2.01_RFP_N6817118R0007-0001.docx

N6817118R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

(a) The Government intends to award one FFP IDIQ task-order contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation offers the best value to the Government, using the tradeoff approach.

(b) Evaluation process and criteria.

(1) The following evaluation factors and sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance, will be used to evaluate the proposal:

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Price

(2) Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(3) Factor 1 and Factor 2 will each be assigned a Combined Technical-Risk rating from Table 2. The overall ratings for Factor 1 and Factor 2 will each be determined by combining the assigned ratings from their sub-factors. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being Outstanding, Good, or another rating. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of service, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, an “Unacceptable” rating for any factor or sub-factor may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

(i) Sub-factor 1.1 – Description of Plans. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the range of plans meet the performance requirements.

(ii) Sub-factor 1.2 – Italy Signal Coverage. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if sufficient signal coverage is offered in Italy, the AOR of NCTS Naples, and the AOR of NCTS Sicily.

(iii) Sub-factor 1.3 – Roaming Signal Coverage. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if sufficient roaming signal coverage is offered for end-users when traveling within and outside the European Union. To be considered ‘Acceptable,’ roaming signal coverage must be offered for all the following countries at a minimum. Roaming signal coverage offered in additional countries, preferably in Africa and the Middle East, will be considered a strength.

(A) NCTS Naples: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Australia, Bahrain, Benin, Canada, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo (Democratic Republic), Congo (Republic), Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Vietnam, Yemen.

(B) NCTS Sicily: Bahrain, Canada, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States of America.

(iv) Sub-factor 2.1 – Management Approach. The proposal will be evaluated on the timeline and plan to migrate end-users from the incumbent contractor’s service to the new contractor’s service, and the offeror’s capability to provide sufficient signal coverage and roaming signal coverage by the start of the ordering period. Equipment manufactured by Huawei and ZTE Corporation is prohibited and will be considered ‘Unacceptable.’ The capability to port existing phone numbers from the incumbent contractor will be considered a strength.

(v) Sub-factor 2.2 – Usage Monitoring and Controls. The proposal will be evaluated on the means that will be available through the online customer portal, help desk, and alerts to utilize in monitoring and controlling the end-users’ usage. Aspects on the means that will be available in the English, the capability to monitor the end-users’ usage close to real-time, and the capability to capture all the end-users’ usage immediately in a billing period will be considered strengths.

Table 2. Combined Technical-Risk Ratings

(vi) Definitions.

(A) Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

(B) Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

(C) Significant weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(D) Deficiency. 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.

(4) Factor 3 will be assigned a Performance Confidence Assessment rating from Table 3 based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. The offeror will be evaluated on the expectation of meeting the solicitation requirements by considering the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance will be considered. If an offeror has no information on past performance or where past performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Factor 3. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a rating of ‘Neutral Confidence.’

(i) The first part of the evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Past performance will be considered recent if the work has been performed within three years before the solicitation release date.

(ii) The second part of the evaluation is to evaluate the relevance of the offeror’s past performance. To be considered relevant, the offeror’s past performance information will be assessed on the similarity between the services provided and this solicitation’s performance requirements.

(iii) The third part of the evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus on the following areas: meeting technical requirements; meeting schedule requirements; controlling contract costs; and the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

(vi) The Government may verify past performance information and may contact some or all of the references provided, and may collect information through questionnaires and telephone interviews. Additional past performance information may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS), other databases, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and interviews with Government personnel.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

(5) Factor 4 – Group Price. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and (g). Using the offeror’s Exhibit A – Plans and Prices, a notional quantity of 2,508 end-users will be allocated amongst the plans, at the Government’s discretion, to determine the proposal’s value for evaluation purposes.

(c) Contractor Responsibility. To be eligible for award of a contract, the offeror must be determined by the Contracting Officer to be a responsible prospective contractor in accordance with FAR 9.1.

(d) Separate awards determination. The Government may award two separate IDIQ task-order contracts to separate offerors, one for NCTS Naples and one for NCTS Sicily, if such an approach provides the best value to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf