N66001-18-R-0002-0002.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:

1) Revise M-TXT-06, 2.2 STEP 2.2 Organizational Experience to correct SOW key areas paragraph numbers. See Questions & Answ ers dated 23 April 2018.

2) Revise Attachment 5 to correct final column key area paragraph number. See Questions & Answ ers dated 23 April 2018.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Apr-2018

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 N6600118R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Apr-2018

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

23-Apr-2018

CODE

SPAWAR SYSTEMS CENTER PACIFIC

MEGAN ASHLEY, CODE 22530

MEGAN.ASHLEY@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:

N6600118R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Draft DD254 8 22-MAR-2018 Attachment 2 Reference Information

Sheet

1 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire

4 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 4 Desired Personnel Qualifications

8 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 5 Organizational Experience Matrix

1 11-APR-2018

Attachment 6 Rate Sheet 2 19-APR-2018 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Draft DD254 8 22-MAR-2018 Attachment 2 Reference Information

Sheet

1 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire

4 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 4 Desired Personnel Qualifications

8 26-FEB-2018

Attachment 5 Organizational Experience Matrix

1 23-APR-2018

Attachment 6 Rate Sheet 2 19-APR-2018

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-TXT-06 - EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE) (JUN 2017)

The Government intends to competitively award on a 100% small businesess set-aside basis, multiple Indefinite- Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts utilizing the process of evaluation described herein. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS), and the (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016.

FAR 15.304 (c)(1) states: The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials, subject to the following requirements: Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)

(ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(B))

Notwithstanding the above, Class Deviation 2018-O00006 entitled, “Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task- or Delivery-Order Contracts” was issued on 13 December 2017. This deviation implements section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Section 825 provides an Exception to the Requirement to Include Cost or Price to the Government as a Factor in the Evaluation of Proposals for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts.

(a) The contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to qualifying offeror(s) that provide an acceptable offer, are determined to be a responsible source; submit a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

(b) Proposals will be rated using the following three-step methodology. Step One is an evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror. Step Two is an evaluation of the capability of the offeror (including Past Performance, Software Development Plan (SDP) and Organizational Experience). Step Three is the source selection decision, where contracts will be awarded to all qualifying offerors that provide an acceptable offer, are determined to be a responsible source, submit a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

The Government will not perform a tradeoff analysis.

To be eligible for award, qualifying offeror(s) must receive an Acceptable or above in all evaluation factors, other than Past Performance. For Past Performance, a qualifying offeror must receive a Neutral, or Satisfactory or above confidence assessment rating.

The Government will not evaluate price or cost as a factor for this MAC. Instead, the Government will consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each task or delivery order under this MAC, in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E).

1.0 STEP 1 – Acceptability of Offer

The Government will determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass (acceptable)/fail (unacceptable) basis. The Government will consider an offer to be acceptable when it manifests the offeror’s assent, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (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)).

2.0 STEP 2 – Capability of the Offeror

Capability factors are attributes of offerors as business firms. Attributes are features and qualities that contribute to the achievement of procurement objectives, and distinguish offerors from one another. In this source selection, the Government will evaluate the capability of each offeror on the basis of its (1) past performance (2) organizational experience and (3) SDP.

2.1 STEP 2.1 – 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 01 January 2014. If a reference is not deemed recent, that reference will not be evaluated in the second or third aspect 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 problemidentification, 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.

The Government strongly prefers Government past performance references, vice non-Government references. If non-Government references are cited, offerors proposing as primes cannot use their proposed subcontractors as past performance references and vice versa.

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.

2.2 STEP 2.2 – Organizational Experience

Experience is the opportunity to learn by doing. An offeror’s experience is relevant when it has been confronted with the kinds of challenges that it will likely face under the contract contemplated by this RFP. This evaluation will consider the breadth, depth and relevance of the offeror’s Organizational Experience performed since 1 January 2014 in key areas of the SOW (specified below). Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity of 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-TXT-12, 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:

Project Management (SOW 3.1.1) Software, Service, Capability Development & Integration (SOW 3.2.3) Systems Analysis and Experimentation (SOW 3.3.1) Testing Support (SOW 3.4.3)

2.3 STEP 2.3 – Software Development Plan (SDP)

As a part of the proposal, offerors shall submit a draft version of their Software Development Plan (SDP) in accordance with the content defined in the SOW. The SDP may be formatted as desired by the Offeror but must contain the information described by SDP DID DI-IPSC-81427A. The SDP is not page limited. An SDP, if it is to-the-point and appropriate, may be preferable to an SDP that is excessively wordy and contains non-essential material.

Offerors shall also submit, as a part of their proposal, an SDP Rationale which describes why their specific approach is appropriate for the system to be procured and how their proposed processes are equivalent to those articulated by CMMI® capability level 3.

Offerors shall submit a description of previous experience in developing software of the same nature as this solicitation. As a part of this description, the offerors shall describe the extent to which personnel who contributed to these previous efforts will be supporting this solicitation.

Offerors shall submit a description of previous experience in developing software using the same or similar processes and approaches as proposed for this solicitation. Offerors shall describe the extent to which personnel who contributed to these previous efforts will be supporting this solicitation. Offerors shall also describe any previous CMMI® or equivalent model-based process maturity appraisals performed. As a part of this description, offerors shall identify the organizational entity and location where the appraisal was performed, the type of evaluation, the organization performing the evaluation, and the level earned.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Draft Software Development Plan against the following three equally weighted elements:

Element 1 – Software Development Approach Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed software development approach to ensure it is appropriate for the system 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

Element 2 – 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.

Element 3 – 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 will be part of the evaluation criteria.

3.0 STEP 3 – Source Selection Decision

The Government will determine the responsibility of each offeror in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

The Contract Specialist will evaluate the professional compensation as prescribed in provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, based on realism and comparison of compensation levels to predecessor contractors if the requirement is a follow-on for the same work.

Contracts will be awarded to all qualifying offerors that provide an acceptable offer, are determined to be a responsible source, submit a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)