15-R-0037_RFP_Amendment_3.docx

N68936-15-R-0037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1: What is the Government’s anticipated start date on this contract? (Reference: N/A) A1: The Government's Anticipated Start Date is the same as the Anticipated Award Date of 31 August 2017, as indicated in Section L, 5252.215-9503 on Page 63 and Section F, NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9507 on Page 24.

Q2: Identifies Key positions as: Program Manager, Sr. Engineer SME, and Proj Engineer SME, while Attachment 6 FBLR sheet identifies Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineering /Electronics Technician Senior as Key. Please advise as to which LCATs are considered key. (Reference: Section B) A2: The Incorrect Attachment 6, Fully Burdened Labor Rates, was inadvertently posted with the Solicitation on 2 March 2017. The Corrected Attachment 6 has been posted.

Q3: There are discrepancies between the labor categories identified in the LOE table and Attachment 6 Proposed Fully Burdened Rates. Please advise as to which are correct. (Reference: Section B) A3: The Incorrect Attachment 6, Fully Burdened Labor Rates, was inadvertently posted with the Solicitation on 2 March 2017. The Corrected Attachment 6 has been posted.

Q4: Given the TO nature of this contract and the unknowns of the exact mix of personnel throughout the life of the contract which are dependent on the specific TOs that would be issued after contract award, are specific employee names and rates of most benefit to the Government vs. the rate by labor category? (Reference: Section J, Attachment 5) A4: The Cost Summary Spreadsheet, Attachment 5, is for estimating purposes only. Please address all of the areas as required in the Attachmnet, including Employee names and Labor Categories. The Government understands that during performance the actual labor mix may change.

Q5: The Cost Summary Spreadsheet identifies a Base Period and 5 option periods, which conflicts with LOE table and FBLR as they both identify Years 1 through 5. Should the Cost Summary Spreadsheet simply identify Year 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for consistency? (Reference: Section J, Attachment 5) A5: This Attachment was intended as a sample only. However, to avoid further confusion, the Government has updated Attachment 5, Cost Summary Spreadsheet.

Q6: On account of this being a Research and Development (R&D) contract does the Tripwire still apply? (Reference: Section J, Attachment 6) A6: The Incorrect Attachment 6, Fully Burdened Labor Rates, was inadvertently posted with the Solicitation on 2 March 2017. The Corrected Attachment 6 has been posted.

Q7: Identifies Key positions as: Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineering /Electronics Technician Senior as Key, while LOE Table says Program Manager, Sr. Engineer SME, and Proj Engineer SME. (Reference: Section J, Attachment 6) A7: The Incorrect Attachment 6, Fully Burdened Labor Rates, was inadvertently posted with the Solicitation on 2 March 2017. The Corrected Attachment 6 has been posted.

Q8: On account of this being a Research and Development (R&D) contract does the Service Contract Act still apply to the Tech/Admin Assistant position? (Reference: Various) A8: Per FAR 22.001, an administrative employee is not considered a "service employee". Further, since the principal purpose of this contract is for Research and Development, this Contract does not meet the defintion of a "Service Contract" in accordance with FAR 22.1003-1. As such, FAR 52.222-41 and all references to the Service Contract Act have been removed from the solicitation.

Q9: Based on the PRICE/COST elements required to address Volume 3 we believe a 20 page limit is insufficient. Would the government please increase the page count limit, or make this Volume excluded from page count? (Reference: Section L) A9: The Government has increased the page limit for this section to 50 pages.

Q10: Please confirm that the SF33, SF30, Section B, Attachment 5, Attachment 6, and signed Section K Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) reference, are excluded from the PRICE/COST Volume’s 20 page count. (Reference: Section L) A10: The Government Confirms that the SF33, SF30, Section B, Attachment 5, Attachment 6, and signed Section K Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) reference are excluded from the Price/Cost Volume's 50 page limit.

Q11: Can the government please provide the Reference Data Table format? (Reference: Section L) A11: The title "Reference Data Table" has been removed and the 5 page limit for this section has been included in the new "Past Performance Information Forms" section.

Q12: Will submitting the completed Past Performance Information Forms be a sufficient response for the section designated "Summary Past Performance Proposal"? (Reference: Section L) A12: Yes, the title of "Summary Past Performance Proposal" has been changed to "Past Performance Information Forms" to reduce confusion.

Q13: Will a contract that exceeds the Annual Contract Dollar Value of $1.5M on average across the Period of Performance be considered the same magnitude? (Reference: Section M) A13: Yes, this requirement has been modified to read "Average Total Annual Contract Dollar Value".

Q14: Can you clarify the Magnitude portion of the table (Reference: Section M, Part B, 2.0 Past Performance):

A) What is meant by Total Contract Dollar Value of less than $10M?

B) What is meant by Average Total Annual Contract Dollar Value of greater than or equal to $1.5M?

C) Are these dollar values max and/or min amounts?

D) If a Total Contract Dollar Value is above $10M, is that past performance not evaluated?

E) If the Average Total Annual Contract Dollar Value is under $1.5M is that past performance not evaluated?

F) Also, under the Term or Period of Performance, it states 5 years. Does that mean we only the 5 latest years of the contract in our past performance information is evaluated?

A14: The purpose of the table is to explain how the Govrnment will determine relevancy for this procurement.

A) This line has been removed.

B) This means that if the average total annual contract dollar value is less than $1.5M, it is considered “not relevant” for this procurement.

C) The Total Contract Dollar Value has been removed. The Average Total Annual Contract Dollar Value of $1.5M is the minimum value required in order to be considered “relevant”.

D) This line has been removed.

E) It will be considered “not relevant” for this procurement.

F) This has been modified to state “5 or more years”. This means to be considered “relevant” that the Period of Performance of the contract in question must be 5 or more years.

Q15: In the table under Performance Questionnaire, it states in the Copies Required column, "1 Original and 1 hard copy / 1 email to contract specialist - per reference”. We have sent questionnaires to our government clients who will fill them out and email them to you. We will therefore not have a copy of these questionnaires. Are the emails with the completed questionnaires from our clients sufficient to meet the Copies Required requirement for the Performance Questionnaire section in Volume 2 Past Performance? (Reference: Section L, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes) A15: The emails directly from the customer are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. The table has been modified for clarity.

Q16: In the table under Summary Past Performance Proposal, can you clarify that the 25 page limit for this requirement is meant to be fulfilled by completing an Attachment 3: Past Performance Information Form for each referenced past performance by the Offeror and each subcontractor, and submitted in Volume 2 Past Performance? (Reference: Section L, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes) A16: That is correct, this was clarified in the Solicitation Amendment posted on 9 March 2017.

Q17: Is there an individual Past Performance Information Form page limit? The form provided seems to be limited to two (2) pages? (Reference: Section L, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes) A17: No, there is no limit to each individual Past Performance Information Form, so long as the total number of pages for all Past Performance Information Forms does not exceed the 25 page limit, as indicated in the table.

Q18: Several of the Past Performance Information Form fields, such as Contract Effort Description and Systemic Improvement Information, seem to expand upon being populated. This allows the respondent to provide narrative that extends well beyond the form fields and is only viewable using an automated scroll function. Is the Past Performance Information Form limited to the viewable form fields without scrolling? (Section J, Attachment 3) A18: The user is not limited to the viewable form fields without scrolling; however, the offereor shall print the document such that all information can be seen in hardcopy.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L – 1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SERVICES) (14 March 2017)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can comply with, or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may result in assessing weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or subfactor clearly may be considered a deficiency. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 25% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel. “JV Team member” is defined as one of the entities that make up a joint venture (JV) formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.

Questions: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the contract specialist at Caitlan.Johnson@navy.mil. It is required that all questions be received within 10 calendar days of the date this solicitation is issued.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The Offeror will provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft 2003 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price/Cost Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, book, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the original proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit. Any pages submitted exceeding the page limit shall be disregarded and NOT evaluated.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions. Page limitations for Annexes, if any, are specified below. The authorized Annexes are summarized in the table below.

1 Original and 1 hard copy / 6 electronic copies on individual CDs

(Matrix and resumes excluded from the page count)

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 1 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the SOW/PWS.

Volume 1 Technical

Volume 2 Past Performance

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. However it is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted fourteen (14) days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33of the RFP.

Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.

Naval Air Systems Command Code: AIR-254120D (H. Frohlich) 429 E. Bowen Rd. Stop 4015 China Lake, CA 93555 Solicitation Number: N68936-15-R-0037

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address above, attention (PCO) and/or (Specialist).

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible grouping like volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single person portable. One container shall include all Original Proposal volumes including the original/signed documents submitted as part of Volume 3 Cost/Price.

Each box should include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR-2.101 and 3.104.”

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to www.FedBizOpps.gov.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Cost or pricing information shall only appear in the Price/Cost volume.

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

1.1 The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The Offeror shall address the following in the proposal:

· Workforce/Personnel Qualifications/Key Personnel

· Technical Approach

· Management Approach

a. Workforce/Personnel Qualifications/Key Personnel

This section is limited to eight (8) pages

Workforce - Key Personnel Resumes

For all proposed current or contingent Key Personnel, provide a resume of the work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrates the experience and specialized qualifications of each key person proposed. Resumes shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

· Employee name

· Years of employment experience in chronological order including narrative description of duties and responsibilities

· Current position, title and employer

· Educational history

· Institution name, degree or certification earned, and year for all degrees or certifications earned

· Current level of security clearance and status (final, interim, or pending)

The Government may check educational background to verify degrees or certifications received.

If the qualification (i.e. education, experience) does not readily or easily compare to the minimum qualification stated in the SOW/PWS, the offeror shall provide an explanation as to the equality of the proposed qualification to meet the minimum qualification.

b. Technical Approach: This section is limited to twenty (20) pages including graphs, charts, and diagrams.

-Provide a written narrative of the Offeror’s proposed understanding and capability to perform the requirements of the following Statement of Work (SOW) tasks:

-Provide a detailed step-by-step procedure and methodology which would be used in accomplishing each of the critical tasks listed above.

-Identify any areas that may impact successful performance

c. Management Approach: This section is limited to twelve (12) pages total.

- Offerors shall address the following:

(a) Adequacy of corporate management and resources to support the technical requirements of the solicitation.

(b) Proposed management roles of the Offeror’s proposed workforce and the lines of responsibility, authority, and communication through which the tasks will be managed for this requirement;

(c) Procedures to be taken to ensure quality and cost control;

(d) Plan for early identification and resolution of problems;

(e) Identification of potential performance risks and proposed risk mitigation strategies; and

(f) Qualification/recruitment/retention plan and procedures that demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the minimum requirements of the SOW/PWS.

Transition Plan - The services under this solicitation are vital to the Government and must be continued without interruption. The Offeror is required to submit a written narrative delineating a transition plan that ensures a smooth workplace changeover from an incumbent with no loss of service and minimal loss of corporate knowledge. The plan should take into consideration the following elements as well as any additional elements deemed necessary by the Offeror:

(a) Work Turnover

(b) Quality Assurance

(c) Training

(d) Risk Mitigation strategies

(e) Security Requirement to include OPSEC, facility clearances, and base access

(f) Data Transfer

2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1 General

Sources of past performance evaluation information include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation information obtained from questionnaires, and any 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 Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form, Attachment 3, for each past performance reference performed within seven years of the solicitation release date. The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than five forms for each JV team member. The Offeror shall submit written consent from their principal subcontractor(s) and team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit the written consent, the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractor and JV team member that does not provide the written consent, the Offeror shall provide the name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may address any past performance issues.

The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance for that contract/order will be used for evaluation. In the event a CPAR does not exist for a past performance reference, the Offeror shall submit a Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ), Attachment 4, to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official. The Offeror shall include instructions for the Program Manager to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Caitlan Johnson, Contract Specialist, at Email Caitlan.Johnson@navy.mil or via fax number 760-939-8144, thereby allowing the customer approximately two weeks to complete their response. All CPAQs should be received by the Government concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal submission.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL

-If subcontractors are proposed, they shall provide the same information required for the prime contractor, unless otherwise noted below.

3.1 Volume Content:

(a) This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified below as follows:

i. Offeror Summary Table: The Offeror shall complete the table below. The Offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract and list all sites where the work will be performed. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, JV Team Member, or Sub)

(b) This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Sub-CLIN Unit Prices and, for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in using the estimated quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

(c) All price/cost and price/cost supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price/cost proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters. Offeror are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 is not required. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price/cost as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price/cost estimates.

3.3 Price/Cost Information:

Offerors shall submit their fully completed cost/price proposal utilizing the Cost Summary Spreadsheet (Attachment 5). The spreadsheet shall be formatted on letter size (8.5 X 11) paper and shall be unprotected and unlocked, with formulae intact to show mathematical operations. The offeror shall use the CLIN Summary tab to breakout total proposed costs by CLIN.

Complete Attachment 6, (Fully Burdened Labor Rates), detailing the fully burdened labor rates for all prime contractors and their subcontractor personnel. Fully burdened labor rates are defined as direct labor rates plus all applicable burdens, to include indirect rates, fee, and subcontractor pass-through costs where applicable. For subcontractor labor, the fully burdened labor rates shall be inclusive of any pass-through charges (i.e., subcontractor handling, fixed fee on subcontractor labor, etc.) applied by the prime contractor. Some labor categories identified maybe subject to NAVAIR tripwires as identified in Section M. Offerors are strongly encouraged not to exceed the labor rate tripwires, however if they do, the offeror shall identify the rate(s) in excess and provide rationale that justifies the higher rate(s) as reasonable.

(a) Reasonableness and Consistency between the Technical and Price/Cost Volumes. Demonstrate that the unit prices and the total proposed price/cost are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation and the technical and management approaches identified in the Technical Volume of the proposal. Show traceability with the CLINS, SubCLINs, the PWS, proposed effort, proposed manning levels, and the prices/costs. Refer to specific sections in the Technical Volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Price/Cost Volume and the Technical Volume. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and price/cost, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

(b) The Government is not soliciting any investments. However, in order for the Government to properly assess a proposed price/cost that appears low due to a corporate decision to absorb costs, e.g., lower than usual burdens or rates, the Offeror shall fully identify and explain any such investments.

(c) Direct/Indirect Rates: The Offeror shall submit Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), and Area Wage Determinations (AWDs) as applicable for all proposed personnel. The Offeror shall identify whether the labor rates proposed are FPRAs, CBAs, AWDs, ACO/DCAA recommended rates (FPRRs), or Offeror proposed rates (FPRPs). The Offeror shall propose in compliance with the current hourly rate set forth in the Department of Labor Wage Determination as applicable. The Offeror shall provide Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Information/Payroll Verification information as follows: A DCAA point of contact, with a current e-mail address, must be provided for the prime and each subcontractor. The Offeror and proposed subcontractors shall provide the most current DCAA Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter, DCAA Final Billing Rate Approval Letter, and/or DCAA Forward Pricing Rate Agreement recommendation, payroll verification for currently employed proposed personnel, and any other information necessary to substantiate the rates proposed. Payroll verification shall consist of a form containing the title, direct labor rate, and a signed certification by an authorized representative of the company that the information contained in the form is correct. For contingent hires, the offeror shall provide contingent offer letters outlining salary information for contingent hire employees. For any prospective hires for any non-key personnel, provide information to substantiate the rates proposed. All contingent hires shall have a letter of intent submitted under the Cost Volume. The letter of intent is a separate written agreement signed by the potential employee(s) to work for the Offeror effective at contract award. Any proposed consultants shall have a consultant agreement substantiating the rates proposed. If a composite rate or other pricing methodology (i.e. cost estimating relationships) is utilized the offeror shall demonstrate how those rates were developed. Subcontractors and team members shall provide this information either separately or included in the prime contractor’s submission of this document.

The following definitions apply:

- A “contingent hire” is an individual who has committed, under a signed letter of intent, inclusive of salary information , to being employed by the Offeror if the Offeror is awarded the contract.

If any of the rates utilized by the Offeror or any subcontractors differ from the DCAA information and/or payroll verification, a justification shall be provided for the difference. If DCAA has not reviewed the rate information for an Offeror or one of its subcontractors, the Offeror must submit a detailed justification of the proposed direct and indirect rates. The Offeror shall also provide documentation verifying that it has a DCAA approved Cost Accounting System or state that its Cost Accounting System has not been approved by DCAA. Offerors shall provide the last three (3) years of actual indirect information. The Government may compare a prospective Offeror’s labor category rate to the average labor rate from industry.

(d) Except for FFP type of CLINs (e.g., CPFF, CPIF, or CPAF) under the solicitation, the Offeror shall fully disclose the buildup of cost/price of each CLIN.

(e)When completing the Cost Summary Spreadsheet (Attachment 5), the Offeror shall not utilize any fully burdened hourly rates when pricing the labor of its employees.

(f) Offeror's labor classifications should cross-reference to Department of Labor (DOL) wage determination classifications as much as possible.

(g) This solicitation is, and the resulting contract will be, subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards, as amended, and to FAR clause 52.222-41, contained in Section I of this solicitation. Offerors shall propose employee’s wages in accordance with the attached Wage Determination. As part of the cost/price proposal, the offeror shall furnish the names of the proposed labor categories and the corresponding labor categories from the attached Wage Determination as well as documentation of compliance with the minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits for service employees as specified in the Wage Determination (provided as an attachment in Section J of this solicitation). Offerors are required to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for employees (including temporary and part time employees) who will work under the contract and are subject to the Act, and explain how the compensation plan complies with the Service Contract Act.

If the offeror’s proposed employees are under a collective bargaining agreement, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the agreement.

(h) Limitation on Subcontracting:

This requirement is being set-aside for the small business or the 8(a) program. Provide a breakout to demonstrate how the prime contractor will perform at least 50% of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees for each period of performance in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-14. Cost of contract incurred for personnel includes direct labor cost, overhead that has only direct labor as its base, and the small business’s General and Administrative (G&A) rate multiplied by the labor cost.

(i) Provide a narrative that addresses any assumptions made during the preparation of the cost/price proposal and discuss the basis for the cost elements listed below:

· Direct labor rates by category. The offeror is required to submit labor rates for all proposed current, contingent, and prospective hire individuals. If composite or category averages are proposed, provide a breakdown of how rates are developed. If necessary provide a narrative to describe derivation of labor rates, use of uncompensated overtime, pools to which indirect rates are applied, historical /provisional billing rates for indirect rates for the last 3 years and description, and amount of proposed other direct costs. If the contractor requires the use of consultants in its proposal the consultant cost shall be captured under the appropriate labor CLIN not the ODCs CLIN.

· Escalation on labor. Offerors, including subcontractors, shall address escalation for all labor categories, including any SCA labor categories, and shall provide rationale for the specific escalation rate used. Offerors that do not include escalation, or an explanation as to why it is not included, may be considered unrealistically low and may have their proposals adjusted by the Government to include escalation in the option periods.

· Indirect costs (i.e. Overhead, Fringe Benefits, General & Administrative (G&A), etc.)

· Information needed to explain the offeror’s estimating practices

· Profit/Fee: Identify profit/fee rate and total amounts proposed and identify the various cost elements to which the profit/fee is being applied. Profit, Base, Award, and Incentive fee rates, as applicable in Section B, must be clearly distinguishable. Profit/Fee shall not be applied to ODCs.

· Other Direct Costs (ODCs) by specific cost element (e.g., Travel, Material, NMCI). Reimbursement for Travel will be in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation. If the offeror proposes burdens on the Government provided ODC estimates, the offeror shall provide a percentage breakdown of the offeror’s indirect costs and burdens added to the Government estimates for any and all Cost Reimbursable CLINs in Section B.

· When the offeror elects to claim Cost of Money (COM) as an allowable cost, the offeror must submit a COM form and show the calculations of the proposed amount.

(1) The proposed direct labor rate for each professional employee proposed;

(3) Data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used by the Offeror in establishing the total compensation structure.

3.5 Use of Government Furnished Property:

If the Offeror proposes/requires the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Information (GFI), Government Furnished Property (GFP), then the Offeror shall provide:

· A complete description of the required GFE/GFI/GFP including part number and serial number, if applicable.

· Where the GFE/GFI/GFP is to be located.

· The name, organization, completes address and telephone number of a cognizant Government point of contact.

· In the case of GFE/GFI/GFP accountable to other Government contracts, a copy of the correspondence authorizing use of such GFE/GFI/GFP on this contract.

· The monetary impact to the Offeror’s proposal if the proposed GFE/GFI is not provided as GFE/GFI.

If no GFE/GFI/GFP is required, the Offeror shall so state.

3.6 Other Costs

The Offeror shall identify additional costs that would be incurred that have not been identified in the solicitation and describe in detail the performance that would cause these costs. Also, describe any assumptions with regard to Government actions (e.g., providing resources whether it be equipment or people) that enabled the proposed price/cost to be lower and identify the amount by which it is lower.

3.7 Government Furnished Information

3.7.1 ODCs

Estimated Travel. For proposal and evaluation purposes the estimated travel cost is approximately $214,498.64 and the following table of estimated travel is provided:

For proposal purposes, the offeror shall utilize the above estimated unburdened travel costs. If the offeror has additional indirect travel costs, the offeror shall include those in their proposal.

3.7.2. Labor Hours

The Government estimate is 62,040 hours for the entire work effort, inclusive of options. A work-year is defined as 1,880 hours exclusive of holidays, annual and sick leave. For evaluation purposes, the contractor shall propose the labor categories/hours as outlined below:

Total Hours

* Key Personnel

3.7.3 Incumbent Information

The incumbent contractor is:

The Survice Engineering Company, LLC.

4695 Millennium Drive Belcamp, Maryland 21017-1505

There are no incumbent subcontractors.

3.7.4 Place of Performance

The place of performance for this effort is the Contractor’s site.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M – [1] EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (14 March 2017)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For all the Technical factor(s), a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, 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, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors, listed below in descending order of importance.

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price/Cost

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost. Technical/Management is more important than Past Performance. Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offeror’s non-cost factors.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following elements which will not be rated separately:

PERSONNEL RESOURCES

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s personnel resources, including key personnel to determine how well the team is suited to perform the tasks under the SOW. In addition, personnel will be evaluated on qualifications, including education, experience and security clearance levels.

TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed capability to meet contracts requirements based upon the information provided in response to the instructions provided in Section L.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The management approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to plan, manage, staff, and execute the contract and the extent to which any proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within seven years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation: same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of this requirement. A table of definitions has been provided below to inform the offeror of what the Government considers to be important areas of focus in evaluating relevancy.

Scope examples:

Complexity examples:

Magnitude:

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) regulatory compliance, and 6) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE/COST

Cost Reimbursement CLINs:

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.