W519TC-24-R-2049 0002 13MAY2024.pdf

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 Amendment 0002 is to provide responses to industry’s submitted questions regarding Request for Proposal (RFP) W519TC-24-R-2049. The questions and responses are uploaded as Attachment 0005 – Response to Industry Questions, dated 13 May 2024. As a result, Section B, Section J, Section L, and Section M of the RFP have been updated, as w ell as the follow ing attachments:

1. Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement, dated 13 May 2024

2. Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix, dated 13 May 2024

As a reminder, offerors shall include a signed copy of all amendments w hich shall be included in Volume 4 of the offeror’s proposal submission.

As a result of this amendment, proposals shall use and reference the updated RFP and attachments. No further questions from industry w ill be accepted. The solicitation closing date remains unchanged. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-May-2024

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 W519TC24R2049

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Apr-2024

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

13-May-2024

CODE

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - ROCK ISLAND

3055 RODMAN AVE

ROCK ISLAND IL 61299

W519TC 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W519TC24R2049

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION A NARRATIVE - AMD 0002

The purpose of Amendment 0002 is to provide responses to industry’s submitted questions regarding Request for Proposal (RFP) W519TC-24-R-2049. The questions and responses are uploaded as Attachment 0005 – Response to Industry Questions, dated 13 May 2024. As a result, Section B, Section J, Section L, and Section M of the RFP have been updated, as well as the following attachments:

1. Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement, dated 13 May 2024

2. Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix, dated 13 May 2024

As a reminder, offerors shall include a signed copy of all amendments which shall be included in Volume 4 of the offeror’s proposal submission.

As a result of this amendment, proposals shall use and reference the updated RFP and attachments. No further questions from industry will be accepted. The solicitation closing date remains unchanged. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.1.POP: 01 NOV 2024 - 31 JUL 2025

To:

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.2.POP: 01 NOV 2024 - 31 JUL 2025

CLIN 1004

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.1.POP: 01 AUG 2025 - 31 JUL 2026

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.2.POP: 01 AUG 2025 - 31 JUL 2026

CLIN 2004

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.1. POP: 01 AUG 2026 - 31 JUL 2027

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.2. POP: 01 AUG 2026 - 31 JUL 2027

CLIN 3004

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.1. POP: 01 AUG 2027 – 31 JUL 2028

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.2. POP: 01 AUG 2027 – 31 JUL 2028

CLIN 4004

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.1. POP: 01 AUG 2028 - 31 JUL 2029

ODCs IAW PWS para. 3.2. POP: 01 AUG 2028 - 31 JUL 2029

CLIN 0005 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0005 Job Value Added Tax (VAT)

COST

VAT Tax @ 15%

POP: 01 NOV 2024 - 31 JUL 2025

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: R410

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 1005 is added as follows:

1005 Job OPTION Value Added Tax (VAT)

COST

VAT @ 15%

POP: 01 AUG 2025 - 31 JUL 2026

CLIN 2005 is added as follows:

2005 Job OPTION Value Added Tax (VAT)

COST

VAT @ 15%

POP: 01 AUG 2026 - 31 JUL 2027

CLIN 3005 is added as follows:

3005 Job OPTION Value Added Tax (VAT)

COST

VAT @ 15%

POP: 01 AUG 2027 – 31 JUL 2028

CLIN 4005 is added as follows:

4005 Job OPTION Value Added Tax (VAT)

COST

VAT @ 15%

POP: 01 AUG 2028 - 31 JUL 2029

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0005:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

N/A N/A N/A Government

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 1005:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 2005:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 3005:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4005:

The following have been modified:

SECTION J - ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement, dated 13 May 2024

2. Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix, dated 13 May 2024

3. Attachment 0003 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

4. Attachment 0004 – ELT QASP, dated 30 April 2024

5. Attachment 0005 – Response to Industry Questions, dated 13 May 2024

SECTION L NARRATIVE

SECTION L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

General Instructions:

1. Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with the information in this section. Offerors shall review all documents contained or referenced in the solicitation for further insight into the areas that your proposal must address. Proposals that do not contain the information requested in the solicitation risk the Government determining the proposal unacceptable.

2. Clarity and completeness are essential, and proposals should be clear, consistent, and concise. Offerors must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make a best value assessment of the capability to support the solicitation requirements. The burden of providing complete and thorough information remains with the Offeror.

3. Offerors shall confine information intended for the Government to consider to the appropriate volume. Offerors shall provide information by addressing each factor/sub‐factor in the format and sequence identified in these instructions.

Information submitted that is not within the appropriate volume may not be considered. The Government will not assume the duty to search for data or information to cure problems it finds in proposals.

4. The Government will not assume the Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment not specified in the proposal. The Government cautions Offerors that merely repeating the technical requirements with stated assertions DOES NOT reflect an understanding of the requirement or substantiate capability to perform. Proposals must provide documentary evidence in support of conclusive statements of how the Offeror will meet contract requirements.

5. The Government intends to award one contract and anticipates having discussions per DFARS 215.306(c)(1), with all offerors in the competitive range. In accordance with AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement (A3), the Source Selection Authority must approve the competitive range determination. However, it is the responsibility of each offeror to submit a proposal that conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and contains the best offer in case discussions are deemed unnecessary, as award may be made without discussions. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of a past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors that are not deemed “discussions”. The Government hereby advises Offerors that adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond (reference FAR 15.306) does not include information obtained from formal rating systems, available at https://www.cpars.gov.

6. All proposals shall use the English language. Offerors shall utilize Arial or Times New Roman, with a minimum font size of 12 point. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8‐point and may be produced in landscape mode.

7. Each offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following four (4) volumes:

Volume 1 - Technical Factor Volume 2 - Past Performance Factor Volume 3 - Price Factor Volume 4 - Solicitation and Amendments, Offer and

Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

NOTE: As this procurement is being conducted on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and a Foreign Military Sales requirement, the contracting officer has decided to not apply FAR Part 19 U.S. Small Business subcontracting goals.

8. The complete proposal, as described above, shall be electronically submitted to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and his representatives via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module. Offerors must be registered in the PIEE Solicitation Module to submit an offer. The PIEE website is https://piee.eb.mil. Proposal submission shall be no later than the due date and time specified in the solicitation and any subsequent amendments (if applicable). The Government will not be held liable if an Offeror misses the proposal submission deadline due to non-registration in the PIEE Solicitation Module. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to register in the PIEE Solicitation module in advance of the proposal due date and time. The Government will not evaluate proposals submitted by mail or hand carried. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated.

9. All computer files shall be virus checked prior to submission.

The Government may hold Offerors financially liable for damage caused to Government computer systems by any virus introduced during review of these submitted documents.

10. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply: Files (excluding Pricing) shall be converted to read‐only format, using PDF files.

All price breakdown information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2016.

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

A. Proposal Instructions and Content by Volume:

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

Proposal Volume 1 – Technical Instructions

The Technical Factor consists of the following three (3) subfactors:

i. Sub‐Factor 1.a: Staffing Plan

ii. Sub‐Factor 1.b: Transition-In Plan

iii. Sub‐Factor 1.c: Student Performance Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)

Proposal Volume 1 Instructions:

The Offeror shall develop its Technical proposal using Microsoft Word or Portable Document Format (.PDF) with a minimum font size of 12 point. It shall consist of a maximum of 18-page narrative. In addition to the 18-page narrative, the Offeror shall submit the following, which shall not count against the 18-page narrative limit:

Transition Schedule A maximum of two (2) pages for each key personnel position resume A maximum of two (2) pages for each Letter of Intent

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Proposal Volume 1 Content:

Section 1 – Sub-Factor 1.a: Staffing Plan:

Within the technical proposal narrative, the offeror shall identify key positions by functional areas. For each key position, identify the critical skills and qualifications required to accomplish the effort. The Offeror shall provide the resume of its asset for each key position and letters of intent for each key position.

Section 2 ‐ Sub‐Factor 1.b: Transition-In Plan:

submit its plan to fully transition-in all aspects of the PWS;

additionally, the proposal shall demonstrate the ability to operate in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia including the ability to obtain Visa/work authorization for all employees within the transition period.

Section 3 ‐ Sub‐Factor 1.c: Student Performance Quality

Assurance Plan (QAP):

identify techniques and procedures to ensure students’ progress satisfactorily throughout the POI. The contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, intervene, and ensure student successful completion of the POI.

Proposal Volume 2 – Past Performance Factor Instructions

The Past Performance Factor has NO sub‐factors.

1) The Past Performance Volume shall consist of English Language Training and operating in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

2) A list and description of all recent Government, Commercial, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contracts that are relevant to this solicitation and requirement in which the Offeror performed as either the Prime or a key subcontractor.

3) The Government defines Recent as 1) occurring within the past five years of the publication date of this solicitation without regard to the contract award date, or 2) awarded earlier than five years ago, but for which services occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past five years of the publication date of this solicitation without regard to the contract award date. The

Government may evaluate any subsequent performance prior to the date of award of this requirement.

4) It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government defines Relevant as a present or past performance effort that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611630 required by the RFP. Similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities would include having previously provided services that are like or similar which utilized the same or similar processes, critical skills, and capabilities as the current requirement. The Government reserves the right to determine whether a service is like or similar, and whether the service relates to the current requirements for evaluation purposes. The Government may also consider the degree to which contracts are of a comparable complexity to the proposed effort in determining relevance.

5) Data concerning an offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed key subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its key subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all key subcontractors for their past performance to be considered.

6) It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain why it considers a proposed subcontractor to be a key subcontractor on a relevant contract. The Government considers a company a key subcontractor when the company performed or is performing 20 percent or more of a relevant contract based on total dollar value OR, performed or is performing key or critical aspects of a relevant contract.

7) The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. The Government advises Offerors that while the Government may use independent data to evaluate an Offeror's past performance the Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems.

8) There is a 10‐page limit which does not include volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross referencing pages, acronym lists, page dividers (used to separate proposal parts), and Past Performance Questionnaires. All pages shall be numbered and utilize a minimum font size of 12 point. The Offeror shall include a Table of Contents page, listing the title and page number for each recent and relevant contract included in the Past Performance Factor volume. In the body of the volume, each recent and relevant contract will consist of a Contract Description and a Performance section, with the Performance section discussing the Quality and On‐Time Delivery. Each recent and relevant contract shall begin on a new page to clearly delineate between efforts.

Proposal Volume 2 – Content

a) Section 1 ‐ Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

1) Contractor/Subcontractor company name, place of performance, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, and Unique Entity ID. Contract Number(s) and if applicable, Task Orders.

2) Contract Type (Fixed Price (FP), Cost

Reimbursable (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

3) Total awarded contract value and total current contract value.

4) Description of the contract effort.

5) Description of relevance to this acquisition.

6) Name of Government contracting activity or Commercial firm and address; PCO or Contract Manager name, e‐mail address, and telephone numbers.

7) Government's technical representative/Contracting Officer Representative, and current e‐mail address and telephone numbers.

8) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, current e‐mail address, and telephone numbers (if different from (8) above).

9) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite

Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

10) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

11) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

b) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

1) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence.

The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary.

All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received (if applicable) on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. Submission of Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters will not count toward maximum page count limits. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

c) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed key subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical services or whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of key subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all key subcontractors.

d) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

e) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e‐mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e‐mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to Lorraine.Geren.civ@army.mil and James.M.Moraetes.civ@army.mil. The offeror shall e‐ mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date.

The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows

Table Format to include the following fields:

Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E‐ mail Address; and Date E‐Mail to POC (month/day).

f) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement.

Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

Proposal Volume 3 –Price Factor Instructions

Proposed prices will be used by the Government to calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). For each proposal, the Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price by adding the total of the Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, Option Period 3, Option Period 4 and the Option to Extend. The Offeror shall complete the Price Matrix (Attachment 0002) as detailed below.

Offerors shall submit their proposals using the MS Excel Price Matrix (Attachment 0002). Failure to propose prices for all blue highlighted cells may result in the Offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Price Matrix consists of one tab, the Price Matrix Summary tab. All proposed firm-fixed prices will be binding.

Gray shaded cells represent totals or Government developed surrogates; no action is required by Offerors in relation to gray shaded cells.

Please note that on CLIN 0005 - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) Value Added Tax (VAT), the Government has calculated that at a rate of 15%. Make sure the VAT is not included in your FFP proposed cost (CLINs 0001-0003).

All prices for this acquisition shall be stated in current U.S.

dollars, rounded and displayed to two decimal places. (Current U.S. dollars shall be interpreted to include escalation where appropriate.) It is noted that the terms of FAR 52.222‐43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act – Price

Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts shall be considered when proposing rates). The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause.

The Price Matrix is locked to prevent inadvertent changes.

Offerors shall not alter the Price Matrix in any way. If an Offeror changes the price matrix, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Price Matrix shall be completed as follows:

Offerors shall complete the Price Matrix Summary tab by entering its Offeror Name, Unique Entity ID, Cage Code, and proposal date in the blue highlighted cells.

For all cells on the Price Matrix Summary/Detail tabs that are not highlighted in blue, they are either pre‐populated, or they will populate automatically as they include formulas that will sum values of other cells from within the Price Matrix Summary tab.

Price proposals are assumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts, as final proposal revisions may not be requested. Any additional information considered necessary to explain the proposed pricing shall be submitted at the time of proposal submission.

Price Information: All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

The Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data or certified cost or pricing data when necessary to validate the price reasonableness of an offer.

Proposal Volume 4 – Solicitation and Amendments, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill‐in and signatures) the solicitation and amendment sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449), Solicitation, Offer and Award (to include amendments) Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME 4 –

SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS

/REPRESENTATIONS. There is no applicable page limit.

SECTION M NARRATIVE

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

A. Basis for Award

1. This award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance and Price factors, which are of equal importance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors).

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. In selecting the best overall offer, the Government will utilize Best Value Tradeoff processes in accordance with FAR 15.101, and supplemented by DFARS 215.3, and AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), to select the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration being given to the three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Therefore, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest rated Offeror for the non‐cost/price factors.

The Government will evaluate proposals submitted in compliance with the solicitation and its stated evaluation criteria to determine the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content, except for past performance, for which the Government may also use independent data. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare the proposals to determine the offers that represents the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP.

2. The Government reserves the right to not award at all, depending on the quality of proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds. An award under this solicitation in no way requires the Government to obligate additional dollars or exercise any option periods. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government and the KSA.

3. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, the Government will only award a contract to Offerors that the Contacting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standard of responsibility set forth in FAR

9.104. The Government may conduct a pre‐award survey on

any Offeror considered for award, to assist the Procuring Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility.

B. Factors and Sub-factors to be Evaluated.

As delineated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors, the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following criteria:

EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors 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 integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor if the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. Per DFARS 215.3, Source Selection, The Government will follow the principles and procedures in DFARS PGI 215.300, and Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum dated August 20, 2022, entitled “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures and the AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection

Supplement (AS3). Proposals will be evaluated on a “best value” basis, as follows:

Factor 1 – Volume 1 ‐ Technical Factor

i. Sub‐Factor 1.a: Staffing Plan

ii. Sub‐Factor 1.b: Transition-In Plan

iii. Sub‐Factor 1.c: Student Performance Quality

Assurance Plan (QAP)

Subfactors are of equal importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2 – Volume 2 ‐ Past Performance: Each offeror’s recent and relevant past performance will be reviewed to determine a confidence assessment.

Factor 3 ‐ Volume 3 ‐ Price Factor: The resulting award will be a single award of a Hybrid Firm Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursable contract.

Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm‐Fixed Price effort.

C. Evaluation Approach for Each Factor and Sub-Factor

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Factor 1 –Technical:

a. Completeness: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the PWS related to the Subfactors.

b. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposal methods are workable and the end results achievable considering the unique operating environment in the KSA. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven techniques and processes. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements associated with the Subfactors.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1). The Government will evaluate the factors and related subfactors using Combined Technical/Risk Rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue OUTSTANDING Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

GOOD

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Note: For the purposes of evaluating proposals, the following terms and definitions are relevant:

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.

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.

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

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: is 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.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non‐cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

Factor 2. ‐ Past Performance:

performance is high.

Red

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the Prime and key subcontractors, records of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including cost/price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal as well as data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government, or commercial contracts for same or similar services encompassed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611630.

Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each key subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

a. Recency and Relevancy. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying similar services that meet the contract requirements. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The criteria to establish what is relevant may include dollar value; contract type; type of work, location of work, degree of subcontract/teaming of the Offeror’s past performance. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Offeror’s relevancy shall be evaluated using the ratings identified below:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities performed in CONUS that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

b. Quality Assessment. Assesses the overall quality of the

Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 006) interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

c. Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. The Government will ensure that the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Table 4: Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Definition

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 reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence 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.

NOTE: The Government advises Offerors that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral past performance, a Neutral rating may be considered during a trade‐off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than Neutral. For example, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, the SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

Factor 3- Price Factor

The Government will evaluate price; however, it will not assign an adjectival rating. The FAR requires the Government to award contracts at fair and reasonable prices. The Government will evaluate and assess the Contractor’s price proposal to determine the reasonableness of the offer. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. The Contracting Officer may determine it necessary to utilize additional analysis techniques. These methods of evaluation may include information and input from sources such as, but not limited to, other Government agencies and personnel.

The Government intends to evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404‐1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The Government expects adequate competition, and a comparison will be made of Total Evaluated Prices received in response to the solicitation. The Government may use any one or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1 to determine the Contractor’s proposal fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to require submission of data other than cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition is inadequate for that purpose.

The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of the Base Period, all Option Periods, and the Option to Extend Services, IAW FAR 52.217‐8. The total price for the Base Period and each Option Period, respectively is the sum of all CLINs for each ordering period. Recent Director of Defense Policy states that contracting officers will no longer use the standard at FAR 15.403‐ 1(c)(1)(ii) or (iii) to determine that the offered price is based on adequate competition when only one offer is received. In the event where only one offer is received in response to the solicitation, certified cost or pricing data or other than certified cost or pricing data may be required.

Unbalanced Pricing – As part of the cost evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404‐1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

(End of Summary of Changes)