W15QKN-17-R-0016_Amendment_0003.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

W15QKN

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - NJ

PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000

JESSICA COLANERI

EMAIL: JESSICA.D.COLANERI.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15QKN-17-R-0016

2017JUN01

X

X

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

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: JESSICA COLANERI

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: ACC-NJ-SW/(973)724-8983

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

Executive Summary_________________

THIS SOLICITATION IS A 100% TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE.

The Army Contracting Command - New Jersey (ACC-NJ), on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW), has a requirement to satisfy the Program Management Technical Services Support for the Army.

The Government intends to award up to four Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract(s) with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task orders as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP). However, the Government reserves the right to award more than four ID/IQ contracts or make a single award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The contract(s) will include 5 ordering periods to cover FY18 - FY22 Army and Department of Defense (DoD) Technical Services Support requirements.

The contract(s) will have a Period of Performance of five years with a total program ceiling of $24,457,362.00 and a contract minimum guarantee of $2,500.00 which will be satisfied with the completion of the Start of Work Meeting.

As future needs for the Technical Services Support are identified during the 5 years of the contract(s), FFP Task Orders will be competed among the Offerors who have been awarded an ID/IQ base contract. See Section H.

Task Orders will be issued on an as needed basis by labor category as they are identified throughout the Period of Performace, beginning with Ordering Period 1. After Ordering Period 1 is completed, Tasks will be ordered on as as needed basis by either exercising the option for another year of service or recompeted in the next Ordering Period, and so on and so forth, as the need for the service is identified. The Government reserves the right to either exercise the option OR recompete in the next Ordering Period of the Period of

Performance.

The Government intends to award up to four ID/IQ contract(s) with FFP Task orders as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

However, the Government reserves the right to award more than four ID/IQ contracts or make a single award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The basis for award of contracts resulting from this solicitation will be the results of the evaluation of the Factors specified in Section M of the solicitation utilizing the Best Value Trade-off (BVTO) Source Selection methodology.

Proposal Submission___________________

All proposals are to be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the Solicitation. No proposals submitted via email or the

FedBizOpps website will be accepted.

Contract Years______________

This is a 5 Year Multiple Award ID/IQ contract(s) with competitive Firm FFP Task Orders that contain Options within each Task Order, not to exceed 5 Years as follows:

| ORDERING PERIOD | # OF OPTIONS THAT CAN BE EXERCISED |

| 1 | 1, 2, 3, & 4 |

| 2 | 1, 2, & 3 |

| 3 | 1 & 2 |

| 4 | 1 |

| 5 | NO OPTIONS MAY BE EXERCISED |

2 8

W15QKN-17-R-0016 0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Period of Performance is as follows:

Period of Performance for Ordering Period 1 shall be for a period of 12 months from the date of contract award. (Months 1 - 12)

Period of Performance for Ordering Period 2 shall be for a period of 12 months following Ordering Period 1. (Months 13 - 24)

Period of Performance for Ordering Period 3 shall be for a period of 12 months following Ordering Period 2. (Months 25 - 36)

Period of Performance for Ordering Period 4 shall be for a period of 12 months following Ordering Period 3. (Months 37 - 48)

Period of Performance for Ordering Period 5 shall be for a period of 12 months following Ordering Period 4. (Months 49 - 60)

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0001 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0003 to Solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0016 is to:

1. Respond to Questions from Industry that result in changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) as follows:

QUESTION 1: Page 74 of the RFP, Section M.5.2.(b), "The average hourly rate will be multiplied by the number of estimated hours to derive the labor category's extended price." We could not locate numbers of estimated hours in the Solicitation. Is it the Government's intention to provide the hours for consistency or will Offeror propose the estimated hours per labor category?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1: The number of estimated hours is Source Selection sensitive information, therefore, the Government will not be providing the number of estimated hours.

QUESTION 2: Reference Page 5 of Amendment 0002, QUESTION 18, Please provide clarification regarding the applicable size standard under

NAICS Code 541330 and whether PMSW qualifies under exception "Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons". If it does not, please provide an explanation as to why it does not.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2: The applicable size standard under NAICS Code 541330 does indeed qualify for the exception "Military and

Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons", therefore the size standard shall be $38.5M for this effort.

QUESTION 3: Reference Page 5 of Amendment 0002, Question 18 - C.3.1.1., Please explain why the Contractor's requirements to provide

Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) support services as well as support to PM SW's mission to develop, acquire, field, and sustain dominant soldier weapon systems to provide Warfighter overmatch is not subject to the NAICS Code 541330's exception of

"Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons."

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 3: The applicable size standard under NAICS Code 541330 does indeed qualify for the exception "Military and

Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons", therefore the size standard shall be $38.5M for this effort.

QUESTION 4: Reference Page 5 of Amendment 0002, Question 18, In the Government's response to Question 18, the answer provided identified the NAICS for this Solicitation is 541330 with a relevant size standard of $15M. The Solicitation relates to a variety of engineering and technical services for Program Manager (PM) Soldier Weapons, and specifically references R&D, engineering, and technical support for

Remote Weapon Stations and small arms support. It is our understanding that SBA has determined that the exception for Military and

Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons should be applied when the engineering services under a Solicitation relate to military weapons systems and support equipment. Accordingly, we ask why Exception A under NAICS (541330) for Military and Aerospace Equipment and

Military Weapons is not the relevant NAICS Code and $38.5M not the relevant size standard?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4: The applicable size standard under NAICS Code 541330 does indeed qualify for the exception "Military and

Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons", therefore the size standard shall be $38.5M for this effort.

QUESTION 5: Reference Pages 3-4 of Amendment 0002, Questions 5 & 6, In the Government's responses to Questions 5 and 6 extending the

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

submission date of the Past Performance Questionnaires to 07/10/17, the due date for the PPQ POC list was not addressed. Please confirm that the Point of Contact List is also to be emailed by 07/10/17.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5: The Government will match the Past Performance Questionnaire Point of Contract (POC) List submission date to reflect the same date as the solicitation close date of the RFP, 10 July 2017 at 2:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST). (Reference Page 71 of the RFP, paragraph L.4.3.2.(5))

QUESTION 6: Reference Pages 3-4 of Amendment 0002, Questions 5 & 6, Please confirm that the list of POCs for the PPQs are also due on

July 10, instead of June 30.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 6: The Government will match the Past Performance Questionnaire Point of Contract (POC) List submission date to reflect the same date as the solicitation close date of the RFP, 10 July 2017 at 2:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST). (Reference Page 71 of the RFP, paragraph L.4.3.2.(5))

2. Language for Narrative A0001 and paragraph M.1.1. are updated to reflect the change in the United States Government's intent for up to 4 awards as follows: The Government intends to award up to four ID/IQ contract(s) with FFP Task orders as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP). However, the Government reserves the right to award more than four ID/IQ contracts or make a single award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

3. All other terms and conditions apply, and remain unchanged as a result of this Amendment.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1.The Government intends to award up to four ID/IQ contract(s) with FFP Task orders as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

However, the Government reserves the right to award more than four ID/IQ contracts or make a single award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government will select for award the proposal(s) that are the most advantageous and represents the Best Value for the Government with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the 3 evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and their relative order of importance. The Technical Factor is more important than Price. Price is more important than the Past Performance Factor. When all evaluation factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than

Price. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror and to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the Best Value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable for any Factor are ineligible for award.

M.1.2. The Government intends to award contract(s) without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3), and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

M.1.3. Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are encouraged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

M.2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

M.2.1. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

M.2.1.1. The Technical Factor does not have any subfactors.

M.2.1.2. The Price Factor does not have any subfactors.

M.2.1.3. The Past Performance Factor does not have any subfactors.

M.2.2. The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past

Performance.

a. Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

e. Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

f. Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price Factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

g. Adverse Past Performance - Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

M.3. EVALUATION APPROACH:

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.3.1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1.1. Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to Price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

M.4. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below.

| Color | Rating | Description |

| | | Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding |

| Blue | Outstanding | of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk |

| | | of unsuccessful performance is very low. |

| | | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of |

| Purple | Good | the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk |

| | | of unsuccesful performance is low to moderate. |

| | | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate |

| Green | Acceptable | approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of |

| | | unsucessful performance is no worse than moderate. |

| | | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and |

| Yellow | Marginal | understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful |

| | | performance is high. |

| | | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and |

| Red | Unacceptable | thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of |

| | | unsucessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is |

| | | unawardable. |

The Technical Factor will be rated using the color code/adjectival ratings. The Factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties.The Factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The adjectival rating will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor are ineligible for award.

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate the Offerors knowledge, experience, and capabilities in providing Program Management support in the following areas:

Production/R&D/Logistics/EVM - Cost Analysis/Program - Acquisition Analyst

M.5. FACTOR 2: PRICE

M.5.1. Rates proposed in Section B of the solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price which will be used in the performance of a tradeoff analysis. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

M.5.2. A total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

(a) For each labor category, the hourly proposed rate for each year will be summed and divided by the number of years (5.5 years in total) to derive the average hourly rate. The average hourly rate shall be rounded to 2 decimal places.

(b) The average hourly rate will be multiplied by the number of estimated hours to derive the labor category's extended price.

(c) The total extended price for each labor category will be summed to determine the total evaluated price.

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Note: Please be advised that there are nineteen (19) Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) that are required under this effort. Also note that the Start of Work Meeting (minimum guarantee) or any travel associated with each labor category will not be part of the evaluation.

M.5.3. Unbalanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. In accordance with FAR

15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

M.6. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

M.6.1. The Offeror and its major/key Subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offeror's past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

M.6.2. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, "Recent" is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past 3 years, or 2) awarded earlier than 3 years ago, but for which deliveries occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past 3 years. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. "Relevant" is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as, or similar to, those required to perform for this service. Major/key Subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing critical support or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

M.6.3. This evaluation will encompass all aspects of Schedule, Performance, and Supportability, including the Offerors detailed record of: 1) Compliance of products, services, documents and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship, 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for Customer's interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

M.6.4. Based on the Offeror's previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum 3 years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offeror's Past Performance.

The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offeror's record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other resources. Past Performance will be rated for relevancy and confidence in accordance with the rating definitions listed below.

M.6.5. Performance Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror's past performance to determine if work performed in the past is relevant as relevant is defined in C.6.2. above. Relevancy is not separately rated;

however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, and what is not relevant. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

| Past Performance Relevancy Ratings |

| Rating | Definition |

| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and |

| | magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |

| | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the |

| Not Relevant | scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation |

| | requires. |

M.6.6. Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed under the contract scope. The past performance evaluation gathers information from Customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

| Performance Confidence Assessments |

| Rating | Definition |

| | Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, |

| Substantial Confidence | the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror |

| | will successfully perform the required effort. |

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| | Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, |

| Satisfactory Confidence | the Government has a reasonable expectation that the |

| | Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |

| | No recent/relevant performance record is available or the |

| | Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful|

| Neutral Confidence | confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. |

| | The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably |

| | on the factor of past performance. |

| | Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, |

| Limited Confidence | the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will |

| | successfully perform the required effort. |

| | Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, |

| No Confidence | the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be |

| | able to successfully perform the required effort. |

M.7. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

M.7.1. For Small Businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.6.

M.7.2. A Pre-award Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

M.7.3. A Pre-award Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR

22.805(a).

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

8 8