N65236-16-R-0018 Amendment 0001 23 May 2017.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 update all pricing models to reflect the follow ing:

a. Notes 13 on all Prime Pricing Models - Fee is not applicable to any ODC (travel, Material, etc) on this effort.

b. Note 12 on all Subcontractor Pricing Models - Fee is not applicable to any ODC (travel, Material, etc.) on this effort.

c. Highlight Section M-307’s Note in Factor F Cost w hich w as included in the original solicitation release. This note states, “Fee is not applicable to any ODC (travel, Material, etc.) on this effort.”

d. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-May-2017

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 N6523616R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-May-2017

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

22-May-2017

CODE

US NAVY SPAWARSYSCEN ATLANTIC CHARLESTON

PO BOX 190022 2.0 CONTRACTS

843-218-2136

JESSICA.STOGNER@NAVY.MIL

NORTH CHARLESTON SC 29419-9022

N65236 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6523616R0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990) (Variation)

Evaluation of the Option to Extend Services.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total cost, price, profit and fixed fee for the option to the total cost, price, profit and fixed fee for the basic requirement. Evaluation of the option will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

Offerors are advised that the Option to Extend Services (OTES) Clause at FAR 52.217-8 is included in this solicitation and will be included in the awarded contract. The Option to Extend Services clause can operate to extend the ordering period of the indefinite delivery contract and/or the period of performance of individual task orders for up to six months; utilizing the rates of the period being extended.

Offerors are advised to propose option 1 (CLINS 1001-1002) for OTES as part of the offeror’s proposal as identified in the Attachment Pricing Model 4A and 4B for evaluation. This option will enable the offeror to propose an additional six months of work beyond the five year ordering period. Evaluation of the option will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

M-302 EVALUATION OF OFFERS: SINGLE AWARD FOR ALL ITEMS

An offeror must quote on all items in this solicitation to be eligible for award. The Government intends to make a single award to the acceptable offeror whose total offer on all items is the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price factors, if any, specified in the schedule.

M-307 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD (BEST VALUE) (VARIATION)

(a) The contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to those offerors whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government utilizing a tradeoff source selection process among cost and non-cost factors. The “best value” determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the offeror’s capability. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest technical rating. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS

STATED HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT

FURTHER EVALUATION.

(b) Proposals will be evaluated on the evaluation factors listed below. Evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. However, cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing proposals. While evaluation factors (other than cost) are more important than cost, the importance of cost as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of technical equality of the proposals.

Accordingly, when offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, cost may become the determining factor for award. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support the payment of any associated cost or price premium.

(c) Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be primarily based on the information presented in the proposal.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of price, may be deemed to be 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 or may be considered a performance risk.

(d) The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by Section L, and shall contain a response to each of the Factors identified below. Evaluation factors shall be individually rated at the Factor level based on the evaluation criteria outlined in Section M. The order of relative importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

(1) Factor A (Technical Capability) is significantly more important than Factor F (Cost).

(2) Factor B (Staffing Plan), Factor C (Management Approach), Factor D (Personnel Qualifiations), Factor

E (Past Performance) and Factor G (Professional Employee Compensation Plan) will be evaluated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

NOTE: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-cost factor will result in the entire proposal being determined "Unacceptable" and ineligible for award.

NON-COST FACTORS

FACTOR A: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the evaluation of Technical Capability (Factor A):

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple 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.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red 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.

The objective of the evaluation is to make a source selection decision based on any strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in the DoD Source Selection Guide, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf) identified in the offeror’s proposal considering the depth, breadth, and complexity of the offeror’s proposed experience as detailed below:

1. depth of experience (the frequency in which an offeror has completed same or similar tasks across the range of tasks within the element);

2. breadth and variation of experience (the multiplicity or variety of programs and/or projects an offeror has completed same or similar tasks and the range of tasks within the element), with Government experience being most important;

3. complexity of same or similar experience (the degree of difficulty proportional to the same or similar tasks in the context of the element that the offeror has completed).

Note: Experience with a matrixed working capital fund organization is more valuable to the Government.

The Government will evaluate the following elements:

Element A1. Business Intelligence Environment Support

Element A1.1: The offeror will be evaluated based their demonstration of experience in applying advanced strategic analytics in operational and business decision making methodology and bi-directional situational awareness in developing solutions to complex business problems to include application and use of mathematical models, analytical reasoning, statistical analysis, predictive analysis, and simulations.

Element A1.2 The offeror will be evaluated based their demonstration of experience in executing complex Business Intelligence implementations and data integration to include designing and building dashboards, reporting solutions, and data integration leveraging the SAP Business Objects 3.1 (or newer) reporting suite.

Element A1.3: The offeror will be evaluated based on their demonstration of experience in executing complex Data Warehouse data models including relational and multi-dimensional/dimension modeling, and Data Extract Transfer and Load (ETL) strategies leveraging the SAP Business Objects 3.1 (or newer) reporting suite.

Element A2. Business Financial Management Support

The offeror will be evaluated based on their demonstration of experience and technical capability in business financial management and analytical support through their experience developing and maintaining budgets, financial analysis, cost accounting, forecasting, data tagging, and performing data associations in accordance with the DoD

5000 and FIAR regulations.

ElementA3. Programmatic Support

The offeror will be evaluated based on their demonstration of technical capability providing strategic programmatic support through their experience of monitoring, controlling and reporting on the cost, schedule and performance of work breakdown structures, including risk identification and management while analyzing the data to support decision making and bi-directional awareness into a Business Intelligence Environment.

The Government’s evaluation will be based primarily on the information provided by the offeror and submitted with its proposal. The adjectival rating will be an overall assessment of the criteria listed above. The Government will evaluate the work performed for each reference for relevance to the work evaluated under the evaluation criteria.

The more relevant the demonstrated experience is to the contemplated work, the more valuable the experience is to the Government. The Government reserves the right to consider information other than that included on the offeror -prepared forms. Offerors (prime and each significant subcontractor) shall provide reference information only for Technical Capability that is current and relevant as defined in Section L. The offeror will be credited with only those contract references that the Government determines to be current and relevant.

Although a total contract amount may meet the relevancy requirement of $9 million (or $2 million for each significant subcontractor) stated in Section L, if the invoiced amount stated on line 8 of Attachment 1B, Reference

Information Sheet-Contract Specific Data, does not meet or exceed $9 million (or $2 million for each significant subcontractor), no credit will be given for that contract reference.

As stated in Section L, Technical Capability reference data (and associated past performance information) is limited to companies that are expected to perform this contract effort, i.e., included in the technical and cost/price proposal data submission with assigned labor category hours. Technical Capability reference data for any company, division, subsidiary, etc., that is not included in the technical and cost/price proposal for this contract effort will not be considered.

If an offeror fails to include the minimum number of current and relevant contract references for both prime and each significant subcontractor as stated in provision L-317 Submission of Proposals, a rating of “unacceptable” will be assigned to the Technical Capability Factor, the proposal will be rejected, and the offeror will not be considered for contract award.

FACTOR B: STAFFING PLAN

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the Staffing Plan Rating (Factor B)

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s staffing plan in reference to the Basic Contract and Task Orders (Attachments 5, 6 and 7). The evaluation will be an assessment of the offeror’s capability to perform work for SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic of similar nature, scope, complexity, and difficulty to that which must be performed under the prospective contract Task Orders contemplated by this solicitation.

Staffing Plan:

Note: The staffing plan should provide the basis for providing qualified and capable personnel, when the prime contractor’s own internal capability is otherwise utilized or exhausted on an annual basis.

a. The efficiency and effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed staff to support multiple task orders throughout the life of the basic contract and during the initial three task orders A, B and C with qualified personnel (as per labor categories) within 30 days of award.

b. Ability and techniques utilized to provide personnel during the life of the contract and to ensure sufficient staffing levels for all task orders issued during the life of the basic contract for all types of absences, replacement of departing employees and replacement of non-performing employees.

c. The efficiency, flexibility, and effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed organizational structure, including, but not limited to, situations where changing priorities and fluctuating resources may require cross-utilization of personnel or other techniques to assure efficient personnel management during the life of the basic contract.

The Government’s evaluation will be based primarily on the information provided by the offeror and submitted with its proposal. The adjectival rating will be an overall assessment of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks for the entire factor. The Government reserves the right to consider information other than that included on the offeror-prepared forms.

FACTOR C: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the Management Approach Rating (Factor C)

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s management plan in reference to the Basic Contract and Task Orders (Attachments 5, 6 and 7). The evaluation will be an assessment of the offeror’s capability to perform work for SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic of similar nature, scope, complexity, and difficulty to that which must be performed under the prospective contract Task Orders contemplated by this solicitation.

Management Plan:

a. Efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed approach for managing and supporting all task orders issued under the basic contract to provide standardized and effective data methodologies to support the authoritative data systems within a matrixed organization throughout the life of the contract, and during task order A, B and C execution

b. Ability to proactively monitor personnel performance and identify potential risks for corrective action issues and the mitigation strategy to correct and or replace personnel throughout the life of the contract and during task order A, B and C performance.

c. Efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed approach to manage task orders against the sample funding plan, and maintain accuracy of the invoicing and reporting throughout the life of the contract and during task order A, B and C performance.

d. Efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed approach for managing and monitoring multiple subcontractors on multiple task orders during the life of the contract and through task orders A, B and C performance.

FACTOR D: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the Personnel Qualifications (Factor D)

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Resumes that are submitted for proposed key personnel in the designated key labor categories (reference provision L-317) will be reviewed and evaluated against the personnel qualification requirements as set forth in Section C, clause 5252.237-9600, Personnel Qualifications of the solicitation. This factor will be used to determine the commitment and qualifications of each offeror’s key personnel. Such commitment will be evaluated by reference to the key personnel signatures on the resume. Resumes which do not contain key personnel signatures will not be reviewed further and that particular resume(s) will be determined “Unacceptable.”

Individual resumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All eight (8) required resumes must receive an “Acceptable” rating in order for the offeror to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating for the Factor. Any additional resumes submitted beyond the initial eight (8) requested in Section L-317 will not be evaluated.

NOTE: The Government will look for the offeror’s assertion that the personnel proposed for this Factor are anticipated to spend 50% of their time dedicated to this effort.

FACTOR E: PAST PERFORMANCE

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the Past Performance (Factor E)

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The past performance evaluation will result in an overall assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated current and relevant (as defined in Section L, Factor A) record of performance of services that meet the contract's overall requirements.

The Government will assess the offeror's past performance considering the following areas:

(1) Quality of Product or Service

(2) Schedule

(3) Cost Control

(4) Business Relations

(5) Management of Key Personnel

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness of an offeror’s past performance based on:

(1) Relevancy of previous work performed as compared to the RFP. A determination of relevancy will be made based on the current and relevant requirements under Factor A.

(2) Records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, (i.e., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)).

(3) Statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an offeror’s performance or about the quality of an offeror’s overall performance.

The Government may solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local Government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror.

The evaluation will take in account the same type of information regarding significant subcontractors proposed in the offeror’s proposal.

The content of the past performance record(s) submitted for individual Task Orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract (other than orders under GSA, GWAC, DoD-wide (Seaport-E, NETCENTS, ITES-2S, ENCORE, etc.) contracts and/or BPAs) will be considered as an aggregate rating and applied as one past performance record for evaluation purposes.

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the offeror’s past performance, that offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide contract reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in Section L, then that reference will not be considered.

The minimum acceptance criterion is a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. For the purposes of evaluation, a neutral rating will be considered acceptable. Past performance information will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Note: Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect.

COST FACTOR

FACTOR F: COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

A Cost Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Section B as set forth in the solicitation. Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include Defense Contract Audit Agency office, Defense Contract Management Agency, other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor, and etc. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance.

NOTE: The offeror’s pass-through fees will be considered as part of price analysis and cost realism.

(a) Proposals will be evaluated for the reasonableness of the offered prices using Price Analysis. Price analysis will be based on the total price offered for all estimated hours over the five year ordering period and one option period. The five year ordering period and option period consists of the total cost for material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items. Labor will be evaluated by multiplying the labor rate times the estimated annual hours as set forth in the Pricing Model, Attachments 4A and 4B. The other direct cost, i.e., miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, material, etc. will be evaluated by ADDING the proposed loading factors such as G&A, material handling, etc., to the Government's estimates specified in the Pricing Model, Attachments 4A and 4B. Contract Data is "Not Separately Priced". No deviations to the total estimated amount of hours in Attachments 4A or 4B will be accepted, and may result in the offeror’s proposal being “unacceptable”.

NOTE: Fee is not applicable to any ODC (travel, material etc.) on this effort.

(b) Cost Realism. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated on the overall cost realism exhibited. Cost Realism pertains to the offeror’s ability to project costs which are realistic. The purpose of this evaluation shall be: (1) to assess the degree to which the cost/price reflects the requirements of the PWS and/or the risk that the offeror will provide the supplies or services for the offered prices/cost; and (2) to assess the degree to which the costs included in the cost/price proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal, and/or other cost-related information available to the Contracting Officer.

Proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based on the results of the cost realism evaluation. In the case of a fixed fee, the proposed fee is considered “fixed” and will not be adjusted during cost realism.

The offered prices will not be adjusted as a result of the cost realism analysis. However, the results of the cost realism analysis could negatively impact the technical rating of the proposal as well as the offeror’s responsibility determination.

(c) Uncompensated Overtime Evaluation. The use of uncompensated overtime, as defined in the FAR 52.237-10 “Identification of Uncompensated Overtime” provision in Section L, is discouraged by the Government. Based upon our assessment of the technical services required herein, it is unrealistic to expect long-term employees to continually work in excess of the industry norm of 40 hours per week. Therefore, the use of uncompensated overtime in this acquisition represents risk to the Government.

FACTOR G: PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (Factor G)

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of

Compensation for Professional Employees”.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of

Compensation for Professional Employees”.

The information provided under the Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated by the

Government to determine if the offeror’s plan and supporting documentation demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the elements of FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

(End of Summary of Changes)