S5121A-15-R-0012-0003.pdf

S5121A-15-R-0012

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this addendum is to amend Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria. Para (2.1.4) Sub-factor 3-Project Experience. Offerors w ho submitted a timely proposal to solicitation S5121A-15-R-0012 may resubmit a revised "Tab F: Experience (6 Page Limitation)

Organizational Conflict of Interest" if they believe the change in the evaluation language w arrants a resubmission to meet the evaluation criteria. Offerors shall submit revision to the POC: Brian Gillead via email larry.gillead@dcma.mil no later than 11 February 2016, 12:00 PM

(EST). All questions concerning this addendum shall be submitted in w riting to the POC: Brian Gillead via email larry.gillead@dcma.mil no later than 09 February 2016, 12:00 PM (EST). Question w ill only be accepted from offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition.

(See Summary for details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Feb-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X S5121A-15-R-0012

X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Feb-2016

CODE

DCMA PROCUREMENT CENTER S5121A

DCMA PROCUREMENT CENTER (S5121A)

3901 A AVE BLDG 10500

FORT LEE VA 23801-1809

S5121A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

B. ADDENDUM 52.212-2: EVALUATION CRITERIA

(1) Evaluation of Proposals

(1.1) Basis for Contract Award: Full Tradeoff Source Selection Process utilizing streamlined procedures for evaluation of commercials items IAW FAR 12.602. This best-value decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

(1.2) Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum 52.212-1 & Addendum 52.212-2) of the solicitation and is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors to represent the most advantageous offer(s) to the Government. As part of making the assessment, a best value analysis will be performed utilizing trade-offs between price and non-price factors.

(1.3) As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. THEREFORE, THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED PRICE.

However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. Unreasonably proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

(1.4) Award for All of the Work: The Government contemplates making four (4) awards as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors

(except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made.

(1.5) Relative Importance of Factors: DCMA anticipates awarding a contract(s) to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to DCMA based upon an analysis of the factors below. Proposals will first be reviewed to confirm the

Offeror’s ability to meet the Go/No-Go factors provided in this solicitation (reference 52.212-1) para (7). If a proposal fails to meet any of the Go/No-Go factors provided herein, the proposal will not be evaluated further, and the Offeror will not be given further consideration for a contract award. Offerors that meet the

Go/No-Go factors will then be evaluated on all remaining factors and no one factor is determinative. For instance, DCMA may award to an Offeror based on past performance or an offeror that does not offer the lowest price or to an Offeror that is not the highest technically rated proposal. DCMA reserves the right to make no award pursuant to this solicitation.

(1.6) The Government will complete the evaluation on all proposals IAW Addendum 52.212-2. Technical Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Non-price Factors when combined are significantly more important than price. Pricing will be evaluated, but not be assigned a rating. The evaluation of the price proposal will include accuracy to the instructions as identified in Addendum to 52.212-1, completeness, and reasonableness.

(1.7) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates an understanding of the objectives/principles and functional and technical requirements of this solicitation and is likely to result in successful completion of the PWS and other requirements, in accordance with the PWS.

(1.8) Technical and management approaches that decrease risk to the government or exceed stated requirements may be viewed as strengths or advantages that result in higher evaluation.

(2) Technical Evaluation Factors for Award: DCMA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed solution for the following factors:

(2.1) FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE:

(2.1.1) Evaluation Method: GO/NO-GO FACTORS

(2.1.2) Sub-factor 1 – Contract Experience - Prime must have successfully completed at least one (1) contract in the IT Program Management Office (PMO), IT Portfolio management, IT Project or Program management support services areas within the past five (5) years with a total awarded amount (PER CONTRACT) GREATER THAN $4 million.

***Completed is defined as the base period of performance that has been performed and completed as well as, all deliverables in the base period having been accepted by the Government. The total awarded amount for the base period and any option periods shall be greater than $4 million.

(2.1.3) Sub-factor 2: Prime Experience – The Prime must have completed at least three (3) years of experience that meets all of the following:

1. Experience must be as the Prime Contractor of a federal/commercial contract similar in scope.

2. Experience can be from one or multiple contracts as the Prime.

3. Experience must be obtained prior to the proposal due date.

4. Experience from multiple concurrent contracts during the same year only count as one year.

5. Offerors shall be Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 rated and have experience as a Prime Contractor for one successful period of performance Minimum (12 Months) on any

Federal/DoD or commercial contract by the close of the RFP date to be qualified to provide support for

MOCAS Lifecycle Investment Management (LIM), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and other DoD eCommerce Project/Programs with the referenced task areas and labor categories.

(2.1.4) Sub-factor 3 – Project Experience – The Offeror must have successfully completed contracts in each of the following service areas (IT Program Management office (PMO), CPIC/Portfolio Management, IT Project AND

Program management support) within the past five (5) years (BY THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE).

1. Experience, successfully migrating persistent data storage and providing migration solutions for

Legacy or other commercially similar software.

2. Experience and how to modernize access/data for Legacy or other commercially similar software.

3. Experience in successful development and implementation of user interface of major Government or commercial systems for modernization and migration to modern web based technologies.

4. Experience in the development and implementation of various architectural approaches supporting transactional environment i.e. various architectural approaches supporting transactional versus batch processing and successful development of developing/implementing system state recovery for major systems.

(3) FACTOR 2: - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/APPROACH

(3.1) The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the

Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal for each subfactor. The below subfactors will be evaluated together for assessment of the overall Technical Capability.

(3.2) The Technical Capability Factor/Subfactor will receive one of the combined technical/risk rating defined below. The rating includes risk associated with the technical approach. Proposal risk is used to portray the evaluation of weaknesses in the offerors’ proposals.

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

(3.3) Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach (ability to satisfy requirements in PWS Technical Capability)

The extent to which the proposed technical approach meets the applicable functional and technical requirements and demonstrates a high likelihood of success with low risk, in accordance with the PWS.

The Offeror technical capabilities to meet the criteria in the statement of work. The Offeror ability to clearly describe and address the desired outcomes contained in the PWS.

(3.4) Sub-factor 2: Management Approach (quality oversight)

The extent to which the proposed management approaches meets the applicable functional and technical requirements and demonstrates a high likelihood of success with low risk, in accordance with the PWS.

The offeror’s ability to organize and manage the effort to successfully perform the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the PWS and the ability to manage multiple delivery orders simultaneously.

The Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming arrangements if applicable. The ability to manage and integrate

(transparency of operations) teaming partners and/or subcontractors into the prime contractor’s organization; and the capability of providing corporate reach back capability to the DCMA contractor organization.

The offeror’s ability to identify the organizational structure (to include work responsibilities and decision making authority), managing delivery orders, subcontractor integration, and communications.

The offeror’s ability to institute an effective OCI process and procedures that reduces the potential risk of an OCI violation.

The Offeror’s ability to manage the overall contract and the process by which it will manage the subsequent

Task Orders.

The Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming arrangements if applicable.

(3.5) Sub-factor 3: Staffing & Key Personnel (meeting required specialized experience).

The offeror’s ability to successfully manage staff, recruit and provide continuity of qualified personnel to perform the requirements of the PWS in a timely manner including for urgent requirements (surge support) at all DCMA locations.

The offeror’s ability to reduce the risk of performance by understanding the unique skill sets required for successful performance and recruiting and retaining for those skill sets.

The qualifications and skill sets of the Key Personnel (see 3.0 of the PWS) including education, work experience, technical training and certifications relevant to the position for which the individual is being proposed.

The Offeror’s capability to provide signed letter of commitment if applicable (contingent hires) for all key personnel

(4) FACTOR 3- PAST PERFORMANCE

(4.1) Past Performance Evaluation: 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. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the relevancy ratings in the below table.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(4.2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the confidence ratings in the below table.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(4.3) Performance Relevancy

The Offeror’s past performance experience based on how well it is directly related to the requirements of this project.

Offerors past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection, and how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

(4.4) Performance Confidence

Any risks to the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation.

The Offeror’s ability to conform to contract requirements and adhere to contract schedules, and its commitment to customer satisfaction based upon its record of past performance for contracts that are similar in scope to this RFP.

The Offeror’s past performance reported in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS)/ Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The offeror will receive a neutral rating. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

(5) FACTOR 4: PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

(5.1) Cost/Price Factor evaluation will not be given a rating; however, it will be evaluated using price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine that the offered price is fair and reasonable. The

Offeror must identify the labor category(s) to be utilized for this effort, labor rate(s), and any other proposed associated costs. Subcontractor rate information shall also be included, if applicable.

(5.1.1) Options: (if applicable), The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(5.1.2) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Summary of Changes)