~NNA17568278R_Amendment_01.pdf

Section L.8, page L-7: Reference to SBA Ostensible Subcontractor Rule Information is corrected from L.8 to L.9. See replacement page L-7, page 3 of this amendment.

Section L.8, page L-10: Information Provided by Offerors and Major Subcontractors in the Past Performance Volume is revised to include “note any problems in delivered hardware or software, including any mishaps or failures” in Relevant Technical Performance and “Discuss record regarding occupational health, security, and safety issues” in Contract Management. See replacement page L-10, page 4 of this amendment.

Section L.8, page L-11: The due dates for the past performance reference contract list and completed questionnaires are revised to March 6, 2017 and March 13, 2017, respectively. See replacement page L- 11, page 5 of this amendment.

Section M.2, page M-3: Reference to definition of recent and active contracts the Government will review is corrected from L.7(b) to L.8(b). See replacement page M-3, page 6 of this amendment.

Section M.2, page M-3: Considerations in the Government’s evaluation of the Past Performance Volume are revised to include “any problems in delivered hardware or software, including any mishaps or failures” in Relevant Technical Performance and “record regarding occupational health, security, and safety issues” in Contract Management. See replacement page M-3, page 5 of this amendment.

Section M.3, page M-4: The following statement is deleted in its entirety: “Offerors should note that items within any factor, if found to be non-responsive and/or unsatisfactory, may be the basis for rejection of an Offer.” See replacement page M-4, page 7 of this amendment.

Section J.1(b), Attachment 10: The Past Performance Questionnaire is revised and replaced. See Attachment 1 to this amendment.

Amendment 01

NNA17568278R SECTION L

L-7

B Technical Approach 1 Overall Understanding of the Statement of Work and Technical Approach (Oral/Written):

Sample Tasks

Outreach and Subject Matter Expert Recruitment

Note: The following outline should not be construed as an indication of the order of importance or relative weighting within individual elements of Mission Suitability subfactors as there are no discrete point values to any of the elements.

A. Management Approach

The Offeror shall describe its management and business approaches to coordinate, perform, integrate, control, and accomplish the requirements of the SOW from phase-in through the life of the contract as identified below:

1. Organizational Structure and Contract Management Approach

(Oral) The Offeror shall describe, and provide rationale for, its organizational structure and contract management approach, including:

Proposed management structure, including clear lines of authority and communications. The structure should describe and diagram the connections or associations of the entities responsible for this work.

Corporate oversight and involvement, including resources that could be utilized to address unanticipated challenges.

Planning, tracking, and reporting on work assignments and individual task orders, including managing changing requirements and priorities, and controlling resources and schedules.

Processes to efficiently procure necessary resources (e.g., material, hardware, software).

Organizational risk areas and recommended approaches to minimize the probability and impact of those risks.

(Written) Proposed subcontracting or partnering arrangements, if any, and offeror’s approach for managing these arrangements, including response to paragraph L.9, SBA Ostensible Subcontractor Rule Information.

2. Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Training (Oral)

The Offeror shall describe its approach to ensuring highly qualified staff are consistently available to meet mission requirements. In particular, address:

Plans for recruiting and retaining personnel in the highly competitive Silicon Valley employment market, including applicable policies and incentives.

Proposed approach to staffing multiple work assignments and task orders competing for limited common workforce and skill sets.

Opportunities in the SOW for, and plans to implement, cross-training.

Processes for quickly accessing personnel with specific expertise, including for performance of specialized, short duration, or discrete work in response to unexpected events.

Processes for recognizing outstanding performance and dealing with underperforming employees.

Succession planning and/or corporate knowledge retention plan to ensure expertise does not reside with a single individual.

3. Phase-In (Oral)

The Offeror shall describe, and provide rationale for, its approach to ensuring efficient continuation of operations during contract turnover, addressing issues typically encountered during the initial and ongoing transition of new and/or incumbent personnel. This discussion shall include a detailed schedule of tasks and identification of proposed key or other personnel (by title and function) who will participate during the Phase-In and rationale for selecting them.

4. Key Personnel

(Oral) The Offeror shall describe, and provide rationale for, Key Personnel, including:

Key positions and the basis for designating them as Key.

NNA17568278R SECTION L

L-10

1. Relevant Technical Performance. The Offeror and major subcontractors shall provide relevant technical performance information for their reference contracts. The Offeror and major subcontractors shall:

Provide relevant metrics that have been used to measure overall technical performance. Highlight trends; note any problems in delivered hardware or software, including any mishaps or failures; and discuss specific steps taken to enhance contract performance or overcome technical issues. Note that trends in contract performance may be either positive or negative, if applicable.

Provide specific example(s) demonstrating flexibility and effectiveness in dealing with unexpected changes to technical and/or schedule requirements and the impact.

Provide specific example(s) demonstrating an innovative and resource-efficient approach and the impact.

2. Contract Management. The Offeror and major subcontractors shall provide contract management information for their reference contracts. The Offeror and major subcontractors shall:

Provide relevant metrics that have been used to measure overall contract management performance. Highlight trends and discuss specific steps taken to enhance contract management performance or overcome contract management issues. Note that trends in contract performance may be either positive or negative, if applicable.

Discuss approaches used to coordinate prime and subcontractors working across multiple, concurrent, complex tasks.

Discuss methods and strategies used to recruit, develop, and retain a technically qualified, motivated workforce, including, but not limited to, establishing employee performance standards, cross-training, and recognizing outstanding performance, and describe the handling of any labor-related issues such as the arbitration of grievances by employees or dealing with underperforming employees. Provide the average time for filling vacant positions and the percent turnover each year of the contract.

Discuss approaches used to quickly and efficiently procure necessary resources (e.g., materials, hardware, and software).

Provide specific example(s) demonstrating proactive measures to identify and resolve issues or enhance performance.

Provide specific example(s) demonstrating effective interfacing by corporate management with local contract management or Government counterparts to resolve a problem.

Discuss approaches used during the phase-in period that ensured efficient continuation of operations during contract turn-over. Provide retention rates for key personnel, retention rates for technical personnel, and specific lessons learned and best practices developed.

Discuss record regarding occupational health, security, and safety issues.

B. Past Performance Relevant Contracts (Oral)

The Offeror shall complete the table entitled “Past Performance Relevant Contracts” to include all of the relevant contracts for the Prime and Major Subcontractors as described in Section L.8(b)(1).

Enter the name of the Offeror in the row next to “Offeror.” In the rows available below “Offeror,” enter the agency contract number for each of the Offeror’s relevant contracts, enter “P” or “S” to indicate whether the Offeror was a prime contractor or a subcontractor for that particular contract. For the work identified in each column, enter the number (or fraction) of the Offeror’s employees performing that work for that particular contract. Sum the total number of employees in the last column.

Enter the name of a Major Subcontractor in the row next to “Major Subcontractor 1.” In the rows available below “Major Subcontractor 1,” enter the agency contract number for each of that Major Subcontractor’s relevant contracts, enter “P” or “S” to indicate whether the Major Subcontractor was a prime contractor or subcontractor for that particular contract. For the work identified in each column, enter the number (or decimal) of the Major Subcontractor’s employees performing that work for that particular contract. Sum the total number of employees in the last column.

Continue for each of the Major Subcontractors using the rows for “Major Subcontractor 2,” “Major Subcontractor 3,” etc.

Additional rows may be used if necessary to include additional Major Subcontractors.

NNA17568278R SECTION M

M-3 accomplishing the work identified in Sections 4.3.8, Outreach, and 4.3.9, Subject Matter Expert Recruitment, of the SOW.

(d) Past Performance Factor (Volume II).

By acquiring and reviewing information from a variety of sources, the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s suitability to fulfill the requirements of this contract. The Government will evaluate the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, subcontractors or an organization that will substantially contribute to the proposed contract, or have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract. Specifically, the Government will evaluate information on past and current performance regarding the relevant areas below.

A. Information Provided by Offerors and Major Subcontractors

The Government will review recent and active contracts (as defined in Section L.8 (b)), to determine the relevancy of the experience to the work anticipated to be performed under this proposed contract. The past performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors will be thoroughly evaluated in the following areas: Relevant Technical Performance and Contract Management. The Government will also evaluate other information submitted by the Offeror and Major Subcontractors as well as information from other sources as described in Section L.

1. Relevant Technical Performance. The Government will review recent and active contracts to determine the relevancy of the experience to the work anticipated to be performed under this proposed contract. Also, the Government will review relevant recent and active contracts and assess the quality of the technical work performed under those contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors. The Government will also consider the Offeror’s rationale for determining that particular previous work is relevant to this RFP. In evaluating technical performance, consideration will be given to the following:

Relevant metrics that have been used to measure overall technical performance, trends, any problems in delivered hardware or software, including any mishaps or failures, and specific steps taken to enhance technical performance or overcome technical issues. Provide relevant metrics that have been used to measure overall technical performance.

Demonstrated flexibility and effectiveness in dealing with unexpected changes to technical and/or schedule requirements.

Demonstrated innovative and resource-efficient approaches and their impact.

2. Contract Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's and Major Subcontractors’ recent and current performance in the area of contract management. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors. In evaluating contract management, consideration will be given to the following:

Relevant metrics that have been used to measure overall contract management performance. Highlight trends and discuss specific steps taken to enhance contract management performance or overcome contract management issues.

Approaches used to coordinate prime and subcontractors working across multiple, concurrent, complex tasks.

Methods and strategies used to recruit, develop, and retain a technically qualified, motivated workforce, including, but not limited to, establishing employee performance standards, cross-training, and recognizing outstanding performance; the handling of any labor-related issues such as the arbitration of grievances by employees or dealing with underperforming employees; and the average time for filling vacant positions and the percent turnover each year of the contract.

Approaches used to quickly and efficiently procure necessary resources (e.g., materials, hardware, and software).

Demonstrated proactive measures to identify and resolve issues or enhance performance.

Demonstrated effective interfacing by corporate management with local contract management or

Government counterparts to resolve a problem.

Discuss record regarding occupational health, security, and safety issues.

Approaches used during the phase-in period that ensured efficient continuation of operations during contract turn-over; and retention rates for key personnel, retention rates for technical personnel, and specific lessons learned and best practices developed.

Amounts of and explanations for any cost overruns or underruns on cost-type contracts.

NNA17568278R SECTION M

M-4

(e) Cost Factor (Volume III)

(1) The cost evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B).

(2) Offerors should refer to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost”. The terms “proposed and probable cost” are exclusive of fee. Any proposed fee is not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

(3) The Government will determine the Probable Cost of each Offeror’s proposal by evaluating the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs to ensure the Offeror understands the magnitude and complexity of the effort. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. This assessment will consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistic and the technical/management risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the assessment for each Offeror. Offeror’s proposed fixed fee will be used in computing the Probable Cost Plus Fixed Fee.

(4) The overall value for selection purposes will be the sum of the cost plus fixed fee proposed for the Contract Management (CLINs 002A, 003A, 004a, 005A and 006A),Technical Services (CLINs 002B, 003B, 004B, 005B, and 006B) and the IDIQ Task Orders (CLINs 002C, 003C, 004C, 005C and 006C). Phase-In (CLIN 01) will not be included in the evaluated total cost plus fixed fee for selection purposes, but it will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.

If the SEB determines that a proposal does not adequately demonstrate that the Offeror will be able to perform the work, including the appropriateness of the Offeror’s proposed resources, the SEB may determine this to be a Mission Suitability weakness, adversely affecting the Offeror’s Mission Suitability scores as well as require an adjustment for probable cost. A lack of resource realism (and, in the case of Phase-In costs, a lack of reasonableness) may generate a Mission Suitability weakness and adversely affect the Offeror’s Mission Suitability score.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(END OF PROVISION)

M.3 WEIGHTING AND SCORING

(a) The essential objective of this procurement process is to identify and select the Contractor best able to successfully meet the Government's needs in the manner most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered. The evaluation factors are described in M.2, Evaluation Approach.

(b) Mission Suitability subfactors will be assigned adjectival ratings and numerical scores in accordance with the numerical system established herein. The overall Mission Suitability Factor will only receive a numerical score.

The other factors (i.e., Past Performance and Cost) are not similarly weighted or scored. Past Performance is assigned a level of confidence rating. Cost will be evaluated for realism and a probable cost adjustment will be made, if appropriate. Cost will also be evaluated for its impact on Mission Suitability. The Source Selection Authority's (SSA) decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals pursuant to source selection criteria prescribed in this solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

(c) Of the evaluation factors identified above, Mission Suitability is moderately more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is moderately more important than Cost. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost.

(d) The numerical weights assigned to the Mission Suitability subfactors are indicative of the relative importance of those evaluation areas. The Mission Suitability subfactors to be evaluated are weighted for purposes of assigning numerical scores as follows: