16-R-0006_RFP_Amend_2.docx

N68936-16-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The contractor shall perform and provide routine structural engineering analysis, structures design and solid modeling and advanced composites design analysis, in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) Para. 3.2. The level of effort for the performance of this CLIN is based upon an anticipated total estimated level of effort NTE 115,200 man-hours of direct labor. Year 1

To:

The contractor shall perform and provide routine structural engineering analysis, structures design and solid modeling and advanced composites design analysis, in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) Para. 3.2. The level of effort for the performance of this CLIN is based upon an anticipated total estimated level of effort NTE 115,200 man-hours of direct labor..

The unit of issue has changed from Hours to Lot.

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

The following have been added by reference:

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been deleted:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-1 Evaluation Factors for Award (Supplies or Services) (April 2016)

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing 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 in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost 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 cost.

A. EVALUATION

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a corporate experience, past performance, technical, and cost standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. When a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

Best value tradeoff analysis will not be performed for any offeror who receives an unacceptable rating for any factor, and award will not be made to any offeror whose proposal is deemed unacceptable in any factor. Furthermore, since the resulting contract will require the delivery of data, the responsiveness and quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal (both cost and non-cost portions) will be considered to be an indication of the Offeror’s quality control processes that would be applied to deliverable data. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

1.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award may be based upon initial offers. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Evaluation of an offeror's proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with any input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work.

1.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Each offeror will be evaluated based on the following factors:

(1) Technical

(a) Workforce

(b) Understanding of the Work

(c) Management Plan

(2) Past Performance

(3) Cost/Price.

Technical and past performance, when combined, is significantly more important than cost/price.

Technical is more important than past performance.

Cost/Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offerors’ Technical and Past Performance proposals.

2.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

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 how well the Offeror’s Technical proposal complies with the solicitation requirement and the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The following criteria will be considered in determining the Technical rating and will not be rated separately.

2.1 Workforce:

The Government will evaluate personnel and the supporting information provided in the Workforce Qualifications Sheet (Attachment P1), Workforce Hour Matric (Attachment P2), Labor Category Information, Key Labor Categories, and Key Personnel Resumes to determine how well the team is suited to perform the tasks under the SOW. In addition, personnel will be evaluated on labor qualifications, including education, and experience, that the offeror proposes to utilize in the performance of this effort. The Government will also evaluate alternate labor qualifications proposed by the offeror, if applicable, to determine the extent to which this information demonstrates that the offeror can meet tasking requirement with the alternate labor qualifications.

2.2 Understanding of the Work:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the work based on the responses or presentations required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses. If the proposal submission does not meet the SOW requirements, particularly Section 3, Requirements; no further proposal evaluations will be considered.

2.3 Management Plan:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed management plan based on the responses required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

3.0 - Past Performance

Each offeror will be evaluated on its team’s past performance based on contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last five (5) years from the proposal due date for same or similar efforts. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to size and complexity of the procurement under consideration and relevance of the performance to the requirements of the SOW in Section C of the solicitation. Sources other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government. Past performance will be evaluated in two pieces, the first being the relevance of the past performance information and the second, how well the offeror performed.

In the case of an offeror that does not have past performance information or for which information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and a neutral rating will apply. The past performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1.

4.0 Cost/Price

4.1 The price reasonableness evaluation will result in a determination of a fair and reasonable price to the Government. In order to determine the price reasonableness of the proposal, the Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed total estimated price for all periods of performance.

4.1 Cost Realism Analysis. In evaluating the cost portion of each offer, realism of the offeror's estimated cost will be evaluated. Cost realism is a review of the cost portion of an offeror's proposal to determine if the overall costs proposed are realistic for the work to be performed, if the costs reflect the offeror's understanding of the requirements, and/or if the costs are consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the offeror's capability data and the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix for all periods of performance. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government's estimate of the offeror's most probable cost. Evaluated cost to the Government is an offeror's total cost, including profit/fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. This evaluated cost will be used in making an award recommendation. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost should be explained in the supporting cost/price data volume. Cost realism analysis will be conducted to ascertain the following:

4.1.1 The Government will verify that the offeror has proposed in precise accordance with the labor categories and hours detailed in Section L, paragraph 4-8. Any deviation between the hours listed in Section L, paragraph 4.8 and the hours proposed shall render the proposal unawardable.

4.1.2 Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to, payroll verification, contingent offer letters, and DCAA recommended rates indirect rates, as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the most probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this contract. The Government will ascertain the degree to which the proposed direct labor costs are based on named employees. The Government will attribute a higher level of confidence to the proposal’s realism in relation to the higher proportion of named employees. The Government may review the offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rates to rates proposed by other offerors, average rates in industry, or other rates, as deemed appropriate. The Government may review the costs proposed for various labor categories and compare those to the qualifications of personnel proposed; the Government reserves the right to evaluate the costs at a higher rate to match the caliber of personnel proposed.

4.1.3 When no substantiating data is available, the Government may accept the unsupported proposed rates for individual cost elements for the purpose of calculating a total evaluated cost/price because the Government lacks any information to quantify a numerical adjustment. Nevertheless, even without making a numerical adjustment, the Government may still find that the unsupported rates indicate an offeror’s lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror. Offerors are advised that the Government may request technical assistance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e).

4.1.4 FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated price will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the evaluated amount for Year 5 of CLINS 0001-0003 by 12 to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated price for the six-month option to extend services.

4.1.5 Because, in a competitive environment, an offeror is incentivized to propose the lowest possible price, downward cost realism adjustments will generally not be made. However, when cost realism analysis indicates that a proposed cost is unrealistically low, an upward adjustment may be made based on the Government’s best estimate of the cost the offeror will incur for that cost element.

4.1.6 Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor.

4.1.7 Cost adjustments are for evaluation purposes only and award will be made at proposed costs and fees of the successful offeror.

4.2 Price Analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable.

4.3 In accordance with DFARS 216.505-70, if only one offeror is received, cost analysis will be performed and will be the basis for negotiations. However, if adequate price competition is received, the Government will only perform cost analysis to the extent that it is required to conduct cost realism analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c)(1).

4.4 Profit/Fee will be evaluated in accordance with the statutory or regulatory limitations stated in FAR 15.404-4, Profit.

4.5 Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment P5 and Volume 4 Narrative, Section B prevails. The discrepancies may be identified as weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

4.6 Small Business Utilization Strategy Approach (for unrestricted competitions)

4.6.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy for utilizing small business, women-owned small business, HUB Zone small businesses, veteran-owned small business; service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business Subcontract Management Approach to determine if it meets or exceeds the requirements of FAR 19.704.

5.0 Ratings

5.1 Evaluations shall employ an adjectival rating method for rating contractor proposals against evaluation factors and subfactors identified within Section M of the solicitation. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactors, as required, subsequent to and consistent with the narrative evaluation, which will indicate a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

5.2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Methodology Adjectival Ratings: The combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table below.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

5.3 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. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

5.3.1 There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

5.3.2 There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the below table. 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

5.3.3 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

5.3.3.1 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

· Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

· Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

· Past performance information shall be obtained from 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 System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

5.3.3.2 The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applied to performance confidence assessment.

5.3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

5.4 Definitions:

5.4.1 Deficiency is 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.

5.4.2 Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

5.4.3 Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

5.4.4 Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

5.4.5 Risk, as it pertains to source selection, 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 or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

5.4.6 Strength is 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.

5.4.7 Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

6.1 Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the Government in terms of Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price and other factors considered, rather than to the proposal offering the lowest price.

6.2 The Government intends to award the resultant contract on the basis of initial offers received. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, during the evaluation of proposals the Government may contact any or all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses.

6.3 FAR Part 9.103(a) states that purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible contractors only. FAR Part 9.103(b) stipulates that no purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In making a responsibility determination, the standards at FAR 9.104-1 will be considered. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of the offeror or any proposed subcontractor; communications with offerors regarding responsibility issues may take place at any time during the proposal evaluation process.

6.4 If an offeror identifies a conflict of interest, mitigation plans shall be submitted and will be evaluated by the Government. If the proposed mitigation plans are ultimately deemed unacceptable, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf