W519TC26RA045 AMD 0002 SF 30.pdf

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 amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of theoffer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER 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

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

U 1 23

0002 24 AUG 2026

W519TC

W6QK ACC-RI

ACC ROCK ISLAND BLDG 60, 3055 RODMAN AVE

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-0000

UNITED STATES

ALEXANDER WILCOX, EMAIL: ALEXANDER.M.WILCOX2.CIV@ARMY.MIL

TELEPHONE: 000-000-000

SCD: PAS:

W519TC26RA045

30 JUL 2026

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

Amendment 0002 is to provide the current Department of Labor Wage Determination dated 27 August 2026.

MICHAEL D. THUNE

03 SEP 2026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to Solicitation W519TC-26-R-A045 is to accomplish the following:

1. Revise Section J List of Attachments to incorporate updated attachments based on Questions from industry. The following attachments have been revised or added to this RFP:

a. Att. 0002 - Staffing and Labor Mix dated 17 August 2026 has been revised to correct a cell title for PMO Totals.

b. Att. 0009 Purchasing Invoicing Guide dated 20 August 2026 has been updated to reflect Revolutionary FAR Overhaul changes.

c. Att. 0011 Contract References Sheet dated 17 August 2026 has been revised to allow offerors to submit Period of Performance End Dates past 2030.

d. Att. 0016 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List dated 25 August 2026 has been revised to include clarification on ASE and EVT Mechanics.

e. Att. 0019 - TD-07 Government Furnished Facilities dated 24 August 2026 has been revised to include reference to the location for Bulk Warehousing.

f. Attachment 0031 - POM - QA Round 1 dated 25 August 2026 has been added to this RFP to provide responses to questions from industry.

g. Annex A - Maintenance PRS-PoM dated 18 August 2026 has been revised under Paragraph

5.7.3 to remove the reference to Emergency Vehicle Calls in the 'Standards' section.

h. Annex C - Transportation PRS-PoM dated 24 August 2026 has been revised to correct the timeline for reconciling Centrally Billed Accounts as listed in 5.28.5

i. Att. 0007 - Wage Determination 2015-5633 Rev. 27 dated 22 August 2026 has been revised to the most current version.

2. Revise the following paragraphs in Section L and Section M:

a. L.5.3.1.1(c)

FROM: Subcontractor(s), as used in the Past Performance factor, means those who are expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value as found in column F of the Offeror's Cost Price Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix). The Government will verify the tasks each proposed subcontractor is expected to perform via the Offeror's Cost Price Matrix - Attachment 0005, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix, Column J.

TO: Subcontractor(s), as used in the Past Performance factor, means those who are expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value as found in column F of the Offeror's Cost Price Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix). The Government will verify the tasks each proposed subcontractor is expected to perform via the Offeror's Cost Price Matrix - Attachment 0005, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix, Column E.

b. L.5.3.1.4(b)(21)

FROM: Columns Q, R, and S: Shall list the work performed by the contractor to the corresponding functional area's performance tasks of this Task Order. These performance tasks can be found in Attachment 0001 on pages 1-53, excluding the paragraphs marked as "RESERVED."

TO: Columns Q, R, and S: Shall list the work performed by the contractor to the corresponding functional area's performance tasks of this Task Order. These performance tasks can be found in Attachment 0001 on pages 41-58, excluding the paragraphs marked as "RESERVED."

c. M.1.1

FROM: The Government expects to award a single combination Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm-Fixed Price (Transition-In CLIN and PMO CLINs only) task order with 1, 12-month base period, to include a 30-day transition, 4, 1-year evaluated option periods, and 1, 6-month evaluated option period with this RFP. The Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW RFO FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

TO: The Government expects to award a single combination Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm-Fixed Price task order with 1, 12-month base period, to include a 30-day transition, 4, 1-year evaluated option periods, and 1, 6-month evaluated option period with this RFP. The Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW RFO FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

3. Due to the timing of question submissions, not all questions have been incorporated into this amendment. At this time, the USG does not expect to release another Q&A round to address more questions.

4. The proposal submission due date has been extended to 09 September at 1200 CDT.

4. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain in full force and effect.

The purpose of Amendment 0002 to Solicitation W519TC-26-R-A045 is to accomplish the following:

1. Revise Section J List of Attachments to incorporate the updated Att. 0007 - Wage Determination 2015-5633 Rev. 28 dated 27 August 2026.

2. Revise the following paragraph in Section M.4.1, Step 1 of the RFP:

FROM:

"Step 1: Technical Factor Evaluations. The Technical Volumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable /Unacceptable basis IAW the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below.

The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals of the first five or 20% of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria. The Technical evaluations will continue until five or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be technically acceptable. Note that only the three lowest proposed priced compliant offerors determined technically acceptable will move to Step 2. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions IAW M.4.4 as set forth below if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions would be advantageous to the Government."

TO:

"Step 1: Technical Factor Evaluations. The Technical Volumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable /Unacceptable basis IAW the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below.

The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals of the first five or 20% of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria. The Technical evaluations will continue until three or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be technically acceptable. Note that only the three lowest proposed priced compliant offerors determined technically acceptable will move to Step 2. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations IAW M.4.4 as set forth below if the Contracting Officer determines that negotiations would be advantageous to the Government.

3. The proposal submission due date has been extended to 11 September at 0800 CDT.

4. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain in full force and effect.

SECTION A

THIS RFP WILL BE COMPETED AMONGST ONLY THOSE OFFERORS THAT HOLD AN

ENHANCED ARMY GLOBAL LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE (EAGLE) BASIC ORDERING

AGREEMENT (BOA) BY THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS RFP. THIS ACQUISITION IS A 100%

SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE ACQUISITION AND ONLY BOA HOLDERS WHO CAN CERTIFY

PARTICIPATION IN THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) UNDER NORTH

AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE 561210 BY THE CLOSING

DATE OF THIS RFP WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

A.1 The U.S. Army Presidio of Monterey (POM) has a requirement for logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation support.

A.2 This is an official RFP and supporting documentation for the POM requirement.

A.3 This RFP is a small business set aside acquisition and will be competed among those Offerors that hold an EAGLE Program BOA who can certify small business status under NAICS Code 561210 by the closing date of this RFP.

This RFP will result in a CPFF with FFP elements task order with 1, 12 month base period, to include a 30 day transition in period, 4, 1-year options, and 1, 6-month option period in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO FAR) 52.217-8 for a total of 5 years and 6 months if all options are exercised. The evaluated option periods, which will be awarded at the Government's sole discretion, will be based on need and performance of contractors.

A.4 The period of performance for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) from Notice to Proceed (NTP) through 1826 Days after NTP is identified below:

CLIN SERVICE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

Base Year (includes 30 day Transition In): CLIN 0001 through 0010, NTP to 365 days after NTP

Option Year 1: CLINs 1002 through 1010, 366 days after NTP to 730 days after NTP

Option Year 2: CLINs 2002 through 2010, 731 days after NTP to 1095 days after NTP

Option Year 3: CLINs 3002 through 3010, 1096 days after NTP to 1461 days after NTP

Option Year 4: CLINs 4002 through 4010, 1462 days after NTP to 1826 days after NTP

Option Period IAW RFO FAR 52.217-8: CLINs 5002 through 5010, 1827 days after NTP to 2008 days after NTP

Transition and Fully Operational Capability (FOC) efforts are part of a single requirement and period of performance. All Transition efforts are still required to be completed within the first 30 days of performance; however, transition to FOC is part of a seamless process. The Contracting Officer may authorize proceeding into FOC as various elements of transition are complete prior to the end of the 30 -day Transition period.

A.5 This Best Value / Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process will include an evaluation of the following three (3) factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and

(3) Cost/Price. A Task Order award under this EAGLE competition will be made to the Offeror determined to be responsible IAW RFO FAR subpart 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance.

A.6 The Offeror's proposal shall be valid for 180 days from the closing date of the RFP.

A.7 The incumbent contractor(s) is LOGMET, LLC under contract(s) W519TC-23-G-0004, W519TC25F0093.

A.8 NOT APPLICABLE

A.9 Government Furnished Facilities and Equipment are identified in the Exhibits/Attachments in Section J of this RFP and identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

A.10 Please note that this RFP contains a Section B, "Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs";

however, Offerors are required to complete and submit the Cost/Price Matrix identified as Attachment 0005.

A.11 The Government intends to conduct a Post Award Conference with the awardee following Task Order award.

A.12 This RFP should not be discussed with any Government employee except the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Michael D. Thune or Contract Specialist, Alexander M. Wilcox who may be contacted at michael.d.thune2.civ@army.mil and alexander.m.wilcox2.civ@army.mil respectfully

A.13 This RFP and any amendments to this RFP shall be issued electronically. Because of this, the Government is under no obligation to maintain an Offerors mailing list. Any EAGLE BOA holders interested in this requirement must periodically access Contract Opportunities located at https://SAM.gov. Failure to provide proposals in accordance with the instructions/format specified in this RFP shall render the Offerors proposal non-compliant. The proposal will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

A.14 The Government is not obligated to provide responses to any questions submitted by Offerors, but will consider them and incorporate changes into the RFP as deemed necessary.

A.15 The closing date and time for this RFP is identified on page 1 of this RFP, the Local Time is Central Time. All proposal documents are due at the time set forth in this RFP.

A.16 Proposals shall be submitted electronically to alexander.m.wilcox2.civ@army.mil and m ichael.d.thune2.civ@army.mil. Due to file size restrictions, Proposals may be submitted through Department of Defense (DOD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), https://safe.apps.mil/. Note that only 25 files can be submitted with one upload . Multiple drop-off codes may be requested from the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer, if necessary. Non-CAC users will have to request a drop-off request from the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer. Please visit the website for more details and instructions for its use. Cloud Services and third party drop boxes are not acceptable for proposal submission.

Emailed proposals shall state the following in the subject line: Proposal for solicitation number [W519TC-26-R-A045] - Add company name.

It is highly recommended that the Offeror request a Return Receipt or other form of acknowledgement to verify that the proposal submission was received prior to the closing of the

RFP.

A.17 Not Applicable

A.18 The Government will compare the Offeror's proposal to Section L in order to perform a strict compliance review. Failure to provide proposals in accordance with the instructions/format specified in this RFP shall render the Offerors proposal non compliant. The proposal will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. The Government reserves the right to waive the Strict Compliance Review if it is in the Government's best interest.

A.19 NOT APPLICABLE

A.20 The Army Sustainment Command (ASC) may employ the services of a support contractor to assist in the management and oversight of ASC contracts. The contracted support provided by a support contractor is technical in nature, and in no way supplants the Governments exclusive responsibility for the decision making regarding contract management and oversight. The contract with ASC's support contractor prohibits the unauthorized use or disclosure of any of the information and data associated with ASC contracts in support of management and oversight responsibilities.

In the event ASC determines it will use a support contractor for management and oversight assistance, awardees shall work with the Contracting Officer and support contractor to establish appropriate agreements and proper protections (see RFO FAR 9.505-4(b)) allowing permission for the support contractor to have necessary access to information and data to assist ASC in its management and oversight for any associated contracts.

A.21 Organizational conflict of interest (OCI) means a situation in which

(1) A Government contract requires a contractor to exercise judgment to assist the Government in a matter (such as in drafting specifications or assessing another contractor's proposal or performance) and the contractor or its affiliates have financial or other interests at stake in the matter, so that a reasonable person might have concern that when performing work under the contract, the contractor may be improperly influenced by its own interests rather than the best interests of the Government; or

(2) A contractor could have an unfair competitive advantage in an acquisition as a result of having performed work on a Government contract, under circumstances such as those described in paragraph (1) of this definition that put the contractor in a position to influence the acquisition.

(3) If the Contractor identifies an OCI, the Contractor shall make a prompt and full disclosure in writing to the PCO. OCI that arise during performance of the contract, as well as newly discovered conflicts that existed before contract award, shall be disclosed.

A.22 Notice of OCI: ASC's support contractor, and any affiliates, subsidiaries, or subcontractors and any affiliates, subsidiaries, or subcontractors have OCIs, and are precluded from offering a proposal as either a prime or a subcontractor, or from participating as a member of any team competing for this contract and/or any other resultant contracts stemming from this RFP. The Government reserves the right to reject any offer it considers to represent an OCI. Offerors are directed to RFO FAR 9.5 for further information on OCIs for detailed OCI contract restrictions /requirements.

A.23 This is a Requirements Contract IAW RFO FAR 52.21621 for the services specified in the PWS and workload data, and effective for the period of performance identified in Paragraph A.4.

A.24 The Estimated Total Contract Value (ETCV) is TBD (at award). The ETCV amount is NOT a ceiling price, but rather an ESTIMATE of the total 5 and a half years of performance under this contract.

A.25 Not Applicable

A.26 If an Amendment is deemed necessary for this RFP, the Amendment notice will be posted to Contract Opportunities as stated in Section A, Paragraph A.13. Please be advised that when an Amendment is posted to Contract Opportunities it will be listed on the bottom of the RFP notice.

A.27 All clauses and provisions identified within the EAGLE BOA are incorporated by reference to this RFP.

A.28 The Army Contracting Command (ACC) is in the process of deploying the Electronic Cost Reporting and Financial Tracking (eCRAFT) Enterprise tool (E2) to all ACC organizations. E2 is a tool designed to enhance cost reporting and financial tracking utilizing standardized labor categories, authoritative data, and automated reports. E2 is expected to be deployed in Fiscal Year 2026 and its utilization is required for service contracts/orders that contain Cost type Contract Line

Item Numbers (CLINs). Offeror(s) are required to provide the information listed within Section L of this solicitation.

The eCRAFT CDRL will be a requirement of the resultant contract as stated in Section C of this solicitation and a subsequent revision to Section J Attachment 0001: PWS.

Section J - List of Attachments

The attachments table has changed from:

To:

The following contract documents were added:

The following contract documents were deleted:

The following contract documents Page Counts were changed:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS OF AWARD:

M.1.1 The Government expects to award a single combination Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm-Fixed Price task order with 1, 12-month base period, to include a 30-day transition, 4, 1-year evaluated option periods, and 1, 6-month evaluated option period with this RFP. The Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW RFO FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

M.1.1.1 A review of the Offeror's accounting system IAW RFO FAR 16.301-3. Failure to provide the required documentation will impact the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. Absent an adequate accounting system, an Offeror cannot be determined responsible under RFO FAR 9.104-5 and will be ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2 An analysis of whether the apparent successful Offeror complies with the requirements of RFO FAR 9.1. The Government may directly determine the responsibility of the apparent successful Offeror's Subcontractor(s) with the requirements of RFO FAR 9.104-4.

M.1.1.3 Not Applicable

M.1.1.4 Mission Essential Contractor Services (MECS): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's MECS Plan by determining if the Offeror's proposed plan adequately details a realistic approach as to how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 0013 - Mission Essential Contractor Services. The proposed MECS Plan must specifically address each part of the RFO DFARS 252.237-7024 (b)(2)(i through v).

M.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Government reserves the right to: waive the strict compliance review, limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency; conduct discussions at any stage of the evaluation process;

and make no award should no offer prove to be acceptable based on the criteria set forth in this RFP. The Government reserves the right to award no task order at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds. An award under this RFP in no way compels the Government to obligate additional dollars or additional option year periods.

M.2.1 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarifications and communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

M.3 LISTING OF TOTAL PROPOSED PRICES AND STRICT COMPLIANCE REVIEW:

The Government reserves the right to waive the Strict Compliance Review if it is in the Governments best interest.

M.3.1 Listing of Total Proposed Prices. All timely offers will be listed according to the total proposed price (labeled as Total Proposed Price in Attachment 0005 Cost/Price Matrix) from lowest total proposed price to highest total proposed price. A cost/price analysis will not be completed prior to listing by total proposed price.

M.3.2 Strict Compliance Review. Proposals will be reviewed to determine if all compliance requirements set forth in Section L are satisfied. The Government will conduct the strict compliance review starting with the lowest total proposed priced offer to the highest total proposed priced offer, until at least five or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be compliant. Note that initially only the pool of five or 20% (whichever is greater) of the proposals found to be compliant will move to Step 1 Technical Factor Evaluations. However, if any of the proposals are found Technically Unacceptable in Step 1, the Government will continue to review additional proposals for compliance until the thresholds identified in Step 1 are met. If the Government receives less than 5 proposals, all proposals will be reviewed for compliance, and those proposals found to be compliant move to Step 1 Technical Factor Evaluations.

M.3.2.1 The Government will compare the Offeror's proposal to Section L to perform a strict compliance review. Any Offeror's proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

M.3.2.1.1 Not Applicable

M.3.2.1.2 Reserved

M.3.2.1.3 The Government will conduct a strict compliance review of the Offeror's Cost/Price proposal to determine if voluntary capped or discounted rates were used prior to moving to Step 1.

STRICT COMPLIANCE: HOWEVER, IF AN OFFEROR MAKES IT THROUGH TO STEP 2 AND

DURING THE EVALUATION IS FOUND TO HAVE VOLUNTARILY CAPPED OR DISCOUNTED

ITS RATES, THE OFFEROR WILL BE FOUND NON-COMPLIANT. THE OFFEROR'S

PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE EVALUATED AND WILL NOT BE FURTHER CONSIDERED FOR

AWARD.

M.3.2.2 Only Offerors whose proposals are determined to be compliant will move to Step 1 of the evaluation process.

M.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

M.4.1 This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors will be evaluated against three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment by assigning confidence ratings. Cost/Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be rated. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror with the lowest evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. The Government will pursue the following evaluation approach in support of an award decision:

Step 1: Technical Factor Evaluations. The Technical Volumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable /Unacceptable basis IAW the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below.

The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals of the first five or 20% of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria. The Technical evaluations will continue until three or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be technically acceptable. Note that only the three lowest proposed priced compliant offerors determined technically acceptable will move to Step 2. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations IAW M.4.4 as set forth below if the Contracting Officer determines that negotiations would be advantageous to the Government.

Step 2: Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price Factor Evaluations. The lowest three total proposed price (labeled as Total Proposed Price in Attachment 0005 - Cost Price Matrix) compliant proposals that are determined Technically Acceptable at Step 1 will be evaluated for Past Performance, and Cost/Price IAW the criteria detailed in Section M.5 below.

a. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment by assigning confidence ratings.

b. The Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated and will not be assigned a rating.

c. All proposals which are determined to have Substantial Confidence in Past Performance with a realistic cost, will move to Step 3.

d. If there are less than (2) proposals found to have a Substantial Confidence rating in Past Performance, with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror for Past Performance and Cost /Price until there are 2 proposals with both a Substantial Confidence rating in Past Performance with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price. [Note: If there are no additional technical proposals left to evaluate at Step 1, the Government may proceed as indicated in M.4.4 below or may move forward to Step 3.]

f. The Government reserves the right to simultaneously evaluate Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price proposals.

Step 3: As stated in M.1.1, the Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW RFO FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance with a fair and reasonable Total Evaluated Price. However, if all Offerors were assessed to have other than Substantial Confidence in Past

Performance, the Government reserves the right to award to an Offeror with other than a Substantial Confidence rating in Past Performance. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will consider all factors and make a best value award decision.

M.4.2 Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Contents of written proposals and written responses to Evaluation Notices (if applicable) will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the RFP are satisfied. No assumptions will be made by Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror's written proposal. A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror's best efforts to respond to the RFP. A proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it contains adequately detailed information that complies with the solicitation requirements and affirmatively demonstrates the merits of the Offeror's proposal. The proposal must clearly and unambiguously reflect the Offeror's intended approach and establish cost credibility. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and proposed cost must be adequately explained in the proposal. An offeror's failure to adequately explain an inconsistency between promised performance and cost may result in a finding of Technical Unacceptability or a finding that a proposed cost is unrealistic for the work to be performed.

M.4.3 Prior to award, the Government shall make an affirmative determination of responsibility for the apparent successful Offeror IAW RFO FAR 9.1.

M.4.4 Negotiations

M.4.4.1 The Government intends to award without negotiations with respective Offerors. IF AND ONLY IF negotiations are conducted, upon completion of the Technical Factor evaluations, the Government will make a subsequent competitive range determination, IAW RFO FAR 15.204-1, based on the final ratings of each technical proposal against the Technical Factor evaluation criteria. Only Offerors determined Technically Acceptable will remain in this subsequent competitive range and proceed to the Past Performance and Cost/Price evaluations identified in STEP 2 above.

M.4.4.2 IF AND ONLY IF negotiations are conducted in Step 2, upon completion of the Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price Factor evaluations, the Government will make a competitive range determination, IAW RFO FAR 15.204-1. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment by assigning confidence ratings. The Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated for price reasonableness and cost realism, but it will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Only highly rated proposals or proposals not requiring a major rewrite will remain in the competitive range. Negotiations will be held with all Offerors remaining in the competitive range.

M.4.4.3 Definitions:

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.

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

Uncertainty is 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).

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

M.5.1 Technical Factor:

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an overall Acceptable/Unacceptable basis against all the listed criteria identified in L.5.2 and M.5.1. To receive an overall Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor, an Acceptable rating must be received on all of the following elements:

M.5.1(a) Staffing and Management Plan (SMP)

M.5.1.1 Technical Factor Rating: The Technical Factor ratings and definitions are as follows:

Acceptable: The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the RFP.

Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the RFP.

An Offeror must be Technically Acceptable to be considered for award. Offers determined Technically Unacceptable will not be considered for award.

M.5.1.2 Staffing and Management Plan (SMP): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's SMP to determine if the Offeror's proposal adequately details a realistic and feasible approach to delivering services required in the PWS, provided Technical Data, and Attachments including the necessary duty descriptions for any labor categories proposed on Attachment 0002, Staffing and Labor Mix that are not found within the SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition) or TD-02 Workload Data and Density List is adequately supported by the approach identified in the Offeror's Attachment 0002 - Staffing and Labor Mix. In accordance with L.5.2.1.1(b) an Offeror choosing to utilize innovative and efficient methodologies (e.g., cross utilization of specific labor categories, dual hatted positions, etc.) to adequately demonstrate its approach, must have it clearly stated within the SMP and will be evaluated for realism and feasibility. Failure to clearly capture the full requirement and subsequent workload under these methodologies will fail to meet the definition of Acceptable. The SMP will be evaluated for the following elements:

M.5.1.2(a) Offeror adequately demonstrates its ability to properly staff/organize the required effort by providing a realistic approach to creating its management structure from general staff oversight by first line supervisors through its company headquarters management. Offeror's management structure demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements related to executing the program by proposing adequate management and supervision of the effort. The Offeror adequately details how it will provide a fully trained, competent workforce to accomplish the contract requirements and includes an appropriate mitigation plan in the event trained personnel are not available locally and addresses how the Offeror will retain its personnel.

M.5.1.2(a)(1) Offeror adequately proposes the required on-site firm fixed price labor categories and FTEs for this task order within Attachment 0002, Staffing and Labor Mix.

M.5.1.2(a)(2) The Offeror adequately details a plan to successfully implement the Surge Requirement Capability by providing a realistic and feasible approach to onboarding the necessary workforce and achieving FOC within 21 days of receiving the NTP as required by PWS paragraph

1.4.3.1. The Offerors approach identifies the immediate steps that will be taken in response to the NTP from the PCO and provides a feasible and realistic plan for increasing the workforce, both addressing intended hiring practices and giving appropriate consideration to the temporary nature of the surge requirement and its potential impacts on recruitment and retention.

M.5.1.2(b) Organizational Diagram: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Organizational Diagram to determine if it depicts a realistic comprehensive organizational overview based on the following:

M.5.1.2(b)(1) Adequately identifies the tasks to be performed by the Offeror and all proposed subcontractor(s) (if applicable) as identified on the Offeror's Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix.

M.5.1.2(b)(2) Adequately identifies all the command-and-control relationships among the Offeror and all proposed subcontractor(s) (if applicable) as identified on the Offeror's Attachment 0005- Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix. Adequately identifies leadership positions (e.g., team leads, foremen, supervisors, deputies, managers) responsible for performing successful oversight of each of the primary task areas identified in Section C-5 of the PWS. FTE Counts are not required and will not be evaluated as part of the Organizational Diagram.

M.5.1.2(b)(3) Properly proposes an adequate, onsite independent quality control approach to include an independent quality control representative IAW L.5.2.1.1(b)(2)(iii). Proposals failing to provide an independent quality control representative will be found technically unacceptable

M.5.1.2(c) Staffing/Labor Mix (Attachment 0002 - Staffing and Labor Mix): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's staffing approach to determine if the Offeror's proposed staffing solution meets the following criteria:

NOTE: For Technical evaluation purposes only, the Government will utilize the labor category definitions provided in the SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition) and TD-02 Workload Data and Density List for labor category definitions to determine if the proposed labor category has the skill set / skill level necessary to perform the required task(s).

M.5.1.2(c)(1) Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the effort by providing appropriate staffing that is realistic and feasible to successfully perform the specific workload requirements in Attachment 0016 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List and the PWS requirements identified therein, as supported by either:

M.5.1.2(c)(1)(i) Proposing all FLC1 hours equal to or greater than the estimated hours of each functional area as provided in Attachment 0016 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List.

Note: Offerors proposing hours less than the estimated hours will be found Unacceptable, unless the Government determines the innovations or efficiencies, detailed in the SMP narrative, to be realistic and feasible to accomplish the mission.

or

M.5.1.2(c)(1)(ii) Providing a detailed narrative of the innovations and efficiencies used, within the specific areas of the Attachment 0016 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List for which the Offeror fails to propose IAW M.5.1.2(c)(1)(i), that will allow the Offeror to accomplish the mission.

Note: Staffing approaches utilizing innovative and efficient methodologies will be evaluated on the reasonableness of the innovation or efficiency of the approach and the feasibility that the approach will allow for accomplishment of the mission. Additionally, innovations or efficiencies (e.g., cross utilization of specific labor categories, dual hatted positions, etc.) not IAW L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(iii) and confirmed within the SMP will fail to meet the definition of Acceptable. Staffing levels must support the provided workload requirements for both the base period and option periods (fully operational capable 12-month / 365-day periods).

M.5.1.2(c)(1)(iii) Reserved

M.5.2 Past Performance Factor:

M.5.2(a) Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance.

The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements IAW the contract terms based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

M.5.2(b) Definitions:

M.5.2(b)(1) The definitions in L.5.3.1.1 apply to this section.

M.5.2.1 The Government will assess the contract references provided in the Offeror's task order proposal to date, and other information available from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, against the past performance evaluation criteria set forth below. The Government will include in its past performance evaluation the Offeror and any proposed Subcontractor that is expected to perform 20% or more of the total value of column F in the Offeror's Attachment 0005- Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix for this effort. For Offerors that are Joint Ventures (JV), the Government will evaluate both the past performance of the JV itself as well as the past performance of each individual JV partner. The Government will confirm a proposed Subcontractor is expected to perform 20% or more of the total value by referring to column F of the Offeror's Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix.

M.5.2.2 An Offeror's past performance record will be assessed to determine its Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. For Offerors that are Joint Ventures (JV), the past performance confidence assessment will include both the JV entity's past performance as well as the past performance of each individual JV partner. If an Offeror proposes the use of Subcontractors, the Offeror's past performance record will be assessed in its totality to determine the Offeror's past performance rating. The Government may take any of the following into consideration when determining an Offeror's past performance confidence assessment rating:

M.5.2.2(a) The specific functional areas of Maintenance, Supply, and Transportation the Offeror or its Subcontractor(s) have performed as reflected by their respective past performance history, and the functional areas to be performed on the task order requirement by the Offeror or its Subcontractor(s).

M.5.2.2(b) NOT APPLICABLE

M.5.2.2(c) The Offeror's or its Subcontractor(s) overall percentage of participation for this task order requirement.

M.5.2.2(d) The Offeror's, and/or its Subcontractor(s)' performance details and ratings received in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), as well as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), which includes both the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). CPARS and PPQs will be utilized to assess a contractor's performance in the areas of Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance.

M.5.2.3 In evaluating performance history, the Government may review the Offeror's and/or its Subcontractor(s)' current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement.

M.5.2.4 In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information to other contracts performed by the Offeror, and/or its Subcontractor(s) of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the Government by the Offeror. It may also use any past performance that occurs after the RFP closing date and prior to award. The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors.

M.5.2.5 The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. An adverse finding in any element or a lack of relevant data to a performance issue may result in an overall lower confidence assessment rating.

M.5.2.6 The Government may also consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies. Past performance for parent/sister companies or other corporate entities may be evaluated only if these companies or entities are listed as subcontractors on the Offeror's Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix and are expected to perform 20% or more of the total value of column F in the Offeror's Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2- Teaming Matrix.

M.5.2.7 Recency. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

For this requirement, recency is any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following time standards: three years prior to this RFP closing date, regardless of the award date.

M.5.2.8 Relevancy. The relevancy of the past performance information will be evaluated as follows:

M.5.2.8(a) Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

M.5.2.8(b) Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

M.5.2.8(c) In order to determine if a reference is relevant, the reference must meet the scope, magnitude, and complexity requirements as detailed below.

M.5.2.8(c)(1) In order to determine if a reference is similar in scope to the PoM Task Order, the reference must have demonstrated similar experience, to the PoM PWS Attachment 0001, in at least one of the following functional areas:

M.5.2.8(c)(1)(i) Maintenance

M.5.2.8(c)(1)(ii) Supply

M.5.2.8(c)(1)(iii) Transportation

M.5.2.8(c)(2) In order to determine if a reference is similar in magnitude and complexity to the POM Task Order, the Annual Average Dollar Value (AADV) must meet or exceed the minimum level of relevant experience identified below:

Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $300k average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix - $60k average annually.

Supply: Offeror Reference - $300k average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005-Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix - $60k average annually.

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $2.1M average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005- Cost Price Matrix, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix - $420K average annually.

Total: Offeror Reference $2.7M average annually; Subcontractor Reference $540k average annually.

M.5.2.8(c)(3) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the relevant functional areas contained in a contract reference and apply the minimum applicable threshold. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $2.7M for a Prime reference and $540k for a Subcontractor reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity. If the Maintenance and Supply functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $600k for a Prime reference and $1 20k for a Subcontractor reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

M.5.2.8(c)(3)(i) Please note that for Joint Ventures (JVs), Past Performance references need not be performed by the JV itself. References for efforts performed by one or more of the entities comprising the JV, that are otherwise determined as recent and relevant, will be considered when evaluating the JV's past performance. In determining relevancy, the reference must meet the thresholds for magnitude and complexity applicable for the Offeror.

M.5.2.9 Performance Confidence. Based on an assessment of all the recent, relevant past performance information identified, the Government will determine an overall confidence rating for the Offeror. The overall confidence rating will be determined using the rating definitions below and will be based on the Offeror's and Subcontractor(s)' (who are expected to perform 20% or more of the total value for this effort) recent/relevant performance record and the Government's expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. When determining the confidence assessment, consideration will be given to the depth and breadth of the Offeror's and Subcontractor(s) demonstrated recent/relevant experience.

M.5.2.9(a) Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offeror's…