A2SB_Amendment_9_-_Draft.pdf

Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC Solicitation No.: QTA0016GBA0002

Amendment 9

The purpose of this ninth amendment is to make the following changes:

1. L.2.3 FAR 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards (OCT 1995)

Change the second paragraph of the provision from:

to:

“The government anticipates that Multiple Awards shall be made up to a maximum of 80 awards. In the event of a precisely tied score at a number at the 80th position, all those Offerors will receive a Master Contract award.”

“The government anticipates that Multiple Awards shall be made up to a maximum of 120 awards. In the event of a precisely tied score at a number at the 120th position, all those Offerors will receive a Master Contract award.”

2. L.3.1 Official Legal Bidding Entity

Change the first paragraph of the provision from:

“All the evaluation elements an Offeror is claiming credit for in accordance with Section L.5., Volumes 1 through 7, must be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 15A on the Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, with a corresponding CAGE Code and DUNS Number in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 33, Block 15A. (See Section L.5.1.1.).”

to:

“All the evaluation elements an Offeror is claiming credit for in accordance with Section L.5., Volumes 1 through 6, must be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 15A on the Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, with a corresponding CAGE Code and DUNS Number in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 33, Block 15A. (See Section L.5.1.1.).”

3. L.3.2 Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements, as Applicable

Change the first paragraph of the provision from:

“By the closing date of this solicitation, if a company has acquired another company, the transferor and transferee company may claim credit for the same PSC Group Relevant Experience Projects under Section L.5.2.2, the Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience Projects under Section L.5.2.3, and the Past Performance Projects under Section L.5.3, under the following condition.”

to:

“By the closing date for proposal revisions, if a company has acquired another company, the transferor and transferee company may claim credit for the same PSC Group Relevant Experience Projects under Section L.5.2.2, the Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience Projects under Section L.5.2.3, and the Past Performance Projects under Section L.5.3, under the following condition.”

DRAFT

Amendment 9

4. L.3.4 Proposal Due Date and Address Location

Change from:

PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 4:00 PM CDT ON OCTOBER 7, 2016.

Proposals may be mailed to:

General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service Small Business GWAC Contract Operations (QTACC) Attn: Greg Byrd, Contracting Officer 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: *816-823-2067

*Phone number is provided exclusively for delivery purposes only, i.e., required for shipping labels for FedEx, USPS, and other courier services. Do not call this number for any questions concerning this solicitation.

Hand delivered proposals will only be accepted on October 7, 2016 between 9:00 AM CDT and 4:00 PM CDT at the following location:

GSA Conference Center, Room 1SE 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108 to:

PROPOSAL REVISIONS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 4:00 PM CDT ON -TBD-.

Proposal revisions may be mailed to:

General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service Small Business GWAC Contract Operations (QTACC) Attn: Greg Byrd, Contracting Officer 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: *816-823-2067

*Phone number is provided exclusively for delivery purposes only, i.e., required for shipping labels for FedEx, USPS, and other courier services. Do not call this number for any questions concerning this solicitation.

Hand delivered proposals will only be accepted on -TBD- between 9:00 AM CDT and 4:00 PM CDT at the following location:

GSA Conference Center, Room 1SE 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108

5. L.3.6 Pre-proposal Conference

“A pre-proposal conference sponsored by the Government will be presented to interested parties, consisting of an RFP overview, on or about the week of July 10, 2016. The pre-proposal conference will be conducted in the Washington DC area. The specific dates, times, details and instructions for attending this conference will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website several days prior to the event. The FBO website will be the only source of information and updates concerning the pre-proposal conference. Please hold all inquiries about the pre-proposal conference in anticipation of GSA posting the details.”

“A pre-proposal webinar sponsored by the Government will be presented to interested parties, consisting of an RFP overview, on or about the week of “DATE TBD”. The specific dates, times, details and instructions for attending this webinar will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website several days prior to the event. The FBO website will be the only source of information and updates concerning the pre-proposal conference.

Please hold all inquiries about the pre-proposal webinar in anticipation of GSA posting the details.”

6. L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT

(a) Change the first two paragraphs from :

The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Seven (7) separate electronic folders by Volume Number and Title as follows:

● Volume 1 – General

● Volume 2 – Relevant Experience

● Volume 3 – Past Performance

● Volume 4 – Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

● Volume 5 – Organizational Risk Assessment

● Volume 6 – Cost-Price

● Volume 7 – Responsibility

Offerors shall include all Seven (7) electronic folders and proposal documents on to a single DVD+R disk with all files in an uncompressed native format. See Proposal Table Format below. Nothing may be included on the disk except the proposal files in accordance with the instructions in Section L.5.

See amendment 9 “Instructions to Offerors” for revised proposal submission instructions.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Six (6) separate electronic folders by Volume Number and Title as follows:

● Volume 1 – General

● Volume 2 – Relevant Experience

● Volume 3 – Past Performance

● Volume 4 – Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

● Volume 5 – Organizational Risk Assessment

● Volume 6 – Cost-Price

Offerors shall include all Six (6) electronic folders and proposal documents on to a single DVD+R disk with all files in an uncompressed native format. See Proposal Table

Amendment 9

Format below. Nothing may be included on the disk except the proposal files in accordance with the instructions in Section L.5.

(b) Change the fifth paragraph from:

Offerors proposing as part of a contractor teaming arrangement, in accordance with the requirements of L.5.1.5, may submit separate DVD+R’s for Volume 2 – Relevant Experience (when sensitive or proprietary information is contained within required documents) and Volume 7 – Responsibility within sealed envelopes for team members that require this. Any sealed envelope must be within the same package as the submitted proposal. Each sealed envelope and DVD+R shall be labeled on the outside with the Solicitation Number, Volume Number (6 or 7), Name and DUNS Number of the Offeror, along with the Name and DUNS Number of the Team Member.

to:

Offerors proposing as part of a contractor teaming arrangement, in accordance with the requirements of L.5.1.5, may submit separate DVD+R’s for Volume 2 – Relevant Experience (when sensitive or proprietary information is contained within required documents) within sealed envelopes for team members that require this. Any sealed envelope must be within the same package as the submitted proposal. Each sealed envelope and DVD+R shall be labeled on the outside with the Solicitation Number, Volume Number (2), Name and DUNS Number of the Offeror, along with the Name and DUNS Number of the Team Member.

(c) Within the “PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE” change Volume 4, L.5.4.1 to read as follows:

4 L.5.4.1

Cost Accounting System Audit Information

Documentation to verify audited/adequate accounting system to include SF1408 and/or auditing agency letter.

Certification of no material change

Contact information for cognizant auditing agency

Limited to requested documentation only.

If not applying for these additional points, no file need be submitted.

ABC.VOL4.CASAUDIT.pdf

ABC.VOL4.CASCONTACT.pdf

(d) Within the “PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE” delete the row for Volume 7, L.5.7.1:

7 L.5.7.1 GSA Form 527 GSA Form 527 Limited to the GSA Form

527 ABC.VOL7.527.pdf

7. L.5.1.5 Contractor Teaming Arrangements, if applicable

Delete the last paragraph:

Offerors proposing as a CTA must offer as a single type of CTA. Combinations of CTAs are not acceptable, e.g., a joint venture CTA utilizing subcontractors that are not members of the JV or a Prime/Sub CTA utilizing a JV as a subcontractor.

8. L.5.1.5.1 Partnership or Joint Venture, if applicable

Delete the last bullet in item 3:

● Volume 7 - For populated joint ventures, financial responsibility documents required by

Volume 7 must be submitted for the joint venture itself. For unpopulated joint ventures, financial responsibility documents required by Volume 7 must be submitted for each member of the joint venture

9. L.5.1.5.2 Proposed Subcontractors, if applicable

Change item 2 of the second paragraph from:

2. The offeror and all proposed subcontractors must represent as small businesses for NAICS 541512 within SAM.GOV.

2. The offeror and all proposed subcontractors must represent as small businesses for NAICS 541512 within SAM.GOV. This representation is based on the time of original offer submission for proposed subcontractors included in the initial proposal. For any new proposed subcontractors, this representation is based on the time of offer revision.

Delete the last bullet in item 3:

● Volume 7 - Financial responsibility documents required by Volume 7 must be submitted for the offeror and each proposed subcontractor

10. L.5.2.2.1.1 Verification of PSC Group Relevant Experience Submission

Change item (1) FPDS-NG AVAILABLE, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE from:

1. FPDS-NG AVAILABLE, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. If the FPDS-NG Report provides verification of all information included on the Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template. Submit the following verification documents:

a. FPDS-NG Report that provides verification of all claimed scoring elements included on the Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template. See Attachment J.P-9, FPDS Sample, for a sample FPDS Report and example of which fields will provide appropriate verification of scoring elements. (If multiple FPDS-NG reports are available, the most recent report shall be submitted as well as any previous reports necessary for verification of claimed scoring elements) (For a “collection of task orders,” if verification of all claimed elements is achieved without submitting all the task orders that have been awarded, then only submit those task orders that are necessary to provide verification).

b. Copy of Contract Statement of Work - The Statement of Work (SOW), or Performance Work Statement (PWS), from the contract that describes the general scope, nature, complexity, and purpose of the supplies or services the customer acquired under the contract. Additionally, the Offeror must also

Amendment 9 identify and call attention to the specific section or sections of the SOW that support the claim of having performed the PSC and any other claimed scoring elements. If a Statement of Objectives (SOO) clearly indicates the PSC being claimed, the SOO may be submitted. If the SOO is not clear then the contractor generated SOW/PWS must be submitted along with the SOO.

1. FPDS-NG AVAILABLE, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. If the FPDS-NG Report provides verification of all information included on the Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template.

Offerors are required to submit the following verification document:

● FPDS-NG Report that provides verification of all claimed scoring elements included on the Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template. See Attachment J.P-9, FPDS Sample, for a sample FPDS Report and example of which fields will provide appropriate verification of scoring elements. (If multiple FPDS-NG reports are available, the most recent report shall be submitted as well as any previous reports necessary for verification of claimed scoring elements) (For a “collection of task orders,” if verification of all claimed elements is achieved without submitting all the task orders that have been awarded, then only submit those task orders that are necessary to provide verification).

Offerors should confirm that the current FPDS-NG verifies all information included on the Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template. The government may obtain the current FPDS-NG report for each PSC code relevant experience submission directly from FPDS-NG. If there are no changes to scoring elements, offerors need not submit updated FPDS records . The government may rely upon the most current updated FPDS- NG records. If an offeror utilizes a relevant experience project from its original proposal within its revised proposal, the offeror is responsible for assuring that the current FPDS-NG still verifies the scoring elements as of the revised proposal deadline.

Change item (2) FPDS-NG UNAVAILABLE, INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE item (b) from:

b. The completed Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template must be signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted project. The citation must include the CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) that includes direct telephone number and direct email address.

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the following are submitted:

(1) The COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses.

(2) COR email notification to the cognizant CO with completed J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template. This email is to provide verification that the CO was made aware of the COR’s concurrence with the J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template.

For a Commercial project (non-government), the completed Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template, must be signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the commercial entity with cognizance over the submitted project.

b. The completed Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template must be signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted project. The citation must include the CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) that includes direct telephone number and direct email address.

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses are submitted.

For a Commercial project (non-government), the completed Section J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template, must be signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the commercial entity with cognizance over the submitted project.

11. L.5.2.3.1.1 Verification of Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience Submission

Change item (a) from:

a. The completed Section J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template must be signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted project. The citation must include the CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) that includes direct telephone number and direct email address.

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the following are submitted:

(1) The COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses.

(2) COR email notification to the cognizant CO with completed J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template. This email is to provide verification that the CO was made aware of the COR’s concurrence with the J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template.

For a Commercial project (non-government), the completed Section J.P-3, Relevant

Amendment 9

Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template, must be signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the customer with cognizance over the submitted project.

a. The completed Section J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template must be signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted project. The citation must include the CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) that includes direct telephone number and direct email address.

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses are submitted.

For a Commercial project (non-government), the completed Section J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template, must be signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the customer with cognizance over the submitted project.

12. L.5.3.2 Past Performance (PPIRS information does not exist)

Change the third paragraph from:

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the following are submitted:

(1) The COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses.

(2) COR email notification to the cognizant CO with completed J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form. This email is to provide verification that the CO was made aware of the COR’s concurrence with the J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form.

If access to the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project provided the COR and the cognizant CO’s point-of-contact information (POC) with direct telephone numbers and email addresses are submitted.

13. L.5.4 VOLUME 4 – SYSTEMS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND CLEARANCES

Add the following second paragraph:

Offerors shall submit a revised volume 4 in its entirety.

Amendment 9

14. L.5.4.1 Cost Accounting System and Audit Information

Change the first paragraph from

If claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) of an acceptable accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). The offeror must certify that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of its accounting system.

If claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) of an acceptable accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). CAUTION: To claim credit, the offeror must certify that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of its accounting system and provide the certification within Volume 4.

Change the last paragraph to:

If an Offeror has not had a DCAA, DCMA or CFA cost accounting system audit, the Offeror will not earn credit in this scoring element. However, the Offeror’s proposal will still be considered.

15. L.5.4.10 Facility Clearance Level (FCL)

Change the second paragraph from:

Offerors shall submit a letter signed by their Facility Security Officer identifying the Offeror’s CAGE code, Facility Clearance Level (FCL) and cognizant security office, such as the Defense Security Service (DSS) Office, verifying that a facility clearance (secret, top secret or higher) has been granted. In lieu of a letter, Offerors may provide a screen print of their information from the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD). An interim FCL approval is acceptable. GSA will verify the claimed FCL with DSS. GSA will not sponsor Offerors for any type of security clearances.

Offerors shall submit a letter signed by their Facility Security Officer identifying the Offeror’s CAGE code, Facility Clearance Level (FCL) and cognizant security office, such as the Defense Security Service (DSS) Office, verifying that a facility clearance (secret, top secret or higher) has been granted. In lieu of a letter, Offerors may provide a screen print of their information from the DSS NCAISS Portal. An interim FCL approval is acceptable. GSA will verify the claimed FCL with DSS. GSA will not sponsor Offerors for any type of security clearances.

Amendment 9

16. L.5.5.1 Organizational Risk Assessment

Change the third paragraph from:

to:

“Previously performed”, for the purposes of this evaluation factor, is defined as actual performance on a contract or order that took place before the issuance of the A2SB solicitation.

“Previously performed”, for the purposes of this evaluation factor, is defined as actual performance on a contract or order that took place before August 18, 2019.

17. L.5.6.1 Basis of Estimate

Change paragraph (a) from:

(a) Offerors shall submit the following statement:

This proposal reflects our estimates and/or actual costs of the date of proposal submission.

By submitting this proposal, we grant the PCO and authorized representative(s) the right to examine, at any time before award, those records, which include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and form or whether such supporting information is specifically referenced or included in the proposal as the basis for pricing, that will permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with

FAR 15.403-3.

to:

(a) Offerors are on notice that at the Government’s discretion, it might choose to seek additional information from them through authorized representative(s). Additional information might be in the form of records, which include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and form or whether such supporting information is specifically referenced or included in the proposal as the basis for pricing.

Within “(2) Indirect Costs” change from:

“(i) Offerors shall state the methodology used in computing their organization’s indirect costs (i.e., Fringe Benefits, Overhead, and G&A) applied to Direct Labor and explain how the indirect costs were derived.

(ii) Offerors shall state the methodology used in computing their organization’s indirect costs (i.e. G&A, and/or material handling, and/or subcontract handling) applied to Other Direct Costs (i.e., Subcontracts, Materials, and Travel) and explain how the indirect costs were derived. CAUTION: See L.5.6.2.2 for information pertaining to this topic.”

to:

“(i) Offerors shall state the methodology used in computing their organization’s indirect costs (i.e., Fringe Benefits, Overhead, and G&A) applied to Direct Labor and explain how the indirect costs were derived.

(ii) CAUTION: See L.5.6.2.2 for information pertaining to this topic.”

Within “(3) Profit” change from:

(i) Offerors shall state the methodology used in computing their organization’s proposed profit and explain how profit was derived. CAUTION: See L.5.6.2.2 for information pertaining to this topic.

(ii) Offerors shall answer the following question: Is this proposal consistent with your established estimating and accounting principles and procedures and FAR Part 31, Cost Principles? If not, provide an explanation.

Offerors shall state the methodology used in computing their organization’s proposed profit and explain how profit was derived. CAUTION: See L.5.6.2.2 for information pertaining to this topic.

18. L.5.6.2 Cost/Price Methodology and Instructions

Change the third paragraph from:

Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract with an estimated start date of October 1, 2017. Ceiling rates for Years 2 through 10 (which includes the years 2 through 5 of the initial base period and the 5-year option period) will automatically be calculated for each labor category by an escalation factor embedded in the spreadsheet.

Offerors shall not change the escalation factor in the spreadsheet. This escalation factor is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) and is based on the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date the Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC solicitation is issued. The current BLS ECI 3 year average is 1.93%.

As indicated in Section B.11.5.1, an economic price adjustment will be made for the option period pricing utilizing the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date of the option period start date.

Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract with an estimated start date of TBD. Ceiling rates for Years 2 through 10 (which includes the years 2 through 5 of the initial base period and the 5-year option period) will automatically be calculated for each labor category by an escalation factor embedded in the spreadsheet. Offerors shall not change the escalation factor in the spreadsheet. This escalation factor is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) and is based on the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date the Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC solicitation is issued. The current BLS ECI 3 year average is TBD%. As indicated in Section B.11.5.1, an economic price adjustment will be made for the option period pricing utilizing the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date of the option period start date.

Amendment 9

19. L.5.6.2.1 Direct Labor Rates

Change the second paragraph from:

As provided in Section J.P-6, “Direct Labor Rate Ranges”, for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category that was mapped to a Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System occupation, the BLS provides a National 50th Percentile estimate, a National 75th Percentile estimate, and a National 90th Percentile estimate for direct labor rates. Also identified are the States where each occupation is paid the highest. The BLS also provides a State 50th Percentile estimate, a State 75th Percentile estimate, and a State 90th Percentile estimate for each SOC in each state in the United States. The BLS caps direct labor rates at $90/hour, however, where the $90/hour cap was found, mathematical extrapolation was performed to calculate direct labor guidelines.

to:

As provided in Section J.P-6, “Direct Labor Rate Ranges”, for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category that was mapped to a Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System occupation, the BLS provides a National 50th Percentile estimate, a National 75th Percentile estimate, and a National 90th Percentile estimate for direct labor rates. Also identified are the States where each occupation is paid the highest. The BLS also provides a State 50th Percentile estimate, a State 75th Percentile estimate, and a State 90th Percentile estimate for each SOC in each state in the United States. The BLS caps direct labor rates at $100/hour, however, where the $100/hour cap was found, mathematical extrapolation was performed to calculate direct labor guidelines.

20. L.5.6.2.2 Indirect Rates/Profit

Change the first paragraph from:

“For each Indirect rate, Offeror’s shall propose indirect rates according to their most current DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, if available. If an Offeror does not have DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, Offerors should provide indirect rates generated from their acceptable accounting system.”

to:

“For each Indirect rate, Offerors should propose indirect rates according to their most current DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates, forward pricing rate recommendations or agreements, if available. If an Offeror does not rely upon DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates, forward pricing rate recommendations or agreements, offerors should provide indirect rates generated from their acceptable accounting system and certify in their proposal that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of its accounting system.

If an offeror does not rely upon DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates, forward pricing rate recommendations/agreements or their acceptable accounting system (or relies upon such an accounting system but does not certify that there have been no material changes to it since its last audit), then the Offeror has the opportunity, in the basis of estimate, to provide clear and convincing rationale to support their indirect rates.”

Amendment 9

21. L.5.7 VOLUME 7 – RESPONSIBILITY

Delete this section in its entirety and create a new section L.6 RESPONSIBILITY. The new section L.6 shall read as follows:

L.6 RESPONSIBILITY

Offerors may be contacted after proposal submission to supply to supply a completed GSA Form 527, Contractor Qualification and Financial Information as part of the Government's responsibility determination. (View form at the following website: www.gsa.gov/forms.) This is not required as part of the proposal package subject to the response deadline; however, Offerors must be prepared to respond with the following requests for information within three

(3) business days of the Government's request:

(a) Ownership Information (in addition to that required in the original offer submission);

(b) Government Financial Aid and Indebtedness;

(c) Financial Statements; and

(d) Income Statement, and Banking and Finance Company Information.

In accordance with FAR Part 9, Offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award. A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics is required.

In making the determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), exclusions denoted in the System for Award Management (SAM) - Offeror’s Representations and Certifications, the Offeror’s qualification and financial information (GSA Form 527), and any other pertinent data will be considered.

22. M.2 BASIS FOR AWARDS

Change the third paragraph from:

“The GWAC Program will issue Multiple Awards to a maximum of 80 contractors. Even if there is a single point difference between Offeror 80 and Offer 81, only the Offeror in the 80th position will receive an award. In the event of a tie at the maximum number 80 position, all Offerors tied at the 80th position will receive an award. NOTE: A tie is determined exclusively at the 80th position when two or more Offerors’ receive an identical score. If a tie score occurs at any other position before the 80th position, the tie does not result in two or more Offerors holding that same numbered position. For example, if two Offerors reach an identical score at the 39th available position, one tied Offeror will take the 39th position and the second tied Offeror moves into the 40th position.”

to:

“The GWAC Program will issue Multiple Awards to a maximum of 120 contractors. Even if there is a single point difference between Offeror 120 and Offer 121, only the Offeror in the 120th position will receive an award. In the event of a tie at the maximum number 120th position, all Offerors tied at the 120th position will receive an award. NOTE: A tie is determined exclusively at the 120th position when two or more Offerors’ receive an identical score. If a tie score occurs at any other position before the 120th position, the tie does not result in two or more Offerors holding that same numbered position. For example, if two Offerors reach an identical score at the 39th available position, one tied Offeror will take the 39th position and the second tied Offeror moves into the 40th position.”

Amendment 9

23. M.3 SCREENING AND EVALUATION PROCESS

Change text by substituting for each instance of the number “80” the number “120”, to read as follows:

“The first step in the evaluation process will be to order the offers from highest score to lowest score solely using the offeror’s Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet (Section J.P-1).

At this point the evaluation team will establish the preliminary top 120, hereafter referred to as Top 120. A screening process of the Top 120 will commence to verify that a support document exists for all the evaluation elements in accordance with the Offeror’s Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet submitted in accordance with Section J.P-1. Any discrepancies will be treated as clarifications.

The evaluation team will then initially verify that those top offerors up to a maximum of 120 awards have also successfully passed all of the Acceptability Review requirements in Section M.4 of the solicitation.

Any Offeror in the Top 120 based upon score, who fails the Acceptability Review, will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable. The next highest rated Offeror(s) (based upon score) who passes the Acceptability Review shall be added in the eliminated Offerors place. Only Offerors who initially pass all the criteria in the Acceptability Review in accordance with Section M.4. shall be considered eligible for award.

Following the Acceptability Review screening, the evaluation team will then evaluate and verify the support documentation for each and every evaluation element that the Top 120 have stated in the Offeror’s Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet (Section J.P- 1).

In the event that an evaluation element claimed is unsubstantiated or otherwise not given credit for, the Offeror’s preliminary score shall have the point value of the refuted evaluation element deducted and the Offeror will be re-sorted based upon the revised preliminary score.

If the Offeror remains in the Top 120 the evaluation of the offer shall continue. If the Offeror does not remain in the Top 120, the evaluation for that offer will stop and the next highest rated Offeror (based upon score) who passes the Acceptability Review shall be added to the Top 120 and evaluation shall begin on that offer.

Once the Top 120 highest scored offers have been evaluated and validated, the evaluation team will then check to verify that these Offerors have proposed fair and reasonable pricing.

In the event that an Offeror has not provided fair and reasonable pricing, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award unless discussions are conducted. However, the Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC CO plans on basing award on initial proposals and does not intend on conducting discussions as stated in Section M.2.

The evaluation process shall continue this cycle until the Top 120 apparent successful Offerors are identified that represent the highest technically rated offers (based on validated scores) with a fair and reasonable price. In the event of a tie at the position of number 120, all Offerors tied for this position shall receive a contract award. As stated in M.2 above, even if there is a single point difference between Offeror 120 and Offeror 121, only the Offeror in the 120th position will receive an award.

Once the Top 120 have been accomplished, evaluations will cease and contract awards will be issued.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information or support, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Amendment 9

Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

24. M.7 VOLUME 6 - COST/PRICE

“The Offeror must ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5.6.

The Offerors’ cost/price proposal will be used to determine whether the Maximum Rates proposed for each labor category are fair and reasonable in order to establish maximum rates for Time and Material/Labor Hour contract types in accordance with Section B.11.5.1

For each proposed direct labor rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be the Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Service Occupational Classifications (SOC) as explained in Section L.5.6.2.1.

For each Indirect rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be the Offeror’s most current approved billing rates, forward pricing rate agreements, and/or acceptable accounting system generated rates for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category. If the offeror does not have current approved billing rates, forward pricing rate agreements, and/or acceptable accounting system generated rates, the Government will consider the rationale provided by the offeror to support the proposed indirect rates in the “Basis of Estimate” as described in L.5.6.2.2.

For Profit, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be no more than 7.5% for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category as explained in Section L.5.6.2.2.

If an Offeror does not meet one or more of these parameters for any labor category, the Offeror is strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support the proposed direct/indirect and/or profit rate(s). In the event the rationale is not determined reasonable, the proposal will be deemed to have a maximum rate(s) that is not considered fair and reasonable and the proposal would not be eligible for award, regardless of technical score.

Cost/Price proposals may only be modified as a result of discussions and Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make award based on initial proposals without discussions.

An offer may also be rejected if any one or more required submittals is missing or incomplete on the Cost/Price Template in accordance with Section J.P-8, or if the Government determines the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

In accordance with GSA Acquisition Letter MV-16-04, which establishes a class deviation to FAR subpart 15.404-1(d)(2), a cost realism analysis is not required for the establishment of the Alliant 2 GWAC, also referred to as the Master Contract.

FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) Class Deviation

• Changes to the current text are shown by [additions] and deletions.

• Five asterisks (*****) indicate there are no revisions between the preceding and following sections

• Three asterisks (* * *) indicate there are no revisions between the material shown within a subsection

15.404 - Proposal Analysis.

15.404-1 - Proposal Analysis Techniques.

(d) Cost realism analysis.

Amendment 9

(1) * * *

(2) Cost realism analyses shall be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. [Cost realism analyses are not required when establishing multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite- quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Cost realism analyses shall be performed at the task- order level for cost-reimbursement orders.] to:

“The Offeror must ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5.6.

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be used to determine whether the maximum rates proposed for each labor category are fair and reasonable maximum rates for Time and Material/Labor Hour contract types in accordance with Section B.11.5.1

● For each proposed direct labor rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be the Direct Labor Rate ranges as explained in Section L.5.6.2.1.

● For each Indirect rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be the Offeror’s most current approved billing rates, forward pricing rate recommendations/agreements, or acceptable accounting system generated rates for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category. If the offeror does not rely upon current approved billing rates, forward pricing rate recommendations/agreements, or acceptable accounting system generated rates; the Government will consider the rationale provided by the offeror to support the proposed indirect rates in the “Basis of Estimate” as described in L.5.6.2.2.

● For Profit, the basis of fair and reasonableness will be no more than 7.5% for each Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC labor category as explained in Section L.5.6.2.2.

If an Offeror does not meet one or more of these parameters for any labor category, the Offeror is strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support the proposed direct/indirect and/or profit rate(s). The government may use one or more other proposal analysis techniques to further evaluate prices to ensure that the final agreed-to maximum rates for Section B.11.5.1 are fair and reasonable. In the event maximum rates are not determined fair and reasonable, the proposal would not be eligible for award, regardless of technical score.

Cost/Price proposals may only be modified as a result of discussions and Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make award based on initial proposals without discussions.

An offer may also be rejected if any one or more required submittals is missing or incomplete on the Cost/Price Template in accordance with Section J.P-8, or if the Government determines the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

In accordance with GSA Acquisition Letter MV-16-04, which establishes a class deviation to FAR subpart 15.404-1(d)(2), a cost realism analysis is not required for the establishment of the Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC, also referred to as the Master Contract.

FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) Class Deviation

• Changes to the current text are shown by [additions] and deletions.

• Five asterisks (*****) indicate there are no revisions between the preceding and following sections

• Three asterisks (* * *) indicate there are no revisions between the material shown within a subsection

15.404 - Proposal Analysis.

15.404-1 - Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Amendment 9

(d) Cost realism analysis.

(1) * * *

(2) Cost realism analyses shall be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. [Cost realism analyses are not required when establishing multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite- quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Cost realism analyses shall be performed at the task- order level for cost-reimbursement orders.]

25. M.8 VOLUME 7 - Responsibility

Change the title of M.8 from:

M.8 VOLUME 7 - Responsibility to:

M.8 Responsibility

Change the second paragraph from:

In making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), exclusions denoted in the System for Award Management (SAM), the representations and certifications with SAM and Section K, the Offeror’s Financial Resources (See Section L.5.7.1), and other pertinent data will be considered.

In making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), exclusions denoted in the System for Award Management (SAM), the representations and certifications with SAM and Section K, the Offeror’s Financial Resources (See Section L.6), and other pertinent data will be considered.

End of Amendment 9