A07_-_W15P7T18R0008-0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 ____________ copies of the amendments: (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 ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: 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 data, 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.)

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)

16A. Name And Title Of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

15B. Contractor/Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0008 2018MAR29

W15P7T

ARMY CONTRACTING CMD-APG

6565 SURVEILLANCE LOOP

APG, MD 21005-1846

JOANN MAZZA

EMAIL: JOANN.M.MAZZA.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15P7T-18-R-0008

2018FEB14

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 9

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: JOANN MAZZA

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP CCB/(443)206-5748

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of this Amendment 0008 to Solicitation Number W15P7T-18-R-0008 is as follows:

1. Paragraph 3 in Amendment 0007 to Solicitation Number W15P7T-18-R-0008 that revised Section M-1, Basis for Award, Past Performance

Recency Rating, from 5 years to 3 years is rescinded. Section M-1, Basis for Award, Past Performance Recency Rating, is changed back to

5 years.

2. All other terms and requirements of the solicitation remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0009 ***

2 9

W15P7T-18-R-0008 0008

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to select the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal through a hybrid process that combines the Source

Selection approaches of Technical Acceptability and Subjective Tradeoff. The five factors to be evaluated are Technical, Cost/Price, Sustainment, Past Performance, and Small Business. The Sustainment, Past Performance, and Small Business Factors will be evaluated acceptable/unacceptable, the Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated as part of the tradeoff analysis, and the Technical Factor will be both, depending on the specific Sub-factor. For purposes of best value trade off, the Technical factor is more important than the

Cost/Price factor.

As part of the technical evaluation, the Government will collect data and evaluate performance of the Offerors systems in a field environment through use of a System Verification Demonstration (SVD), Attachment 0006. The purpose of the SVD is to verify Offerors proposed performance through a live demonstration of the proposed system. Threshold performance elements will be verified/evaluated for technical acceptability. In other words, for an Offerors system to remain technically acceptable, the Government must be able to verify each threshold performance element selected as part of the SVD. In addition to the technical acceptability approach, the SVD will also verify two performance elements for trade-off analysis.

The Government will conduct acceptability evaluations of the Sustainment factor, Past Performance factor, and Small Business factor.

Cost/Price will be evaluated for cost realism and price reasonableness.

To receive consideration for award a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for all non-Cost factors. Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the Offeror with the lowest priced proposal.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a Technical and Cost standpoint. Proposals with an omission or unclear proposals may be judged to mean the Offeror does not fully understand the requirements or understand what it takes to meet or exceed the requirements, regardless of the proposed cost/price. In that case, the Offeror may be found unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer, with SSA concurrence, determines them to be necessary.

1.1 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

1. TECHNICAL FACTOR

a. Technical Sub-factor 1- SVD

b. Technical Sub-factor 2- System Technical Approach

2. COST & PRICE FACTOR

3. SUSTAINMENT FACTOR

4. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

5. SMALL BUSINESS FACTOR

1.2 TECHNICAL

All proposals received will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel assisted by Non-Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The

SMEs will have access to all necessary parts of each Offerors proposal pertinent to their area of expertise.

Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-government advisors in the source selection process.

These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition.

Booz-Allen-Hamilton

4692 Millennium Dr., #200, Belcamp, MD 21017

(410) 297-2500

Netorian LLC

210 Research Blvd, #160, Aberdeen, MD 21001

(410) 273-6101

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Linquest

15059 Conference Center Dr.

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 263-9142

Z2 Technologies LLC

121 NJ Hwy 36, #240

West Long Branch, NJ 07764

(732) 758-0444

Engineering Solutions & Products

2027 Pulaski Hwy

Havre De Grace, MD 21078

(410) 939-8520

In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors' proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror is responsible for contacting the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror is responsible for submitting copies of the agreement with their proposal. Failure to provide copies of the agreements may result in an unacceptable proposal.

NOTE: This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors.

Offerors shall advise the Contracting Officer as soon as possible of any concerns/questions with regard to the use of Non-Government

SMEs from the cited companies, but not later than ten (10) days prior to the submission of its proposal. Any Offeror that is affiliated with, or has or is contemplating a contractual relationship with any of the above listed firms must notify the Contracting Officer for this solicitation as soon as possible, but not later than ten (10) days prior to the submission of its proposal.

The contents of each Offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS), Attachment 0001 of the solicitation, and its Appendices are satisfied. No assumptions will be made by

Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offerors proposal or other available performance data. Award may be made without discussions.

1.2.1 The Technical factor is divided into the following Sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1 - System Verification Demonstration (SVD). ________________________________________

Sub-Factor 1 of the Technical Factor, SVD, evaluates the performance of the Offerors candidate TROPO systems in a field environment.

The Government will check that the Offeror followed the instructions in Section L of the solicitation before, during, and after performance of the Offerors candidate TROPO systems demonstration. If the Offeror failed to follow any one of the instructions in

Section L of the solicitation, the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems will not be further evaluated and a rating of Unacceptable will be assigned for Factor 1.

During the Field demonstration, data will be collected to support evaluation of the following areas:

a) Element 1: Throughput

b) Element 2: Setup Time

c) Element 3: Distance

d) Element 4: Antenna Self Alignment

e) Element 5: Transport

Elements 1 and 2 of Sub-factor 1 will be evaluated using the adjectival assessment in Table 1 while Elements 3-5 will be evaluated using

Table 2. The comprehensive evaluation of the Technical Factor will result in an adjectival assessment utilizing Table 1.

For elements 3-5, the SVD will confirm the Offerors system can meet the threshold requirements identified in Appendix A of the PWS.

All results of the SVD will be recorded. Results and observations by personnel will be recorded using calibrated test and measurement equipment. Further details of the SVD can be found in the SVD Addendum, Attachment 0006 of the solicitation.

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that an Unacceptable result for a Threshold Requirement shall render the Offerors proposal Unacceptable and ineligible for award.

NOTE: For Elements 1-2, the Government may consider giving strengths to Offerors for proposing capabilities exceeding the Threshold

Requirements, so long as those proposed capabilities are verified during the SVD.

Results of the SVD will be used to assess performance and risk of the candidate TROPO Systems. A general overview of the planned

Government SVD is as follows:

Element 1: Throughput

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems can operate at >50Mbps, point to point, at layer 2 _ of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model IAW Appendix A of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offerors TROPO Systems throughput performance to verify:

a) Pattern Losses

b) Pattern Loss Seconds

c) Bit Error Rate

d) Bit Errors

e) Bit Errored Seconds

f) Bit Error-Free Seconds %

g) Average Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

h) Maximum Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

i) Minimum Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

The Government may consider giving strengths to the Offerors that propose above the threshold throughput requirements in Appendix A of the PWS so long as they are able to be verified through demonstration at the SVD. Strengths assigned for exceeding threshold capabilities that were not proposed may result in the demonstrated capability being incorporated into the resulting contract.

Element 2: Setup Time

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems can transition from transport state to operational state in 60 minutes in accordance with Appendix A of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems to verify the following tasks are complete and the system is setup within 60 minutes:

a) System is emplaced IAW PWS Appendix A, section 3.6.1 through 3.6.8 and 3.16.15, all components and subcomponents are installed for operations, system is ready to transmit, and system is ready for antenna self-alignment

b) Safety requirements are met IAW the PWS Appendix A, section 3.11.1.3 through 3.11.1.7, 3.11.4.9, 3.14.2 through 3.14.4.

c) Human Factors have been addressed IAW the PWS Appendix A, section 3.12.1.

d) Setup is performed by 2 or less personnel IAW the Offerors established procedure

The Government may consider giving strengths to the Offerors that propose above the threshold setup time requirements in Appendix A of the PWS so long as they are able to be verified through demonstration at the SVD. Strengths assigned for exceeding threshold capabilities that were not proposed may result in the demonstrated capability being incorporated into the resulting contract.

Element 3: Distance

The Government will evaluate whether the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems can operate at >185Km, point to point, at layer 2 of the OSI _ model, IAW Appendix A of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of Offerors candidate TROPO Systems to verify:

a) Modem Lock;

b) Receive Signal Level; &

c) Data Quality;

1. Pattern Losses

2. Pattern Loss Seconds

3. Bit Error Rate

4. Bit Errors

5. Bit Errored Seconds

6. Bit Error-Free Seconds %

7. Average Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

8. Maximum Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

9. Minimum Layer 2 Rate (kbps)

Element 4: Antenna Self Alignment

The Government will evaluate whether the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems can perform antenna self-alignment in 60 minutes IAW Appendix

A of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of Offerors candidate TROPO Systems to verify:

a) Self-Alignment is performed in accordance with the Offerors established procedure;

b) Operator intervention is only required to initiate antenna self-alignment and/or input parameters to begin the antenna self-alignment process as established by the Offerors procedure; &

c) Successful self-alignment is established by achieving the threshold pointing loss stated in PWS Appendix A 3.6.6 through

3.6.11, and 3.6.17.

Element 5: Transport

The Government will evaluate whether the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems can be transported in a High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled

Vehicle (HMMWV) Cargo Carrier IAW PWS Appendix A 3.7.1. The Government will evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of the Offerors candidate TROPO Systems to verify:

a) All cases stack and fit in a single HMMWV in accordance with PWS Appendix A 3.7.1 and note 16 in Table 6-1, titled

"Expanded Information."

b) Cases meet MIL-STDs for securing cargo within a HMMWV in accordance with PWS Appendix A 3.7.1

c) Weights of cases do not exceed requirements IAW PWS Appendix A 3.7.3.

Sub-Factor 2: System Technical Approach (Written Proposal)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Compliance Matrix with applicable supporting performance data, information, test results, and directly relevant supporting narrative for acceptability in accordance with Table 2.

f. Ratings: The Technical factor rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or _______

Unacceptable as defined below:

Table 1: COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

BLUE:

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.

PURPLE:

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.

GREEN:

Acceptable - 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.

YELLOW:

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.

RED:

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

Table 2: Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

1.3 Factor 2: Cost/Price Evaluation Approach.

1. The total evaluated price to be used in the award determination will be the total identified in the offerors

COST_DETAILS_MMDDYYYY.xlsx file, Attachment 0009 of the solicitation, subject to a most probable cost adjustment in accordance with paragraph 2 below. The Government will evaluate to ensure that all proposed costs and prices are fair and reasonable. Each

Offerors proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404-1. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating an offerors proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and/or realistic.

2. For the cost and CPFF efforts, the Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror's proposed costs in accordance with FAR

15.404-1 (d) and/or (c). The most probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each offerors proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost.

The Government may use external sources of information to perform its cost evaluation. Such external sources may include, but not be limited to, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or DCMA. Notwithstanding the

Governments use of external sources, Offerors MUST submit the required supporting documentation for its proposed rates.

Failure to do so will render an Offeror ineligible for award.

1.4 Factor 3: Sustainment

Contractor Proposed Organic Sustainment Strategy

The Government will determine the acceptability/unacceptability of the offerors contractor proposed organic sustainment strategy in accordance with the following table:

COMBINED SUSTAINMENT ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitaiton

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitaiton

Table 3

Factor 4: Past Performance. Offerors will be evaluated in two aspects or steps for the past performance evaluation. Past performance evaluation assesses the offerors probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offerors record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements and will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with Table 4. To be considered for award, a rating of acceptable must be received.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources.

Evaluation Procedure:

The first aspect is to evaluate the offerors past performance to determine how relevant and recent the effort. The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recent and technically relevant definitions below to be considered acceptable.

a. Recency. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be deemed recent, the effort must have been performed within 5 years of the solicitation posting. Past performance information that fails the recency condition will not be further evaluated.

Acceptable - The Offeror's Past Performance History is considered recent having occurred within 5 years prior to this solicitation

Unacceptable - The Offeror's Past Performance History is NOT considered recent having occurred more than 5 years prior to this solicitation.

Table 4: Past Performance Recency Rating

b. Technical Relevancy. For each past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. An Offerors past performance is relevant when it is similar to the kinds of challenges that may occur under the contract contemplated by this RFP.

Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, size and value. Table 5 below describes the ratings to be used for the relevant evaluation of each past performance reference.

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

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

Table 5: Past Performance Relevancy Requirements.

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on contracts. Only recent past performance deemed relevant will be evaluated in this second step. The past performance evaluation considers each offerors demonstrated recent record of relevant performance in supplying services and products that meet the contracts requirements and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment. It will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS

215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply.

For each offeror, reviewers will generate a confidence assessment rating. Therefore, the performance confidence assessment rating of past performance will reflect a collective view of all past performance references and other performance information reviewed and will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis using the ratings in Table 6 below.

Acceptable - Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable - Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 6: Past Performance Acceptability Requirements.

Note: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a neutral rating. In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation Proposal

Basis of Award: A rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for Small Business Participation factor.

Evaluation Approach: The Small Business Participation will be a factor and will be assigned an acceptable/unacceptable rating on the basis of approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

A. The Government will evaluate whether the Offerors (both small businesses and other than small businesses) proposed Small

Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), Attachment 0010 of the solicitation, meets the outlined requirements and includes documentation to support how the Offeror will meet their objectives and requirements established herein. The

Government will evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of the following:

(1) The Offeror proposed percentage:

a. The participation of small business firms on this acquisition in terms of the value of the total acquisition. This shall be represented both in dollars and percentages for the base year and for each individual option period.

b. The Offeror provides explanation and documentation supporting the proposed percentage participation and how it will be attained or if applicable, the offeror provides explanation and/or documentation supporting why small businesses were not identified.

(2) As defined in FAR Part 19, firms are specifically identified by name in each category in the Small Business

Participation proposal chart; and which offerors demonstrate commitment to small business firms, such as enforceable letters of commitment or if applicable, the offeror provides explanation and/or documentation supporting why small businesses were not identified.

(3) The type, variety, and complexity of work small business firms proposed to perform are in accordance with the requirement, such as work supporting the CONTRACT TASKS noted under 3.0 of the Performance Work Statement or if applicable, the offeror provides explanation and/or documentation supporting why small businesses were not identified.

(4) The offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

B. Offerors Small Business Participation will be rated using Table 7 below.

Acceptable - Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet small business objectives

Table 7. Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9