N6660423Q0667 Amendment 03.pdf

1301043864

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 correct a few typos in the SOW and Sections L and M. This amendment w ill also extend the RFQ close date cto 21-JUN-2023.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Jun-2023

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6660423Q0667

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jun-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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

20-Jun-2023

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CTR. DIV., NPT.

STEPHANIE A. SMYTH, CODE 0221

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

stephanie.a.smyth.civ@us.navy.milEMAIL:TEL:

STEPHANIE A. SMYTH / CONTRACTING OFFICER

N6660423Q0667

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1: The RFP identifies 3 CDRLs.

4.5 The Contractor shall support the identification of any technical problems associated with performance of the requested services in support of this contract. The Contractor shall document such issues and identify potential solutions in the Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report. (CDRL A001)

4.6 The Contractor shall support routine status reviews with the appropriate program Technical Point of Contact

(TPOC) regarding overall progress, status, risks, issues, travel and financials and also document the findings in the

Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report. (CDRL A002)

5.0 Progress Reports

The contractor shall submit Monthly Progress and Financial Reports. These reports shall document the technical and financial status and may be submitted in the contractor’s format.

The Contractor shall require each Contractor employee performing work at any NUWC Division Newport site, who have a Common Access Card (CAC) and an NMCI Account, complete all required Mandatory training and any applicable Limited Audience required training(s). The Contractor shall fill out and submit to the Government the

Training Completion Status Report, affirming all Mandatory training and any applicable Limited Audience required training(s) are completed. The required training and required training schedule is available at the following website:

https://wiki.navsea.navy.mil/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=NCOW&title=NUWCDIVNPT+Workforce+Develo pment+Program. See the .pdf Mandatory Training Instruction – Contractors Only.

Deliverable: CDRL A003– DI-MISC-80508B

CDRL A001 and A002 are the same title. Is this correct? Did the Government intend that the references be labeled

A001 vice A001 and A002?

A1: That was a typo and has been corrected.

Q2: Is the ceiling Price $150,000 (L.4.a) or 250,000 (M.4)?

A2: The ceiling is $150,000.00. The reference to $250,000.00 was a typo and has been corrected.

Q3: Please see the below questions regarding the subject referenced solicitation:

https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.navsea.navy.mil%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FspaceKey%3DNCOW%26title%3DNUWCDIVNPT%2BWorkforce%2BDevelopment%2BProgram&data=05%7C01%7Cstephanie.a.smyth.civ%40us.navy.mil%7C5ad53e0800c648ad0f2508db71a23ccf%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638228714159215663%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yaNg4SCv7sknexHI%2FabPVHO1CLrxdnd%2FbHr4ndfZLsY%3D&reserved=0 https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.navsea.navy.mil%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FspaceKey%3DNCOW%26title%3DNUWCDIVNPT%2BWorkforce%2BDevelopment%2BProgram&data=05%7C01%7Cstephanie.a.smyth.civ%40us.navy.mil%7C5ad53e0800c648ad0f2508db71a23ccf%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638228714159215663%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yaNg4SCv7sknexHI%2FabPVHO1CLrxdnd%2FbHr4ndfZLsY%3D&reserved=0

The table in Section 1.3.c identifies the separate volumes that shall be submitted with our proposal, however the volumes repeat themselves (there are two Vol I, and two Vol II). Should offerors sequentially number the volumes instead, to avoid confusion?

A3: That section has been revised.

Q4: Would the Government please consider a small extension to enable offerors to prepare their proposals.

A4: Yes, we can extend for 24 hours.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Jun-2023 05:00 PM to 21-Jun-2023 05:00 PM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

STATEMENT OF WORK

STATEMENT OF WORK

(SOW)

Digital Engineering Launch Team

PR No. 1301043864

1.0 Background

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport (NUWCDIVNPT) is tasked to perform systems engineering, analysis, development, integration, testing and fleet introduction and support of warfare systems for undersea systems. This includes direct systems engineering support throughout the full life cycle of a system from concept development to disposal and is applied to all submarines, unmanned undersea vehicles, undersea command and control systems, distributed and sea bed systems, ranges, surface ship SONAR, weapons, self-defense systems, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and support systems.

PLACES OF PERFORMANCE:

Program Offices and Resource Sponsors Washington Navy Yard and the Pentagon one trip every three months.

TYPE OF FUNDING: NUWCDIVNPT Overhead Funds and Research, Development Test & Evaluation

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: Date of award through twelve months thereafter.

2.0 Scope

Services shall be provided to NUWCDIVNPT and its detachments. The scope of this effort encompasses three (3) objectives:

1.) Support the efforts of the Digital Systems Engineering Transformation (DSET) tasking for developing, maintaining and enhancing Systems Engineering processes and tools through the Model Based System

Engineering (MBSE) techniques;

2.) Assist new and sustainment programs and projects by providing MBSE advice and guidance on modeling to achieve program and project goals; and

3.) Provide guidance on applying modeling enablers such as the Naval Information Warfare Systems

Command (NAVWAR) Integrated Dictionary and Strategic Systems Program’s classification marking

Profile to programs and proj

3.0 Applicable Documents

The contractor shall perform the tasking required in Section 4.0 in accordance with the below Applicable

Documents.

3.1 DoD Issuances

3.1.1 Department of Defense MANUAL NUMBER 5200.01 DoD Information Security Program: Marking of

Information

3.2 Industry Standards

3.2.1 ISO Standard 15288: 2015

3.2.2 ISO Standard 21839: 2019

3.2.3 Unified Architecture Framework Version 1.1

4.0 Technical Requirements

4.1 The contractor shall provide systems engineering to assist with the research, development and maintenance and updates of current systems engineering policy and procedures to reflect MBSE practices. The systems engineering processes, procedures, methods and tools are relevant across the entire life cycle of a program from the Material Solution Analysis phase through the Development and Production phases as well as the

Operations and Support and Sustainment Phases until disposal.

4.2 The Contractor shall study potential changes and propose updates to systems engineering policies and practices that apply for all undersea programs across the entire life cycle of the program, based on current processes and practices during the transition, in support of the following:

4.2.1 Provide systems engineering expertise to enhance systems engineering processes to meet the needs of emerging and existing programs.

4.2.2 Prepare and document processes and methods to improve systems development efficiency. Prepare and document processes and methods to improve systems development efficiency.

4.2.3 Maintain, modify and enhance the systems engineering policy documents, processes, procedures, methods, systems engineering web site and systems engineering tools

4.3 Provide personnel that may be tasked to assist programs and projects with conducting, maintaining and communicating all the MBSE processes and tools to enhance program and project execution. The initiative includes:

4.3.1 Activity in the following related areas: modeling language, modeling tools, modeling methodologies, modeling enablers and integrated modeling environments. The initiative includes

4.3.2 Extending MBSE into the more general Model Based Engineering domain for physics based models.

4.3.3 Extending MBSE into the logistic Programs of Record

4.4 Provide systems engineering expertise to establish curated models for Model-centric Engineering.

4.5 The Contractor shall support the identification of any technical problems associated with performance of the requested services in support of this contract. The Contractor shall document such issues and identify potential solutions in the Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report – Technical Report 1.

(CDRL A001)

4.6 The Contractor shall support routine status reviews with the appropriate program Technical Point of

Contact (TPOC) regarding overall progress, status, risks, issues, travel and financials and also document the findings in the Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report – Technical Report 2. (CDRL

A002)

5.0 Progress Reports

The contractor shall submit Monthly Progress and Financial Reports. These reports shall document the technical and financial status and may be submitted in the contractor’s format.

The Contractor shall require each Contractor employee performing work at any NUWC Division Newport site, who have a Common Access Card (CAC) and an NMCI Account, complete all required Mandatory training and any applicable Limited Audience required training(s). The Contractor shall fill out and submit to the Government the

Training Completion Status Report, affirming all Mandatory training and any applicable Limited Audience required training(s) are completed. The required training and required training schedule is available at the following website:

https://wiki.navsea.navy.mil/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=NCOW&title=NUWCDIVNPT+Workforce+Develo pment+Program. See the .pdf Mandatory Training Instruction – Contractors Only.

Deliverable: CDRL A003– DI-MISC-80508B

5.1 The Contractor must have SysML certification by the Object Management Group at SysML Model Builder

Intermediate or preferably SysML Model builder Advanced. The certification will be posted at https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/searchcert.cgi. The personnel must be proficient in Cameo System Modeler and

Teamwork Cloud. Knowledge in Atlassian’s JIRA and Confluence tools is help

6.0 Exception From Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Requirements

The Government has determined that this procurement is an exception to the Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards (36 C.F.R. § 1194.3 - Chapter 2 E202 General Exceptions of Section 50

Refresh). Notwithstanding that an exception exists, the Contractor may furnish items or services provided under this contract that comply with the ICT Accessibility Standards (36 C.F.R. § 1194- Chapters/WCAG to Section 508

Refresh).

7.0 Government Furnished Information

The Contractor shall have the capability to perform work up to the SECRET level and shall employ security protection and ensure security for all efforts. In support of this contract, the facility clearance and level of safeguarding required is SECRET. The Contract Security Classification Specifications are set forth in the contract

DD Form 254. This contract will also include handling and briefing proprietary data to the SECRET classification level. This contract will also require on-site access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) to perform a significant level of tasking. Classified information will be accessed via the SIPRnet or standalone network in government facilities.

The Contractor shall require access to:

Restricted Data

Formerly Restricted Data

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

SIPRnet authorized, Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) or Secure Facsimile use authorized

In performing this contract, the Contractor shall:

Receive Classified MaterialBe authorized to use the services of Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) or other secondary distribution center

The Government will provide all necessary reference documents not generally available to the Contractor

Applicable military specifications and standards that are listed in the Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards (DoDISS) and current on the date of contract award, plus applicable industry standards or any other https://wiki.navsea.navy.mil/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=NCOW&title=NUWCDIVNPT+Workforce+Development+Program https://wiki.navsea.navy.mil/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=NCOW&title=NUWCDIVNPT+Workforce+Development+Program program documents may be specified within the individual task order that will be issued for performing specific tasks under this contract.

7.1 Program Protection (Classified)

SECURITY: All Contractor personnel shall adhere to the Security provisions of 32 CFR Part 177 – National

Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) and the security requirements of the attached

DD254. While performing work associated with NUWCDIVNPT, Contractor personnel shall comply with the

NUWCDIVNPT Security Manual and, if at another facility, the security regulations of the host facility. Applicable

FAR and DFARS clauses shall be adhered to in the performance of this contract. Security incidents shall be promptly reported through the companies Facility Security Officer (FSO), to the Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR), Technical Point of Contact (TPOC), and the Cognizant Security Office to NUWCDIVNPT

Security.

This contract provides advice and guidance across a broad range of Newport Projects. In order to provide the relevant advice, the contractor will have to have access to and knowledge of material protected as National Security

Information at the CUI level, NATO SECRET, and GENSER SECRET levels. The contractor will need access to

NUWCDIVNPT Critical Information.

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) including Legacy FOUO and Covered Defense Information (meeting the definition of 48 CFR 252.204–7012(a)) generated and/or provided under this contract shall be marked and safeguarded as specified in DoD Instruction 5200.48, CUI available at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/520048p.PDF. Any product containing Covered

Defense Information shall be assigned a distribution statement (distribution statements B through F) in accordance with DoDI 5230.24 (Distribution Statements on Technical Documents); and DoDI 5230.24, Enclosure 3 Procedures, available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/523024p.pdf

INFORMATION SECURITY: If the work is performed at the Contractor's facility, the Contractor shall implement and maintain security procedures and controls to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information and controlled unclassified information (CUI) and to control distribution of CUI in accordance with National Industrial

Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) codifying 32 CFR Part 117, NISPOM Rule, and SECNAV M-

5510.36B. If the work is performed at the Government's facility, the Contractor shall comply with facility policy.

CUI INCIDENT REPORTING AND RESPONSE: The Contractor shall promptly report any unauthorized, inadvertent, or illegal release or disclosure of CUI to the Contracting Officer’s Representative / Technical Point of

Contact (TPOC), Procuring Contracting Officer, and the Security Office. Contractor personnel shall coordinate this effort through the relevant industry site FSO.

PUBLIC RELEASE: Any controlled unclassified information pertaining to this contract shall not be released for public dissemination, including posting to any social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, unless it has been approved for public release by appropriate U.S. Government authority. Proposed public releases shall be submitted for approval prior to release through Commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, Newport, RI

02841.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted. Questions and proposals shall be submitted to the following point of contact:

Name: Stephanie Smyth

Email: stephanie.a.smyth.civ@us.navy.mil https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/520048p.PDF https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/523024p.pdf

1.2 Submission Requirements

(a) The proposal shall be submitted electronically. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. The Offeror shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) The proposal shall be submitted electronically via email to Stephanie Smyth at stephanie.a.smyth.civ@us.navy.mil. The Offeror shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal.

1.3 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10-point font, single-spaced with no less than a one-inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed.

(b) The Proposal and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

(c) The Offeror is required to submit their proposal in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum Number of

Pages

I Administrative

Cover Letter 2

Fill-in Information for Clauses/Provisions

II Pass/Fail Requirements

Plan for Obtaining Personnel Clearances Two (2) Pages

Facility and Safeguarding Clearances (IAW DD

Form 254)

No Page Limit

III Technical Proposal

Technical Capability--Factor 1

Technical Approach/Personnel--Subfactor (a) Approach 3 and

2 pages per resume

IV Cost No Limit

V Past Performance 2 pages per reference

Important: The Offeror shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(d) The Offeror shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, Cage Code, DUNS Number, and Tax

Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror;

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(5) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the

Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(6) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal.

(e) The Offeror shall provide fill-in information for all clauses/provisions that require it.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The following items will be evaluated as a Pass or Fail in relation to the solicitation requirements. The Offeror shall provide:

(1) A plan for obtaining clearances (The plan shall consist of no more than (2) pages):

(a) Personnel Clearances: The plan shall include confirmation of existing clearances, detail the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and outline the schedule for any required new clearances by the start of the period of performance.

(b) Facilities Clearances: The offeror shall provide a statement identifying the level of its facility clearance. Additionally, the offeror shall provide CAGE Codes and addresses for all locations where work will be performed that require classified facilities and safeguarding capabilities as defined in the

DD254 and associated references.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Offeror shall address each factor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. The Offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to perform the SOW tasks. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the

Government without the need for additional clarifications.

In the response to the RFP, the Offeror must address the below factors.

3.1 Technical Capability

3.1.1 Technical Approach/Personnel – Subfactor (a)

The technical capability shall include information and documentation in sufficient detail to clearly identify the

Offeror’s overall qualifications. The Offeror shall demonstrate detailed knowledge and expertise in the following areas:

1. Support the efforts of the Digital Systems Engineering Transformation (DSET) tasking for developing, maintaining and enhancing Systems Engineering processes and tools through the

Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) techniques.

2. Provide a resume for at least one Key Person.

3.2 Past Performance

(a) The Offeror shall submit two (2) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent, relevant experience performed within the last three (3) years of the closing date of the solicitation that demonstrate the ability to handle the work to be performed under this contract, including similar services provided to federal, state, or local

Governments, as well as commercial customers. Include information on how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed. Include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the

Procuring Contract Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Government Program Manager

(PM), or equivalent.

(b) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, totaling four (4) pages.

4.0 COST

(a) The maximum ceiling for this contract is $150,000. Offerors shall propose total hours up to the maximum ceiling of $150,000.

(b) The offeror shall provide detailed information to allow the Contracting Officer to determine the cost realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs. The offeror shall provide a single summary spreadsheet that supports the total amount of CLINs 0001 ; CLIN 0002 requires NO additional information and will not be evaluated.

If the offeror uses additional spreadsheets to build CLIN pricing, these spreadsheets shall be submitted as part of the

Offeror’s proposal. No cost or pricing data shall appear in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

(c) Cost Line. (CLIN 0001): Offerors shall include burdened labor costs rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

(d) Fixed Fee. (CLIN 0001): Offerors shall include fee on their labor rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

(e) Supporting Documentation Requirements:

(1) Direct Rate Supporting Documentation: The offeror shall provide details as to the basis of labor rates proposed (i.e., actual rates, wage rate determinations, bid level rates). If actual direct labor rates are proposed, the offeror shall provide the effective date(s) of the actual labor rates and provide payroll journals or equivalent for all labor rates. Offerors shall specify the current actual hourly wage rate for each Key Person proposed and provide payroll journals. If proposed direct labor rates vary from actual wages of Key Personnel, explain the basis for those rates. Trace proposed direct labor rates to proposed individual personnel. If proposed direct labor rates for non-key personnel are based on actual rates, offerors shall specify the current actual hourly wage rate for each non-key person proposed and provide payroll journals. Identify the date as of which the actual wage rate is current. If proposed direct labor rates vary from actual wages of non-key personnel, explain the basis for those rates. Failure to provide payroll journals for all key and non-key personnel proposed based on actual rates may render the proposal ineligible for award.

(2) Indirect Rate Supporting Rate Documentation: Offerors shall provide the supporting information and identify the basis of proposed rates for indirect costs (e.g., Forward Pricing Rate Agreement and date of agreement, bidding rates and the date of submission; or, actual rates used and the effective date, billing rates, and the date of approval, etc.).

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this RFP. Award will be made to the

Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government.

The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of proposals with the difference in the price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions, as permitted by FAR 13.106-2(b)(2).

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit the Offeror to revise their proposal.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

1 Technical Capability

a) Technical Approach/Personnel

2 Past Performance None

3 Cost None

Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. Cost will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate the offer based on a Pass/Fail rating for the requirements below. The Offeror must receive a Pass rating under the Pass/Fail Requirements to be eligible for award.

(1) A plan for obtaining clearances

(a) Personnel Clearances: The Government will evaluate the plan for obtaining clearances by the time of award for compliance with the DD Form 254 and the ability of the Offeror to perform. The plan shall include confirmation of existing clearances, details the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and outlines the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances.

(b) Facility Security Clearance: The Government will confirm the offeror’s facility security clearance, CAGE code associated with the facility clearance and safeguarding capabilities for the offeror.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph 5.0 of this

Section for each of the following non-cost factors.

3.1 Technical Capability - Factor 1

3.1.1 Technical Approach/Personnel - Subfactor (a)

The Government will evaluate the proposal to assess each Offeror’s knowledge and expertise in the following areas:

1. Support the efforts of the Digital Systems Engineering Transformation (DSET) tasking for developing, maintaining and enhancing Systems Engineering processes and tools through the

Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) techniques.

2. The Government will consider the qualifications, experience, and education as stated in the resume submitted for each Key Person. A strengths may be assigned for qualifications, experience, and education that will provide benefit to the Government in terms of quality or schedule risk mitigation.

3.2 Past Performance

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The

Government may consider past performance information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) in accordance with DFAR 252.213-7000. The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an

Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.0 Cost

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed costs by performing a cost realism analysis in accordance with the methods authorized under FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total proposed hours based on cost realism analysis. A proposal with the most hours up to the $150,000 ceiling, based on the

Government’s cost realism analysis, will be determined to have greater value.

5.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

5.1 Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

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

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an

Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit, and exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

5.2 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each 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: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the

Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Substantial

Confidence

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

Satisfactory

Confidence

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

Neutral

Confidence

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

Limited

Confidence

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(End of Summary of Changes)