N66001-17-R-0011 Amendment 01.pdf

1300592767

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: 1) Extend the RFP closing date to 26 May 2017; 2) Revise paragraphs 1.1, 2.0, and 6.1 of the SOW;

3) Incorporate revised Attachment 2, Rate Sheet; 4) Revise language in M-307(c)(1); 5) add language to M-307 3.0 Step Three; 6) Incorporate revised Attachment 7, Past Performance Questionnaire

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-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 N66001-17-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Apr-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 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

05-May-2017

CODE

SPAWAR SYSTEMS CENTER PACIFIC

KAYLA L. GARCIA, CODE 22560

KAYLA.GARCIA@NAVY.MIL

53560 HULL STREET

SAN DIEGO CA 92152-5001

N66001 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N66001-17-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-May-2017 08:00 AM to 26-May-2017 04:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

Global Changes

CLIN 0001 -- CLIN 0006

The pricing detail quantity 1.00 has been added.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

STATEMENT OF WORK

Title: Information Operations (IO) and Meteorology and Oceanography (METOC) Engineering Services and Software Development

1.0 SCOPE

This effort provides engineering services to include software development, testing, integration and documentation of Information Operations (IO) and Meteorology and Oceanography (METOC) systems in support of Program Executive Office (PEO) Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence (C4I) programs and SSC- Pacific Projects. This effort supports providing METOC and IO capabilities to the United States Navy (USN), United States Marine Corps (USMC), Joint, and Coalition Forces engaged in supporting Department of Defense (DoD) operations worldwide, both ashore and afloat, for customers including SPAWAR, PEO C4I and PMW-120.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific) has a vision of being the Nation’s pre-eminent Technical Leader for integrated Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) needs of the Navy. The Navy’s C4I systems are vital to the goal of achieving and maintaining Information Dominance. A key pillar of Information Dominance is Battlespace Awareness. SSC Pacific provides solutions for many systems that contribute to Battlespace Awareness, including IO and METOC. Battlespace awareness consists of three key environments: Information, Physical and Threat. The threat environment is addressed by Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems that are largely supported by systems operating at security levels outside the scope of this contract. The Information environment is addressed by IO systems and the Physical environment by METOC systems. Under this construct, SSC Pacific supports and assists with the planning, development, integration, maintenance, and operation of systems which enable future synergy and seamless integration of IO and METOC information across the Navy’s C4I systems.

Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command (COMNAVMETOCCOM) has the mission to collect, interpret, and apply global atmospheric and oceanographic data and information in support of strategic, operational and tactical warfare and US human assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) missions. As such, COMNAVMETOCCOM directly supports the operational intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions of the nation’s deployed forces and provides around-the-clock operational oceanographic and meteorological support to the U.S. Navy, other U.S. Government agencies, and elements of the armed forces of allied nations. This support consists of running regularly-scheduled, large physical environment numerical global forecast models for ships, aircraft, and other forces throughout the DoD. Greater emphasis on preparation for and reaction to regional conflicts and the littoral threat has resulted in a greatly increased demand for high-resolution coupled-model meteorological guidance and forecasts, as well as oceanographic support to tactical coastal operations.

The primary Program of Record for the Navy’s C4I Enterprise afloat METOC capability is the Naval Integrated Tactical Environmental System Next Generation (NITES-Next). NITES-Next is a software-centric program that provides capabilities to order, process, store, and analyze METOC data and information products. NITES-Next provides users the ability to assess the impact of present and forecasted atmospheric, surface, and oceanographic METOC conditions on warfighter operations, weapon systems and sensor systems, and allows the display and visualization of tailored METOC products. NITES-Next provides METOC data and products to METOC units, mission planning systems, Joint Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, sensor systems, and decision support systems. NITES-Next is comprised of net-centric capabilities that interoperate within the DoD Information Enterprise Architecture (IEA) to provide METOC capabilities to the USN, USMC, Joint, and Coalition Forces engaged in supporting DoD operations worldwide, both ashore and afloat.

NITES-Next is responsible for the timely transition of METOC Tactical Decision Aids, along with other applications from Research and Development and current operations, into a DoD IEA-compliant integration environment. The NITES-Next software design allows for integration with other METOC and non-METOC common architectures. NITES-Next provides significant improvements over the previously fielded systems by meeting the requirements of Joint, net-centric warfighting. Net-Centric warfighting takes place in a highly-variable physical environment, which requires achievement of accurate characterization and assessment of specific operational impacts.

The Navy’s IO and METOC programs must continue to evolve as new systems are deployed which rely on the crucial data and decision aids they provide. These programs must also evolve with changing infrastructure and network architectures. An increasing number of afloat platforms are being deployed with Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES). CANES delivers systematic refreshes of both hardware and software and all applications residing on CANES are required to participate in Application Integration Events prior to being fielded. This requires regular software development and integration by IO and METOC systems prior to each new CANES release. In addition to CANES-equipped ships, IO and METOC systems must be engineered to operate on a wide variety of other platforms including but not limited to mobile laptop platforms with limited bandwidth and storage for Navy and Marine Corps teams.

2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The following documents were used in the development of this Statement of Work (SOW) and may be incorporated for individual delivery/task orders. Nothing in the documents however, shall supersede applicable laws and regulations, unless a specific exemption has been obtained. The Contractor’s solution shall comply with current documentation, standards and guidance as outlined in each task order.

a. DoD 5220.22-M, DoD Manual – National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual

(NISPOM) dtd 28 Feb 06

b. DoDI 5220.22, DoD Instruction – National Industrial Security Program dtd 18 Mar 11

c. DoD 5200.02-R, DoD Regulation – Personnel Security Program dtd Jan 87

d. DoDI 6205.4, Department of Defense Instruction, Immunization of Other Than U.S. Forces

(OTUSF) for Biological Warfare Defense dtd 14 Apr 2000

e. DoDI 8500.01, DoD Instruction – Cybersecurity dtd 14 Mar 14

f. DoDI 8510.01, DoD Instruction – Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information

Technology (IT) dtd 12 Mar 14

g. DoDD 8570.01, DoD Directive – Information Assurance Training, Certification, and Workforce Management dtd 15 Aug 04

h. DoD 8570.01-M , Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program dtd 24 Jan 12

i. SECNAV M-5239.2, DON Information Assurance Workforce Management Manual dtd 17 Jun

j. SECNAV M-5510.30, Secretary of the Navy Manual – DoN Personnel Security Program dtd 6

Oct 2006

k. SECNAV Manual 5510.36 (Series), Department of Navy Information Security Program, June

l. SECNAVINST 5239.3B, DoN Information Assurance Policy, 14 Jun 09

m. SECNAVINST 5510.30, DoN Regulation – Personnel Security Program dtd 30 Jun 06

n. SPAWARINST 3432.1, SPAWAR Instruction – Operations Security (OPSEC) Policy dtd 2 Feb

o. OPNAVINST F3300.53C (Series), Navy Antiterrorism Program

p. OPNAVINST 3432.1 (Series), DON Operations Security dtd 29 Aug 95

q. SPAWARINST 4440.12, Management of Operating Materials and Supplies (OM&S), Government Furnished Property (GFP), Contractor Acquired Property (CAP), Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E), and Inventory dtd 10 Mar 11

r. SPAWARINST 5721.1B, SPAWAR Section 508 Implementation Policy, 17 Nov 09

s. NAVSUP P-723, Navy Inventory Integrity Procedures, dtd 19 April 2000

t. NIST SP 800-Series, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publications 800

Series – Computer Security Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines dtd Dec 90

u. ISO 9001, Quality Management Systems, Requirements, version 9001:2015

v. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, Systems and software engineering – System life cycle processes, version

15288:2015

w. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288.1, Standard for Application of Systems Engineering on Defense Programs, 15 May 2015

x. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288.2, Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense Programs, 15

May 2015

y. IEEE Std 12207-2008, Systems and Software Engineering – Software Life Cycle Processes,

z. EIA-748, Earned Value Management (EVM) Systems dtd 5 Sep 13

aa. Form I-9, OMB No. 115-0136, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization

Services, Form I-9, OMB No. 115-0136 – Employment Eligibility Verification dtd 21 Nov 91

bb. DOD 5200.01 Volumes 1 through 4 (Series), DOD Security Program, February 24, 2012

cc. DoDD 5205.02E, DoD Directive – Operations Security (OPSEC) Program dtd 20 Jun 12

dd. DoD 5205.02-M, DoD Manual – Operations Security (OPSED) Program Manual dtd 3 Nov 08

ee. DoDD 8140.01, Cyberspace Workforce Management dtd 11 Aug 15

ff. SECNAV M-5239.2, CON Cyberspace Information Technology and Cybersecurity Workforce

Management and Qualification Manual dtd Jun 16

gg. SECNAVINST 4440.34, Secretary of the Navy Instruction – Implementation of Item Unique

Identification within the DoN, dtd 22 Dec 09

hh. SECNAVINST 5239.19, Incident Response, dtd Mar 08

ii. SECNAVINST 5239.20A, DON Cyberspace IT Cybersecurity, dtd 10 Feb 16

jj. SECNAVINST 5239.3C, DON Cybersecurity Policy, dtd 2 May 16

kk. DON CIO Memorandum, Acceptable Use of Department of the Navy Information Technology

(IT), dtd 12 Feb 16

ll. COMUSFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLTINST 6320.3A, Commander US Fleet Forces

Command/Commander US Pacific Fleet Instruction, Medical Screening for US Govt Civilian Employees, Contractor Personnel, and Guests prior to embarking Fleet Units, of 7 May 13

mm. Navy Telecommunications Directive (NTD 10-11), System Authorization Access Request (SAAR)- Navy

nn. National Security Decision Directive 298 (Series), National Operations Security Program (NSDD) 298, January 22, 1988

oo. SPAWARINST 3432.1 (Series), Operations Security Policy, February 2, 2005

3.0 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall perform the following tasks, as specified at the task order level.

3.1 BATTLESPACE AWARENESS

3.1.1 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

The Contractor shall provide engineering, manufacturing, software and operational systems support as required by applicable task orders. Support includes, systems evaluations, design analysis, and hardware/software maintenance using documented processes such as the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) processes to ensure the quality and maintainability of designated systems. The Contractor shall also:

- Provide recommendations for achieving goals and objectives by identifying and analyzing potential program risks, track events, prepare impact statements and assessments, identify and recommend technical solutions and alternatives and assess the results.

- Review and evaluate reports, plans, specifications, technical documentation, and design disclosure documentation.

- Participate in Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) such as the METOC Fleet Collaborative Team, ISR Future Capability Team (FCT).

- Track and assess how external programs, such as CANES, will impact METOC or Information Operations Programs.

- Provide architecture, system, and software engineering and design support to METOC and IO Programs as defined in individual task orders.

3.1.1.1 Enterprise Architecture Support

As defined in applicable task orders, the Contractor shall provide Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) systems and subsystem definition support.

3.1.1.2 Modeling and Simulation Support

As defined in applicable task orders, the Contractor shall provide project level Modeling and Simulation (M&S) support to include, but not be limited to, virtual M&S, M&S data extraction and analysis, and generation of test data/script/reports. The Contractor shall provide M&S updates and maintenance.

3.1.1.3 Development Support

As defined in applicable task orders, the Contractor shall provide engineering, manufacturing, software and operational systems development support, including systems evaluations, design analysis, and hardware/software development using documented processes such as the Agile Development and CMMI to ensure the quality and maintainability of designated systems.

3.1.1.4 Fleet Engineering Support

As defined in applicable task orders, the Contractor shall provide fleet engineering support which may include:

- On call, on-site technical services on equipment/systems to provide site survey, development, integration, troubleshooting, checkout, repair and test of communications and information network systems worldwide, as specified in individual task orders.

- Development, validation and maintenance of drawing packages, drawing trees, "As-Built" drawings, and block diagrams.

3.1.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT

The Contractor shall map System Requirements identified in each task order to existing or new software configuration items that have been developed by the Government and those that require new development by the Contractor.

3.2 BATTLESPACE AWARENESS SOFTWARE

3.2.1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

The Contractor shall define a software development approach appropriate for the software design and development effort to be performed under this contract. This approach shall be documented in a Software Development Plan (SDP) (see DID No. DI-IPSC-81427A for required format and content). Once defined, the Contractor shall follow this SDP for all computer software to be developed or maintained under this contract.

The SDP shall define the offeror’s proposed life cycle model and the processes used as a part of that model. In this context, the term “life cycle model” is as defined in IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.0. The SDP shall describe the overall life cycle and shall include primary, supporting, and organizational processes based on the work content of this contract.

In accordance with the framework defined in IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.0, the SDP shall define the processes, the activities to be performed as a part of the processes, the tasks which support the activities, and the techniques and tools to be used to perform the tasks. Because IEEE/EIA Std. 12207 does not prescribe how to accomplish the task, the offeror must provide this detailed information so the Government can assess whether the offeror’s approach is viable.

The SDP shall contain the information defined by IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1, section 5.2.1 (generic content) and the Plans or Procedures in Table 1 of IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1. In all cases, the level of detail shall be sufficient to define all software development processes, activities, and tasks to be conducted. Information provided must include, as a minimum, specific standard, methods, tools, action, strategies, and responsibilities associated with development and qualification.

The Contractor’s software engineering approach shall afford opportunities for input and oversight by the Government.

3.2.1.1 SOFTWARE DESIGN

The Contractor shall perform software design, development, and verification functions and shall deliver computer software end items and required documentation to support METOC software development and capability improvements. This effort shall include the following items.

-The Contractor shall develop software products to meet the requirements specified at the task order level.

- In the event the Contractor changes program baseline software, the Contractor shall ensure that all program requirements are met by successfully passing testing administered using the approved test procedures for the accepting program.

-For any changes to the development approach, the Contractor shall provide notification to the Government via a report IAW applicable task order requirements. The report shall outline the agreed-upon way forward in the development of software products under this SOW. As required at the task order level, the Contractor shall update their SDP for implementing requirements.

-The Contractor shall provide testable software as outlined at the task order level. The Contractor shall deliver executable acceptance tests for each software delivery. The Government will approve the acceptance tests to confirm the software is ready for Government testing. The Contractor shall develop a plan IAW applicable task order requirements showing how the Contractor will fully implement all requirements prior to the start of Government system integration events.

-The Contractor shall use a Government-approved software repository to make available to the Government all of the source code and all associated supporting documentation required to build, install, and configure delivered software IAW applicable task order requirements.

- The Contractor shall provide support to the SSC Pacific integration and test teams during integration and requirements testing in the Government test facilities.

-The Contractor shall provide support to the Government test teams during major test events, to include but not limited to CANES testing and end-to-end testing. Work shall be performed at Government test facilities.

-The Contractor shall participate in cross-pillar coordination meetings at Government invitation (e.g. between PEO C4I, PMW 120 and SSC Pacific Information Operations and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Divisions). The Contractor shall participate in weekly working group meetings led by SSC Pacific as required at the task order level.

-The Contractor shall review and provide comments on material developed by the Government to document the Contractor-developed software. This material includes but is not limited to information for design, installation, and user guides, as required at the task order level.

-The Contractor shall address software problems captured in System Problem Reports (SPRs) during Government software testing and resolve those to the satisfaction of the Government.

-The Contractor shall attend Government design reviews and provide presentation material as required at the task order level.

-The Contractor shall work with SSC Pacific and requiring customers including PMW 120 Information Assurance (IA) and Human Systems Interface (HSI) teams to ensure that software development activities meet the Government security requirements as defined in each task order, optimize user workflow, and reduce user workload and error.

The IA effort includes implementing the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Application Security Development Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG).

-The Contractor shall develop software products using a common development environment as specified by the SSC Pacific Software Integration Team.

-The Contractor shall develop and maintain Software Component Documents detailing the architecture, software components, design rationale, appropriate Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams, external and internal interfaces, data flows, data structure, and databases that are interfaced. The Contractor shall provide input to design documentation for system changes and follow the approved format provided by the receiving program. This deliverable will also include the Contractor’s schedule for document development and updates IAW the applicable task order.

-The Contractor shall participate in the METOC and IO Local Change Configuration Board (LCCB), when providing software development support for NITES-Next as required at the task order level.

3.2.1.2 AGILE DEVELOPMENT

When directed by task order the Contractor shall employ Contractor-tailored agile software development processes to meet the NITES-Next requirements and shall deliver Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) compliant, Geospatial Information and Services-METOC products accessible through the Ozone Widget Framework (OWF). The Contractor shall develop software using current development STIG as approved by the Government IA Manager.

Where applicable, products shall meet interoperability certification standards as outlined in Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) Interoperability Process Guide 2.0.

The Contractor-developed software shall meet METOC requirements as specified at the task order level and verified by SSC Pacific test team.

As required by individual task orders, the Contractor shall maintain prioritized backlogs with point estimates for each of the following categories:

• Requirement

• HSI

• Bug

• Enhancements

• Infrastructure

• Other

3.2.2 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The Contractor shall provide input to the overall baseline for METOC and IO. The baseline for NITES-Next defines the system architecture and includes:

• System-Wide Design Decisions

• Department of Defense Architecture Framework views

• Allocation of System Requirements to Software Components

• Additional system design information – system data flow diagram, deployment diagram, functional architecture diagram.

3.3 GENERAL

The Contractor shall provide technical and program management support services of the overall development efforts to include project planning, project execution, and project control. The Contractor shall provide technical and management services that enable rapid development and deployment of new capabilities for IO and METOC related systems.

The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and monitor cost, schedule, software development, and metrics and present the status of these metrics at all programmatic/design/technical reviews and working group meetings, as required by applicable task orders. This support will also include reviews and meetings, task order award briefs, software maintenance and upgrade support IAW applicable documents. Additionally, the Contractor shall provide training and logistics support including identifying software changes, update and install software to meet training environment requirements, and configuration management, IAW applicable documents.

4.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION, PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

Government Furnished Information (GFI), Government Furnished Property (GFP), and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be specified at the task order level; use and disclosure language will apply as specified at the task order level.

5.0 TRAVEL

Travel will be specified at the task order level.

6.0 OTHER

6.1 SECURITY

The nature of tasks within this contract requires access to SECRET information and shall not exceed the SECRET level. This effort will be unclassified and at the Secret level; therefore, the Contractor will be required to provide individuals with security clearances at the appropriate classification levels, as specified in individual task orders.

Some tasks will require Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPRnet) Network access at Government labs. For Contractor personnel supporting onsite Government lab testing, additional security training may be required by the Government prior to having access to Government computers. Individual task orders may also require contract personnel to receive the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) awareness brief and complete the derivative classification training prior to being granted access to SIPRnet; training is provided by the facility security officer.

Anti-Terrorism/force Protection (AT/FP) briefings are required for all personnel (military, DOD civilian, and contractor) prior to commencement of foreign travel. Contractor employees must receive the AT/FP briefing annually. The briefing is available at Joint Knowledge Online (JKO): https://jkodirect.jten.mil (prefix): JS; course number: US007; title: Level 1 Anti-terrorism awareness training, if experiencing problems accessing this website contact ssc_fortrav@navy.mil. note: per OPNAVINST F3300.53C contractor employees must receive the AT/FP briefing annually.

All software will be developed using current development STIG as approved by the Government IA Manager.

Where applicable, products shall meet interoperability certification standards as outlined in Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) Interoperability Process Guide 2.0.

As required by National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) Chapter 1, Section 3, contractors are required to report certain events that have an impact on: 1) the status of the facility clearance (FCL); 2) the status of an employee's personnel clearance (PCL); 3) the proper safeguarding of classified information; 4) or an indication that classified information has been lost or compromised. Contractors working under SSC Pacific contracts will ensure information pertaining to assigned contractor personnel are reported to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/Technical Point of Contact (TPOC), the Contracting Specialist, and the Security's COR in addition to notifying appropriate agencies such as Cognizant Security Agency (CSA), Cognizant Security Office (CSO), or Department Of Defense Central Adjudication Facility (DODCAF) when that information relates to the denial, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance of any assigned personnel; any adverse information on an assigned employee's continued suitability for continued access to classified access; any instance of loss or compromise, or suspected loss or compromise, of classified information; actual, probable or possible espionage, sabotage, or subversive information; or any other circumstances of a security nature that would affect the contractor's operation while working under SSC Pacific contracts.

6.2 OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC)

OPSEC is a five step analytical process (identify critical information; analyze the threat; analyze vulnerabilities;

assess risk; develop countermeasures) that is used as a means to identify, control, and protect unclassified and unclassified sensitive information associated with U.S. national security related programs and activities. All personnel working under this task will at some time handle, produce or process Critical Information or CPI, and therefore all personnel must practice OPSEC. All work is to be performed in accordance with DoD and OPSEC requirements and in accordance with the OPSEC attachment to the DD254.

6.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The below percentages represent estimates of the amount of work to be performed at each location over the life of this contract. Specific requirements will be specified in individual task orders.

50% SSC Pacific, San Diego, CA 50% Contractor’s facility

6.4 CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVES (COR)

The COR will be identified by task order for the projects and/or programs they support as outlined in

SPAWARINST 4240.1.

6.5 CYBER SECURITY/ INFORMATION ASSURANCE (IA) WORK FORCE

All cybersecurity functions to be performed under this contract will be identified in H-1 and at the task order level.

Task orders will specify, as applicable, Cybersecurity Workforce category, level, training, and certification requirements for Contractor personnel with privileged access working in cybersecurity technical environments, cybersecurity management personnel with significant cybersecurity tasks, Computer Network Defense Service Providers (CND�SPs), and cybersecurity systems architects and engineers. Task orders with cybersecurity functions will include a requirement for the Contractor to report cybersecurity certification status and compliance.

6.6 REPORTS, DATA AND DELIVERABLES

The Contractor shall provide reports, technical data, and computer software deliverables in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), DD Form 1423, as specified in individual task orders.

All classified deliverables shall be protected and handled in accordance with standard security practices and procedures.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-307 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE) (DEC 1999)

(a) The contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. Such offer may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost or receiving the highest technical rating. One or more awards may be reserved for small business if one or more small business prime contractors are found to represent the best value to the Government in terms of both technical capability and cost reasonableness.

(b) Proposals will be rated and ranked using a three-step methodology. Step One is an evaluation of: (a) acceptability of the offer; and (b) capability (including SDP, Small Business Participation, Organizational Experience, and Past Performance). Step Two is an evaluation of the proposed cost. Step Three is a cost/technical trade-off analysis in order to determine the best value source selection decision.

Offerors that receive a Marginal or lower evaluation rating for the Organizational Experience factor will not be further considered for award. Such offerors will not be evaluated in Step Two: Cost Analysis; or Step Three:

Tradeoff Process.

(c) Source Selection Factors

(1) Non-cost factors: Proposals will be evaluated against four non-cost capability factors: SDP, Small Business Participation, Organizational Experience, and Past Performance.

Within the non-cost factors, SDP and Small Business Participation are rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

For all factors rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, the Government will not further discriminate between offerors that receive Acceptable ratings in these factors. For example, if two offerors receive Acceptable ratings in the Small Business Participation factor, the Government will not further discriminate between these two offerors and will consider those Acceptable ratings to be equal in the Small Business Participation factor. Organizational Experience is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more imporant than Software Development Plan and Small Business Participation. Software Development Plan and Small Business Participation are of equal importance.

The non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost.

(2) Non-cost sub-factors: Evaluation factors do not have formal sub-factors that will be rated separately. For example, the rating for Organizational Experience will be based on the overall evaluation of all SOW key areas.

(3) A summary list of non-cost factors are as follows:

Technical Factors:

(1) Software Development Plan

(2) Small Business Participation

(3) Organizational Experience

(4) Past Performance

4) It should be noted that cost is not a numerically weighted factor. Although non-cost factors are more important than cost, cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing responsive proposals. The importance of cost as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors. When the offerors within the competitive range are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government, cost may become the determining factor for award. In summary, cost/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

(d) 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, Defense Contract Management Administration offices, other contracts with same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Data Resources, Inc., Standard and Poor, etc.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost, 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. If the proposed contract requires the delivery of data, the quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and writing which would be prevalent in the proposed deliverable data. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

(e) Each proposal will be evaluated using the following methodology:

1.0 STEP ONE – Acceptability of the Offer; Capability

1.1 Acceptability of the Offer

The Government will determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass or fail basis. An offer will be considered acceptable when it manifests the offeror’s assent, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of the RFP, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference. An offeror’s failure or refusal to assent to any of the terms and conditions of the RFP, imposition of additional conditions, or any material omission may constitute a deficiency, which may make the offer unacceptable (the only way to correct a deficiency would be through discussions per FAR 15.306(d)). We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions of this RFP by amendment at any time prior to the source selection decision.

1.2 Capability

1.2.1 Software Development Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Software Development Plan against the following three areas:

Software Development Approach Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed software development approach to ensure it is appropriate for the system(s) to be developed and meets standard levels of completeness and process quality. For this evaluation, the Government will rely primarily on the draft SDP and the SDP Rationale. Criteria: IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1, Section 4.2.3, H.3 – Characteristics of Life Cycle Data

Software Development Experience Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous experience in developing software of the same nature as that being acquired with this solicitation.

Software Development Process Experience Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous experience in developing software using the same or similar approach as proposed for this solicitation. The results of any standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 24 months prior to proposal submission, and the number of proposed staff experienced in using these processes will be part of the evaluation criteria.

1.2.2 Small Business Participation

(a) The Government will evaluate the total percentage of small business participation. The inclusion of each subcontractor in the cost proposal shall serve as evidence that the prime contractor and subcontractor have entered into a business agreement; no further evidence of a business agreement is required. Only the portion of small business participation that is both listed in the matrix and substantiated by the cost proposal will be considered in the evaluation.

(b) The evaluation of this factor will result in a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offerors that propose total small business participation of less than 15% will receive a rating of Unacceptable. Offerors that propose total small business participation of 15% or more will receive a rating of Acceptable

1.2.3 Organizational Experience

Experience is the opportunity to learn by doing. An offeror’s organizational experience is relevant when it has been confronted with the kinds of challenges it will likely face under the contract contemplated by this RFP. This evaluation will consider the breadth, depth and relevance of offeror work performed since 1 January 2012 in the SOW key areas identified in provision L-317. Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value.

For evaluation purposes, ratings may be maximized for offerors who, in accordance with provision L-317, cited organizational experience references that collectively demonstrate maximum breadth and depth of relevant experience in the SOW key areas. In evaluating your experience in each individual SOW key area, the Government will consider only the text designated in Part 15 of the Reference Information Sheet for that particular SOW key area. For evaluation purposes, it should also be noted that these SOW key areas will not be evaluated as subfactors.

Offerors that receive a Marginal or lower evaluation rating for the Organizational Experience factor will not be further considered for award. Such offerors will not be evaluated in Step Two: Cost Analysis, or Step Three:

Tradeoff Process.

1.2.4 Past Performance

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. To be deemed recent, the work must have been performed since 1 January 2012. If a reference is not deemed recent, that reference will not be evaluated in the second or third aspects of this evaluation factor. The second aspect is to evaluate the relevance of the offeror’s past performance. An offeror’s past performance is relevant when it is similar to the kinds of challenges that may occur under the contract contemplated by this RFP.

Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value. Past Performance relevancy will be rated as follows: Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Only recent past performance deemed Somewhat Relevant or better will be evaluated in this third step. The Government will review this past performance information (to include CPARS and/or questionnaires) and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment. The Government’s performance confidence assessment will consider the Reference Information Sheets submitted by offerors, Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by offeror references, their own experience with offerors, and information from third-party references relating to the following areas:

(1) Quality - Conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship, accuracy of reports, technical excellence, reliability.

(2) Schedule - Timeliness of performance with regard to contract milestones, delivery/performance schedules, administrative requirements, actions that contribute to or affect schedule variance, contractor corrective actions.

(3) Cost Control - Effectiveness in forecasting, managing and controlling contract cost; demonstrated sense of cost responsibility, efficient use of resources, cost savings; current, accurate and complete billings; actual cost/rates reflect closely to negotiated cost/rates.

(4) Management - Integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action, history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction; responsiveness; subcontract management (when applicable); program management; management of key personnel (when applicable).

(5) Utilization of Small Business - Effective program to maximize the participation of small business concerns in Federal agency contracts. Compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business

Concerns.” Compliance with FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” (applicable only if FAR 52.219-9 is included in this solicitation).

(6) Regulatory Compliance - Compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to applicable regulations and codes, to include – when applicable – compliance with financial, environmental, safety and labor regulations as well as any reporting requirements.

Note: If Block 1 of the Reference Information Sheet includes a proposed team member (i.e., proposed prime or subcontractor), this reference will be considered when evaluating organizational experience, but will not be considered when evaluating past performance.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment as follows: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence. Note: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a neutral rating of Neutral Confidence.

2.0 STEP TWO - Cost

Note: Offerors that receive a Marginal or lower rating for the Organizational Experience Factor will not be considered in this step.

The Government will evaluate the estimated cost and proposed fee of each offer for realism and reasonableness in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 and as described below. The cost evaluation will include the evaluation discussed in provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

The purpose of this evaluation will be (a) to verify the offeror's understanding of the requirements; (b) to assess the degree to which the cost/price proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the proposal as well as the risk that the offeror will provide the supplies or services for the offered prices/cost; and (c) assess the degree to which the cost reflected in the cost/price proposal accurately represents the work effort included in the proposal. Proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based upon the results of the cost realism evaluation. In a competitive environment, an offeror is incentivized to propose the lowest possible price; therefore, downward cost realist adjustments generally will not be made. When a cost realism analysis is performed, the resulting realistic cost estimate will be used in the evaluation. Cost realism analysis may be limited to those offerors whose proposals represent the most likely candidate(s) for award, based on the Government's technical evaluation and the offeror(s) proposed costs. In addition to easily identifiable cost adjustments, unrealistic cost proposals may result in a re-evaluation and concurrent rescoring of technical proposals. Such re-evaluation based on cost or realistic cost analysis could negatively impact the technical rating and ranking of the proposal. Depending on the number of offerors and the number and dollar amount of proposed subcontractors, the Government may choose to limit the extent of the cost realism analysis of offerors’ proposed subcontractor costs. In such instance, the Government will establish a threshold whereby individual subcontractor cost proposals that do not meet the threshold will not undergo a cost realism analysis. The threshold established by the Government may consist of a percentage of the prime contractor’s proposed costs, or a dollar amount, or a combination thereof.

All offers with separately priced line items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. Offers may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The actual annual salaries of named personnel may be considered when determining the realistic cost for evaluation purposes. In categories without named personnel, category averages, if considered credible, may be considered in determining the realistic cost for evaluation purposes. The use of uncompensated overtime as defined in FAR 52.237-10 “Identification of Uncompensated Overtime,” is discouraged by the Government. Based upon 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 presents a significant risk to the Government.

Offerors are advised that if uncompensated overtime is proposed, the alternate cost breakdown specified in the Section L provision “Uncompensated Overtime and Professional Employees” will be used for cost evaluation purposes. THUS, NO EVALUATION ADVANTAGE WILL RESULT WHEN UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME IS PROPOSED.

3.0 STEP THREE – Trade-off Process/Source Selection Decision

Note: Offerors that receive a Marginal or lower rating for the Organizational Experience Factor will not be considered in this step.

Notwithstanding all discussion of the tradeoff process in this solicitation, following Step 2: Cost Analysis, the Government may award to all offerors still under consideration for award without ranking or performing a trade-off analysis, if the following conditions exist: 1) based on the evaluation of the non-cost factors, the Government determines that each offeror would be a viable competitor under the resultant MAC; 2) based on the price analysis, the Government determines that each offeror's proposed price is fair and reasonable; 3) based on the cost realism analysis, the Government does not have significant concerns regarding the offerors' understandings of the work or the offerors' abilities to perform the contract; and 4) based on the…