21R0035 Amendment 3.docx

N6893621R0035

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 28-Mar-2022 12:00 PM to 07-Apr-2022 12:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 2

Q1. Many solicitations, including the previous one for LSS, include customary language regarding cost realism analysis as follows: “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. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.” Could the Government please advise if this was omitted for a particular reason and consider including it in this solicitation?

A1. This verbiage has been incorporated in Section M, Part B, Paragraph 4.

Q2. As this procurement is a set aside for small business, was it the government’s intention to impose a small business subcontracting requirement? The RFP provides as follows:

(A) The last bullet of Section L’s 2.0, Volume 2: Technical reads: “Small Business Management.”

(B) Section 2.5, Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy reads: ”All Offerors shall describe their strategies for utilizing SB Concerns in the performance of this contract, whether as a JV, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor to achieve a Government established Small Business Participation goal of no less than 15% of the total contract value, inclusive of options. Small business Offerors should include themselves in addressing their strategies. Although the aforementioned stated goal represents the Small Business category, Offerors shall include goals for not only Small Business, but also for Small Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, and Women-Owned Small Business. All goals shall be presented in both dollars and percentages in relation to total contract value.”

(C) The Table appearing in Section 4.1, Volume Content, paragraph (a)(i) includes a “Business Size” column.

(D) Part B: Specific Information, Section 2.0 Technical states: “Additionally, the Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns compliance with any minimum required Small Business goals as identified in Section L, as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated.”

A2. A, B, and D have been removed. C remains as a requirement.

Q3. Please confirm that the applicable small business size standard for this acquisition is $16,500,000.

A3. See Amendment 1

The following amends Section L, Part A, 4.0 – Electronic Proposal Submission

4.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The Offeror shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/). All proposal documents must be compatible with the Microsoft Office 2016 Word and Excel and/or the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader Portable Document Format (PDF). The prime contractor is responsible to submit all volumes of the proposal including those from subcontractors. No other submissions, such as mail, hand-carried, proprietary, or other electronic system (e.g., PIEE) will be evaluated.

An email shall be submitted to Madelene Perez at madelene.j.perez.civ@us.navy.mil no later than 12:00 PM PST three (3) days prior to the submission date requesting a “Drop-Off Request Code.” The Prime and Subcontractor(s) will each be provided a unique “Drop-Off Request Code” which will allow them to submit proposal documents to the Government independently as needed. The Prime and Subcontractor points of contact will receive an email that contains their unique “Drop-Off Request Code” no less than 3 days prior to the proposal due date. This code authorizes access to submit proposal documents securely via DoD SAFE. Each submission package in DoD SAFE is limited to 25 documents totaling 8 GB. If a proposal includes more than either of these limitation, the Offeror shall request an additional Drop-Off Request Code. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of proposals and all electronic communications. Screen shots of the submission should also be taken to validate a submission was accepted in the DoD SAFE system.

The Offeror shall send an e-mail to Madelene Perez at madelene.j.perez.civ@us.navy.mil immediately after submittal of proposal electronically to DoD SAFE to document time of delivery and confirmation of all volume contents. It is suggested the contractor email the page number of each volume, annex, etc, so the proposal can be confirmed. Missing pages received after the due date will not be evaluated.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring electronic proposals are virus free. Offerors may use hyperlinks within and among proposal volumes that do not include price information. In order to reduce file sizes, the Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files within the proposal submission. The Offeror is encouraged to simplify the color palette used in creating figures; and minimize size of graphics files; and avoid scanned images.

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. If an extension to the solicitation is allowed, a new Drop-Off Request Code will need to be requested.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (01/18/2022)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "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.

The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial offers received without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Management, Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted with only those Offerors within the competitive range.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For the Management Approach factor, a Management Rating will be assigned. The Management 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. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a management factor with an “Unacceptable” Management Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

For the Technical factor, 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 (JVs), 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

Factor 1: Management Approach Factor 2: Technical Approach Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price/Cost

Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Management is more important than Technical. Management and Technical, when combined, are more important than past performance.

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Management Approach shall be evaluated on the feasibility and adequacy of the approach to be taken to achieve the requirements of the SOW and solicitation. The Government will assess the Offeror's Management proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements, including Organization, Staffing, Transition Plan, and Subcontract Management.

2.0 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, including Workforce/Personnel Qualifications/Key Personnel, Weapons Maintenance Program, Sample Order Technical Approach, and Sample Event Technical Approach. The Sample Order and Sample Event are considered a requirement for evaluation purposes. The Sample Order will be incorporated as the first order after contract award. Noncompliance with the technical requirements of this solicitation will be considered a deficiency. The Government will also assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to the risk associated with the Offeror's approach.

3.0 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 five (5) 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. Past performance will be considered relevant if the contract/order meets the relevancy ratings as defined in Part C, 3.0 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

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’s, principal subcontractor’s, and JV team member’s 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.

4.0 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. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract.

In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach).

The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

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. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

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. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

5.0 OVERALL SUMMARY LEVEL FOR ALL CLINs

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

The contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting,” 52.219-27 “Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Set Aside,” 52.219-29 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” 52.219-30 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” or 52.219-3 “Notice of Total HUBZone Set Aside or Sole Source Award,” as applicable, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment (L-6), and Volume 4 Narrative, Section B prevails.

6.0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost/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 cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final year of performance (CLINS 0001-0003) by 12 to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.

7.0 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

The total evaluated price will be the sum of CLINS 0001-0003 Most Probable Cost (MPC) for a five (5) year period of performance including an option to extend for six (6) months.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 MANAGEMENT EVALUATION RATINGS

Management Ratings: The management rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s management solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Management Ratings

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

3.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

4.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: 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.

5.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

6.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

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.

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.

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 or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf