, Responsibilities, and Relationships.

The firm’s organizational structure and management processes will be evaluated with respect to their effectiveness in facilitation of the statement of work tasks, executing and monitoring of performance, promoting open and effective communication with the Contracting Officer and COR, meeting reporting requirements of the solicitation, and demonstrating cost and schedule control.

c. SubContractor Management.

Offerors will be evaluated on whether there is a sound basis for subcontracting the work, selecting and determining the involvement of their proposed subContractor(s), and whether their Management Plan demonstrates a clear process in the management and use of subContractors in accomplishing the required tasks. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subContractor which is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest.

Subfactor 1C: Corporate Experience: Proposals will be evaluated based upon a comparison of the Offerors’s demonstrated experience to the work to be performed in the Statement of Work. Consideration will be given to the magnitude, complexity, and time of performance of the demonstrated experience relative to the services to be furnished under the present solicitation.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings to be used for Subfactors 1A, 1B, and 1C 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.

Subfactor 1D: Subcontracting Commitment: Offerors will be evaluated on the extent small businesses are identified in the performance of the Contract, and the nature of the Offerors’s commitment to use such firms. Enforceable and existing commitments will be given more weight than planned or proposed commitments. Offerors may be evaluated on their proposed subcontracting commitment in comparison to DOD Small Business Prime Contracting Goals. Offerors will be evaluated on the realism of the proposed subcontracting commitment when compared to the information in its cost and technical proposal and its subcontracting plan, if required. In the event that an Offerors does not propose any subContractors, an Acceptable Rating will be assigned.

Table 2. Small Business Ratings to be used for Subfactor 1D

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information will be used to evaluate a Contractor's actions for similar or directly related work.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offerors’s past performance. Recency is considered work performed within the past three years. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offerors is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, Contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offerors’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offerors’s past performance on past Contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offerors performed those past Contracts.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy shown in Table 3. With respect to relevancy, 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.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings to be used for Factor 2

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment- In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offerors shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4.

FACTOR 3 – COST

(i) Although cost or price is not scored, numerically weighted, or combined with the other evaluation factors to establish a merit rating, it will be evaluated for magnitude and realism. The determination of the magnitude of the cost proposal will be based on the total of all proposed costs. Cost realism is a determination of the probable cost of performance for each Offerors.

In those evaluations where all other evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price, the degree of importance of the cost or price factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

(ii) Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

(iii) In evaluating cost type offers, realism of the Offerors's estimated cost will be considered. "Realism of Estimated Cost" is determined by reference to the costs which the Offerors can reasonably be expected to incur in performance of the Contract in accordance with the offer. Therefore, in addition to generating a probable cost for each cost reimbursement CLIN based on the Offerors’s proposed approach (i.e., the CLIN’s evaluated cost), this cost realism analysis may identify areas of cost realism risk where no substantiating cost realism data supports the proposed costs such as proposals that include unrealistically low labor rates or that do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism.

The purpose of the evaluation is to: (1) verify the Offerors's understanding of the requirements; (2) assess the degree to which the cost proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk that the Offerors will provide the supplies or services at the proposed costs; and (3) assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost proposal accurately represents the effort described in the technical proposal. The proposed costs may be

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments to be used for Factor 2 Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offerors may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offerors’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offerors will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offerors will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

adjusted for purposes of evaluation based on the results of the cost realism evaluation.