W52P1J15R0099-0003.pdf

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

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

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

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

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ____________ copies of the amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

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

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

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) Set

Forth In Item 14, Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(b).

C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______________ copies to the Issuing Office.

14. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

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

15A. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or print)

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

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

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

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

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

0003 2015OCT28

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

MICHAEL DEBISSCHOP

EMAIL: MICHAEL.L.DEBISSCHOP.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-15-R-0099

2015SEP30

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: MICHAEL DEBISSCHOP

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRC-FE/(309)782-8018

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Type of Contract 2: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0003 to RFP # W52P1J-15-R-0099 is to accomplish the following:

1. Update Section H paragraph H.5 Capped Rates, and Section M paragraph M.5.3.1.2(a).

2. As a result of this amendment the closing date and time remains unchanged at 12:00pm CT 30 Oct 2015. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 14

W52P1J-15-R-0099 0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 EAGLE BUSINESS RULES - STEP THREE TASK ORDER REQUEST

(a) An Offeror must be a qualified BOA holder by the closing date of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government is under no obligation to place an order against an EAGLE BOA.

(b) A Task Order becomes a binding contract at the time of the Government's acceptance of a task order proposal and award of a Task

Order per FAR 16.703(c)(1)(iv).

(c) This Task Order is being competed among EAGLE BOA holders who hold a BOA at the time of the closing date of the RFP. No extensions to the RFP will occur for purposes of allowing interested Offerors additional time to become an EAGLE BOA holder.

(d) BOA holders were required to demonstrate the capability to perform all three functional areas in Step Two. That capability may have been achieved with or without Teammates. When submitting a proposal in Step Three, the Offeror shall propose itself and/or approved

Teammates listed in the Offeror's BOA Attachment 0002 - Team Arrangement. The Government will verify that the Offeror's proposal includes approved Teammates by comparing the Offeror's proposal to its BOA Attachment 0002 - Team Arrangement as of the closing date of the RFP. Other than Small Business Offerors may propose Subcontractors in addition to what is listed in their BOA Attachment 0002 Team

Arrangement if the Subcontractors are being proposed for the purpose of meeting their Small Business Participation Proposal projections in accordance with Sections L and M of this Task Order RFP.

(e) If BOA holders demonstrated organizational capability in all three functional areas without the reliance of Teammates in Step

Two, then the Offeror is not precluded from proposing Subcontractors in all three functional areas for Step 3 Task Order RFPs. BOA holders who demonstrated organizational capability in one or two of the functional areas without the reliance of Teammates in Step Two may propose Subcontractors for those respective functional area(s) in Step Three Task Order RFPs.

For example, if a BOA holder demonstrated organizational capability in Maintenance without the reliance of Teammates in Step Two, then the Offeror may propose Subcontractor(s) in Maintenance in Step Three Task Order RFPs. The Offeror shall propose itself and/or approved

Teammates listed in the Offeror's BOA Attachment 0002 - Team Arrangement for Supply and Transportation.

(f) The contractor shall adhere to the prices proposed and agreed to in this resultant task order issued against their BOA. The contractor is not authorized to begin work on an order issued against the BOA until prices have been established. In the event that the

Contracting Officer requires work to begin prior to establishment of pricing, failure to reach agreement on price may be disputed under the Disputes clause.

(g) Offerors will certify size standards at the Task Order level.

(h) Failure to comply with any term of the Task Order, to include meeting small business subcontracting goals , may result in negative past performance that could negatively impact the BOA holder's ability to be successful in future Task Order competitions.

(i) Responsibility determinations will be made at Step Three. An otherwise successful Offeror may not be eligible for award if it cannot be determined responsible for any of the reasons in FAR 9.104, including capacity.

H.2 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW

(a) All tasks under this contract will be subject to periodic (not less than quarterly) performance management reviews (PMR). The performance reviews will be written in the form of a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) in accordance with the DoD

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The PMR can be either positive, outlining best practices or cost savings, or negative in the event the contractor fails to perform as outlined in the PWS, applicable regulations, or PCO direction. PMRs will be provided to the contractor not less than quarterly or as deemed necessary by the COR, Government Program Manager or PCO. The Contractor will receive briefings on the PMR reports and be allowed the opportunity to submit a response. Contract Deficiency Reports (CDRs) and/or

Corrective Action Request (CARs) will be reviewed during the PMR, if the Government deems them material. The contractor will present its independent assessment of performance during the PMR. Contractor's presentation will consist of work accomplished, evaluation of work against applicable program metrics (to include schedule), cost savings, lessons learned, forecasted staffing requirements based on anticipated workload, self-evaluations/inspection results, corrective actions, funding levels/contractor performance report (financial), contractor-employee utilization rates and must address all CARs, CDRs or other notices issued by the PCO.

(b) Contractor Performance Assessment: Currently, the Government uses an escalating system of deficiency reporting: local (on-site) and PCO issued contract discrepancy report (CDR; DA Form 5479). Local deficiency reporting consists of: verbal notification and corrective action requests (CAR). Verbal notification is primarily used for non-repeating, minor nonconformance/discrepancies of tasks that can be re-performed at no additional cost to the government and with minimal impact to the effort. A CAR will be issued by

COR/COTR/QAE when previous verbal notifications failed to result in corrective actions or when more/major non-conformance or significant deficiencies exist/occur. The CAR will be issued to the contractor by the COR and forwarded to the PCO through the government program management office/COR for tracking/action. Un-resolved CARs or significant deficiencies will result in the PCO issuing a formal

Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR). CDRs are provided to the contractor's corporate office(s) for action with an assigned suspense date. CDRs are a significant indicator of performance and will be used to substantiate the Government's Contractor Performance

3 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) input. Performance deficiencies may include any government-identified noncompliance with contract requirements; an activity or action did not take place, or did not take place to the standards of timeliness or quality required. Note, that while the contractor will be given the opportunity for re-performance when possible, significant deficiencies will nevertheless be documented. Use of this escalating deficiency reporting procedure does not, in any way, limit the Government's ability to take corrective action up to and including termination.

(c) Contractor's Fixed Fee will be assessed for validated negative PMRs, unresolved CDRs or as determined by the PCO IAW FAR 52.246-5 using the following schedule:

Critical Nonconformance - Contractor's fee will be assessed not less than 10% (ten percent) of the monthly fixed fee in which the critical nonconformance occurred. PCO determination will address the exact fee decrement based on severity, impact to the effort, contractor willingness to resolve and any other factors as deemed relevant by the PCO.

Unresolved CDRs - Contractor's fee will be assessed not less than 5% (five percent) of the daily fixed fee starting with first day of delinquency in resolution. Fee reduction percentages are assigned as follows; however, the PCO has the discretion to apply whatever percentage it deems reasonable based on severity, impact to the effort, contractor willingness to resolve and any other factors as deemed relevant by the PCO:

Percentage of Fee:

Critical: 10% and above (monthly)

Major: 7-10% (daily)

Minor: 5-7% (daily)

The Contractor will be given the opportunity to comment and respond to issued CARs and/or CDRs during the PMR prior to the Government executing a fee decrement.

Definitions:

Critical nonconformance - a nonconformance that is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals using, maintaining, or depending upon the supplies or services; or is likely to prevent performance of a vital agency mission. Repeated or unresolved major nonconformance will result in re-designation as critical nonconformance.

Major nonconformance - a nonconformance, other than critical, that is likely to result in failure of the supplies or services, or to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose. Repeated or unresolved minor nonconformance will result in re-designation as major nonconformance.

Minor nonconformance - a nonconformance that is not likely to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose, or is a departure from established standards having little bearing on the effective use or operation of the supplies or services.

Unresolved CDR- a CDR remaining unresolved, or unacknowledged, past the PCO established suspense date. May be re-designated as minor, major or critical based on the PCO independent determination.

Daily Fee - The yearly fixed fee amount divided by 12 months divided by 30 days.

H.3 PURCHASING AND INVOICING PROCEDURES

(a) The Government and Contractor shall utilize the procedures outlined in the Purchasing and Invoicing Guide (Attachment 0009). This guide details the process that the United States Government (USG) will use to conduct and oversee contractor purchasing and invoicing on this task order. Each step in the process will be described in detail along with the responsibilities of each individual position. It is the intent of the Government that the process will be sufficient for detailed cost accounting and approval without negatively impacting the contractor's ability to provide Maintenance, Transportation and Supply services at Fort Bragg, NC. If the process is found to negatively impact operations it will be re-evaluated by the USG and updated appropriately to achieve the desired effect.

(b) Final invoice for the Transition-In CLIN shall be submitted no later than 7 days after the end of CLIN 0001's period of performance.

H.4 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

(a) In the event that Government property accountable to this contract is lost, damaged, destroyed or stolen, the Contractor shall promptly perform an investigation and provide a report to the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officers representative IAW FAR

52.245-1(f)(1)(vi) and DFARS 252.245-7002 Reporting Loss of Government Property. The Contracting Officer shall review the Contractor's report and, if the Contracting Officer deems necessary, may perform an additional independent investigation in accordance with FAR

52.245-1 (g). In accordance with FAR 52.245-1 (g) (3) should it be determined by the Government that the Contractors (or subcontractors) property management practices are inadequate or not acceptable for the effective management and control of Government property under this contract, or present an undue risk to the Government, the Contractor shall prepare a corrective action plan and take all necessary

4 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

corrective actions as specified by the schedule within the corrective action plan. The Contracting Officer may, in writing, revoke the

Governments assumption of risk for loss, theft, damage or destruction, due to a determination under FAR 52.245-1 (g) that the

Contractors property management practices are inadequate, and/or present an undue risk to the Government, and the Contractor failed to take timely corrective action. If the Contracting Officer revokes the Government's assumption of liability and holds the Contractor liable, the Contractor may not charge the Government for the loss, theft, damage or destruction of Government property or any costs associated thereof except as provided in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 (h) (1) (iii). The Contracting Officer may delegate the investigation to an appropriate Government representative of the Contracting Officer's choosing.

H.5 CAPPED INDIRECT RATES:

If the Offeror and/or Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s) proposals include indirect expense rate(s) which were determined by the Government are not fully supported, those rates will be capped at the proposed rates for evaluation purposes and contract execution.

The following rate(s) is/are hereby capped from the Offeror's and/or Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s) Cost/Price proposal dated DD MONTH

YYYY for the life of this task order:

Offeror's: TBD

Capped Rate(s): (Insert applicable capped rate(s) at XX%, i.e., Overhead, G&A, Business Unit Overhead)

Teammate/Subcontractors(s) Name(s): TBD

Capped Rate(s): (Insert applicable capped rates(s), are capped as provided in proposal dated DD MONTH YYYY.

H.6 AbilityOne Program and/or 8(a) Contracts

Notwithstanding the inclusion of FAR 52.216-21 in this this task order, any maintenance, supply, and transportation tasks currently being performed by an AbilityOne contractor or an 8(a) contractor at Ft. Bragg or subsequently determined appropriate for performance by an AbilityOne contractor or an 8(a) contractor, are not included within the scope of this EAGLE requirements task order.

H.7 POST - AWARD CONFERENCE:

The Contractor agrees to attend any post-award conference convened by the contracting activity or contract administration office in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 42.5.

*** END OF NARRATIVE H0001 ***

5 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS OF AWARD:

A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror's best efforts to respond to the RFP. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the use of new and innovative techniques is intended, the impact on cost shall be explained. For example, if a business policy decision to absorb a portion of the estimated cost was made, that approach shall be stated within the proposal (including any associated calculations). The burden of proof as to the cost credibility rests with the Offeror.

M.1.1 The Government expects to award a single combination Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm-Fixed Price task order with one (1) 12-month base period, to include staggered transition-ins (reference L.2.8), and four one year evaluated option periods as a result of this RFP. The

Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (in accordance with 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 and an Acceptable rating in Small Business Participation. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

M.1.1.1 The Offeror is required to provide adequate documentation which proves its accounting system has been determined adequate by the

Government to support receipt of a cost type contract. Failure to provide the required documentation shall impact the Contracting

Officer's responsibility determination. Absent an adequate accounting system, an Offeror cannot be determined responsible under FAR

9.104-5 and will be ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2 The Government will determine responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful Offeror complies with the requirements of FAR 9.1. The Government may directly determine the responsibility of the apparent successful Offeror's Teammate(s) and/or Major

Subcontractor(s) with the requirements of FAR 9.104-4.

M.1.1.3 The Government will determine responsibility by evaluating the Offerors DoD Pre-Award Safety Responsibility to ensure the ability to comply with the contract safety requirements IAW DFARS Clause 252.223-7002, Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives, Clause 252.223-7003, Change in Place of Performance Ammunition and Explosives and the PWS.

M.1.1.4 The Government will determine responsibility by evaluating the Offerors property management plan to ensure the ability to comply with FAR 52.245-1 and provide for effective control of the Government property accountable to the resultant contract.

M.1.2 The Government intends to award one task order consisting of a base year period and 4 option year periods. However, 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 obligates the Government to obligate additional dollars or additional option year periods.

M.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Government reserves the right to: limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency; award without discussions; and make no award should no offer prove to be acceptable based on the criteria set forth in this RFP.

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:

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.

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 (5) or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be compliant. Note that initially only the pool of five (5) 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 five

(5) proposals, all proposals will be reviewed for compliance, and those proposals found to be compliant move to Step 1 Technical Factor

Evaluations.

6 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The Government will compare the Offeror's proposal to Section L in order to perform a compliance review. Any Offeror's proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L or determined noncompliant per paragraphs a. through c. below, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. The compliance review will also include the following:

a. The Contracting Officer will verify that the CAGE code(s) for the Offeror and the Teammates/Subcontractors/Managing Partner identified on Attachment 0015 - SECRET Facility Clearance possess a SECRET Facility Clearance via the DSS ISFD by the RFP closing date.

It is acceptable for the CAGE codes listed on Attachment 0010 and Attachment 0015 to differ, however both of the CAGE codes must be from the same legal entity, and the CAGE code listed on the Attachment 0015 must possess the Secret Facility Clearance. If the CAGE code identified on the Attachment 0015 is different from the CAGE Code identified on Attachment 0010, and is identified as a separate legal entity, it cannot be used to fulfill the SECRET Facility Clearance requirement and the Offeror's proposal shall be rendered non-compliant. If the CAGE code for the Offeror, Managing Partner, Teammate or Subcontractor, stated on the Attachment 0015 does not possess a Secret Facility Clearance, the Offeror will be found noncompliant. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

b. The Contracting Officer will verify that the Offeror's proposal includes approved Teammates by comparing the Offeror's Attachment

0010 - Teaming Matrix to the Offeror's BOA Attachment 0002 - Team Arrangement as of the closing date of this RFP. Proposed Teammate(s)

Company Name and CAGE code must match the BOA Attachment 0002 information. The Contracting Officer will also verify that the Other than

Small Business Offeror's proposed Subcontractor(s), in addition to what is listed in the Offeror's BOA Attachment 0002 - Team

Arrangement, are being proposed for the purpose of meeting the Offeror's Small Business Participation proposal. If an Offeror is _________________ required to propose itself and/or approved Teammates in any of the three functional areas (Maintenance, Supply, or Transportation) and_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ it lists a company that is not an approved Teammate as of the closing date of this RFP, its proposal shall be rendered noncompliant.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Non-compliant proposals will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award.___________________________________________________________________________________________

c. The Government will verify the Offeror's proposed Functional Labor Category 1 (FLC1) Employee hours on its Attachment 0002 - Staffing

Labor Mix, "FTE Count Option Periods 1-4" tab, are equal to or greater than the total minimum FLC1 Employee hours indicated at Exhibit A

TE 1 M-S-T 001 Functional Labor Category 1 Hours Fort Bragg. The minimum hours for this effort are: 389,760 for Maintenance, 376,320 for Supply, and 524,160 for Transportation as provided in the attached workload data, Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-001 Functional Labor Category

1 Hours Fort Bragg. See L.5.2.1.1(c)(5)(ii).

(1) By using Microsoft Excel, the Government will verify the Offeror's proposed option period total proposed FLC1 hours. In order to verify the Offeror's total proposed FLC1 hours by Functional Area, the Government will:

i) IAW L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(xii), using the Microsoft Excel formula "=ROUND(number,num_digits)", round each FTE not entered by the Offeror to the nearest hundredth decimal (two decimal places to the right of the whole number) and

ii) Multiply the rounded number of proposed FLC1 FTEs for all FLC1 positions by the applicable Offeror-provided number of hours per year by employee type.

(2) If the FLC1 hours contained in the Offeror's Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix, "FTE Count Option Periods 1-4" tab, are not equal to or greater than the minimum FLC1 hours for each Functional Area identified in Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-001 Functional Labor

Category 1 Hours Fort Bragg (i.e., Maintenance, Transportation, Supply), the Offeror's proposal shall be rendered noncompliant and will not be evaluated nor further considered for award. The Offeror must satisfy the minimum hours requirement as stated in this RFP without exception.

(3) If the FLC1 hours calculated from the Offeror's Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix, "FTE Count Option Periods 1-4" tab, do equal or are greater than 389,760 for Maintenance, 376,320 for Supply, and 524,160 for Transportation as provided in the attached workload data, Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-001 Functional Labor Category 1 Hours Fort Bragg, the proposal will be eligible for further consideration and will be moved to STEP 1 of the evaluation process if all other compliance requirements in Section L and paragraphs a. and b. above are met.

d. 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 four evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation. 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. The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Factor on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor and Small

Business Participation Factor. The Cost/Price Factor and Small Business Participation Factor are equal in importance. All non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor. 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 and an Acceptable rating in Small Business Participation. The Government will pursue the following evaluation approach in support of an award decision:

7 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

STEP 1: Technical Factor Evaluations. The Technical Volumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis in accordance with the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below. The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals against the technical evaluation criteria, from the lowest total proposed priced offer to the highest total proposed priced offer, until five (5) or

20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be technically acceptable. Note that only five (5) or 20% (whichever is greater) of the proposals will move to Step 2. However, if the Government receives less than five (5) proposals, all proposals will be evaluated and all proposals found technically acceptable will move to Step 2. If the Government receives no Technically Acceptable proposals, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with M.4.4 as set forth below.

STEP 2: Past Performance Factor, Cost/Price Factor, and Small Business Participation Factor Evaluations. All compliant proposals that are determined Technically Acceptable at Step 1 will be evaluated for Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation in accordance with 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 for cost realism and cost/price reasonableness. It will not be assigned a rating.

c. The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis in accordance with the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below. If the Government receives no Acceptable proposals, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with M.4.4 as set forth below.

d. All proposals which are determined to have Substantial Confidence in Past Performance, an Acceptable rating in Small Business

Participation, and with a fair and reasonable evaluated price, will move to Step 3.

e. If there are less than two (2) proposals found to have both a Substantial Confidence rating in Past Performance, and Acceptable rating in Small Business Participation, and an evaluated price that is reasonable, the Government will then complete the strict compliance review of the next lowest total proposed priced proposal(s) in accordance with paragraph M.3 and will proceed to Step 1 to evaluate technical acceptability until there are five (5) or 20% (whichever is greater) Technically Acceptable proposals to evaluate at

Step 2. [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.]

STEP 3: As stated in M.1.1, the Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (in accordance with 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 and an Acceptable rating in Small Business

Participation. 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 All 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.

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

M.4.4 Discussions

M.4.4.1 The Government intends to award without discussions with respective Offerors. IF AND ONLY IF discussions are conducted at Step

1, the Government will make a competitive range determination, in accordance with FAR 15.306, based on the ratings of each Technical proposal against the Technical Factor evaluation criteria. No more than five (5) or 20% (whichever is greater) of the Offerors who have the lowest total proposed price compliant, highly rated Technical proposals will remain in the competitive range. Only highly rated

Technical proposals will remain in the competitive range.

M.4.4.2 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. (See FAR 15.001.)

M.4.4.3 IF AND ONLY IF discussions are conducted, then upon completion of the Technical Factor evaluations, the Government will make a subsequent competitive range determination, in accordance with FAR 15.306, 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, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation evaluations identified in STEP 2 above.

8 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

M.5.1 Technical Factor:

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an overall Acceptable/Unacceptable basis against all of the listed criteria identified in L.5.2 and M.5.1. An Unacceptable rating will be assigned when the Offeror's proposal does not meet all of the listed criteria due to containing one or more deficiencies. In order to receive an overall Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor, an

Acceptable rating must be received on all elements of the criteria. An Acceptable rating will be assigned when the Offeror has demonstrated an understanding of the PWS requirements and has provided an acceptable proposal based upon the evaluation of all the following elements:

M.5.1(a) Staffing and Management Plan

M.5.1(b) Mission Essential Contractor Services

M.5.1(c) Organizational Diagram

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 receive an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor in order to be considered for award. Offers receiving an unacceptable rating for the Technical Factor will not be considered for award.

M.5.1.2 Staffing and Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Staffing and Management Plan to determine if the

Offeror's proposal adequately details an approach to deliver services required in the PWS and is adequately supported by the Offeror's

Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix, 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 proposal adequately details its chain of command structure and methodology, internal controls for problem resolution.

M.5.1.2(b) Offeror provides adequate rationale for its proposed skill set / skill level determination by Functional Area. Rationale adequately describes the Offeror's methodology for determining the skill level required in order to ensure proper execution of the effort.

M.5.1.2(c) Flexible Staffing Approach: The Offeror adequately demonstrates ability to effectively and efficiently: cross-utilize, temporarily reallocate, and rapidly increase and decrease its workforce. The Offeror adequately identifies how this approach will be executed during surges in effort and during periods of protracted reductions in workload without sacrificing quality of services provided. Additionally, the Offeror adequately demonstrates its ability to effectively and efficiently cross utilize personnel when possible to better support short term requirement changes; provide better and timelier support; and reduce costs through more efficient staffing. The Offeror's cross utilization adequately addresses an approach to ensuring safety, training, and certification requirements are met and does not impact or appear to impact quality of the effort.

M.5.1.2(d) Transition-in Approach: The Offeror adequately identifies a realistic and feasible time-phased approach of transitioning-in all of the PWS requirements with key milestones from Notice to Proceed (NTP) to successfully reaching a fully operational capability

(FOC) which demonstrates, at a minimum (within the time indicated at M.1.1):

M.5.1.2(d)(1) Open communication with incumbent contractor and the Government to include periodic meetings documenting progress.

M.5.1.2(d)(2) Compliance with Executive Order 13495 - Hiring of qualified incumbent workforce.

M.5.1.2(d)(3) Proper, timely requisition / issuance of (as required): Contractor Common Access Cards (CAC) / access badges and security clearances.

M.5.1.2(d)(4) Assuming accountability of GFP / GFE (including joint inventory with incumbent contractor) with completion prior to end of transition-in. Completion requires all actions up to and including reconciliation to be completed.

M.5.1.2(e) Staffing/Labor Mix: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's entire staffing approach (FLC1 and FLC2) through its proposed labor categories (skill sets) with proposed staffing levels (number of employees) in Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix to determine if the Offeror's staffing is feasible in relation to the PWS requirements and the provided workload data (see applicable Technical

Exhibits) for both the base period and option periods (fully operational capable 12-month periods (365 day periods)). The Offeror's proposed approach must present a staffing approach which demonstrates an adequate understanding of this effort and provides its expected skill level, to include level of responsibility, to ensure successful performance of all the PWS requirements. Offerors must properly

9 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

propose and identify Key and Specified Non-Key positions, as identified in Exhibit E TE 1G-005 Key and Specified Non-Key Requirements, on its Attachment 0002 as directed at L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(i). Additionally, the Offeror's proposed labor category skill level and expected level of responsibility is commensurate with the effort/assigned position. NOTE: For Technical evaluation purposes only, the Government will utilize the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations (5th Edition) labor category definitions and Exhibit E TE 1G-005

Key and Specified Non-Key Requirements to determine if the proposed labor category is consistent with the task(s) proposed.

M.5.1.3 Mission Essential Contractor Services (MECS): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Mission Essential Contractor Services

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

M.5.1.4 Organizational Diagram: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Organizational Diagram to determine if it demonstrates a comprehensive, realistic organizational overview based on the following:

M.5.1.4(a) Adequately identifies the tasks the proposed Teammate(s) (if applicable) and/or proposed Major Subcontractor(s) (if applicable) will be performing.

M.5.1.4(b) Adequately identifies all of the command and control relationships among the prime contractor, proposed Teammate(s) (if applicable) and/or proposed Major Subcontractor(s) (if applicable) to include identification of leadership positions (e.g., site leads, foremen, directors, deputies, managers, supervisors, and team leads) and who is responsible for performing successful oversight of each of the primary tasks areas identified in Section C-5 of the PWS. FTE Counts are not required on the Organizational Diagram. Proposed

FTEs will only be evaluated on the Attachment 0002.

M.5.1.4(c) Adequately identifies the independence of the quality control organization (i.e. quality control organization reporting directly to the corporate quality office).

M.5.2 Past Performance Factor:

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 in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

M.5.2.1 The Government will assess the contract references provided in the Offeror's BOA proposal, the BOA annual review process, and task order proposals 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 any proposed Teammate and Major Subcontractor that is expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix for this effort. The Government will confirm a proposed Teammate and Major Subcontractor is expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value by referring to column F of the Offerors Attachment

0010 - Teaming Matrix.

M.5.2.2 An Offeror's past performance record will be assessed to determine its Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. If an

Offeror proposes the use of Teammates and Major Subcontractors (who are expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix for this effort), or is a Joint Venture, 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 rating:

M.5.2.2(a) The specific functional areas (Maintenance, Transportation, Supply) the Offeror, its Teammate(s), or its Major

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, its Teammate(s) or its Major Subcontractor(s).

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

M.5.2.2(c) The Offeror's and/or its Teammate(s)/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, and Utilization of

Small Business. The areas of Quality of Service, Schedule, and Cost Control are more important than the Utilization of Small Business.

M.5.2.3 In evaluating performance history, the Government may review the Offeror'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 with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror 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

10 14

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 in regards 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, other corporate entities, or subcontracts, where such information is relevant to this acquisition.

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 the purpose of this requirement recency is any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following time standards: five (5) years prior to this RFP closing date, even if the award date is outside this five (5) year window.

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)(i) In order to determine if a reference is similar in scope to the Ft. Bragg Task Order, the reference must have demonstrated similar experience, to the Fort Bragg PWS Attachment 0001, in at least one of the following functional areas:

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

M.5.2.8(c)(i)(b) Supply

M.5.2.8(c)(i)(c) Transportation

M.5.2.8(c)(ii) In order to determine if a reference is similar in magnitude and complexity to the Ft. Bragg Task Order, the Annual

Average Dollar value must meet or exceed the minimum level of relevant experience identified below:

Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $6M average annually; Major Subcontractor/ Teammate performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix- $1.2M average annually

Supply: Offeror Reference - $6M average annually; Major Subcontractor/ Teammate performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix- $1.2M average annually

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $5M average annually; Major Subcontractor/ Teammate performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix- $1M average annually

Total $17M average annually

M.5.2.8(c)(iii) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the functional areas contained in a contract reference. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $17,000,000.00 for the 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

$12,000,000.00 for the reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

M.5.2.8(c)(iv) For Major Subcontractors and Teammates performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in column F of the Offerors Attachment 0010 - Teaming Matrix, the level of magnitude and complexity applicable to this evaluation is 20% of the above stated values.

M.5.2.9 Performance Confidence. Based on an assessment of all…