W52P1J16R0047-0004.pdf

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

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

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

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

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

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

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

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

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

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

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

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

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

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

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0004 2016JUN09

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

DANETTE D. WILSON

EMAIL: DANETTE.D.WILSON.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-16-R-0047

2016APR11

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 15

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: DANETTE D. WILSON

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRC-RT/(309)782-6607

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

1. The purpose of Amendment 0004 against Request for Proposal (RFP) W52P1J-16-R-0047 is to revise the following;

a. RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.8.1. The following sentence within this paragraph is revised to read, "For this procurement, a

"recent" contract is defined as occurring within the three years prior to the solicitation closing date."

b. RFP, Section M, Paragraph M.12.4 is revised to read, "Recent contracts are defined as follows: occurring within the three years prior to the solicitation closing date."

2. All other terms and conditions of this RFP remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0005 ***

2 15

W52P1J-16-R-0047 0004

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. These instructions are a guide for preparing proposals in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) W52P1J-16-R-

0047. They describe the extent of information the Offeror should provide and emphasize the significant topic areas the Offeror should address in its proposal. Each Offeror shall submit a maximum of one proposal containing all requested information. The United States

Government (USG) will not reimburse the Offeror for costs incurred in association with the preparation of its proposal. The Offeror is expected to review the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in Section J of this Request for Proposal (RFP) for further insight into the areas that the proposal must address. The Offeror should include in its proposal sufficient information to enable the USG to determine the Offeror's understanding of the requirements in each of the evaluated areas. Offerors are cautioned that repeating language of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement. Clarity and completeness are essential. Data not submitted with the proposal, but submitted previously or presumed to be known, will not be considered as part of the proposal. Proposals lacking information may be considered unacceptable and may be eliminated from the competitive range. The

USG will not open discussions for the sole purpose of allowing Offerors to add detail to proposals. The Offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the USG to make an assessment of the Offeror's ability to successfully execute the mission.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 15.306(d), Evaluation Notices will be used to document each significant weakness, weakness and/or deficiency.

L.2 POINT OF CONTACT (POC). Any questions or concerns shall be addressed, in writing (English), to the POCs listed below. All volumes shall be sent by e-mail to Army Contracting Command Rock Island (ACC-RI), at the following e-mail addresses:

Ms. Danette Wilson

Email: danette.d.wilson.civ@mail.mil

Mr. Derek Schnorrenberg

Email: derek.m.schnorrenberg.civ@mail.mil

L.3 STANDARD PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. This section specifies the format each Offeror shall use in preparing its proposal. The intent is not to restrict the manner in which proposals are prepared, but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in proposal format for evaluation purposes. The proposal shall be prepared in a clear, legible, practical manner. Five separate volumes shall be submitted.

These volumes shall be self-contained and shall not be cross-referenced. Unless specifically requested, pricing information shall not be contained in any volume except the Price Volume. Proposals not structured IAW these instructions may be considered incomplete and may not be evaluated. The USG will not assume the duty to search for data or information to cure problems discovered in any proposal submitted. Offerors shall not specifically prepare samples or descriptive literature for submission with the proposal. Adherence to the prescribed formats will simplify the review process for the USG. The burden of providing complete and thorough information to address the elements below remains with the Offeror. Each volume shall have an introduction and table of contents. Each volume must be indexed and tabbed independently from all other volumes as detailed below:

L.3.1. Page Layout. Each page is defined as one sheet, one side. Excess pages will be removed from the back of each volume and will NOT be read or evaluated. Page limits do not prohibit the USG from requesting additional supporting data. Pages must be 8.5" x 11, and 12 point font or greater, Arial font, single-spaced, typed in black on white background (black on white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., company stationary and logos are acceptable). Font requirements apply to bullets and other special text formatting, including tables and graphic displays.

L.3.2. No classified material shall appear anywhere in the proposal. Proposals shall include:

L.3.2.1. Proposal submission in response to this RFP requires the executed signed copy of the RFP and all amendments and COMPLETE copies of Volumes I through V.

L.3.2.2. It is highly recommended that the Offeror requests a Return Receipt or other form of acknowledgment to verify that the proposal submission was received. A complete proposal MUST be received no later than the date and time specified in the RFP. Receipt means actual receipt by the individuals identified in this RFP, not merely receipt by the USG. Offerors shall submit proposals in a single submission prior to the closing date and time listed in the RFP. Offerors are responsible for verifying with the Contracting Officer and/or Contract Specialist to ensure that the proposal submitted has in fact been received. This must be done by the date/time set in the RFP for "Receipt of Offers". Failure to confirm receipt will result in the waiver of any argument of a proposal being submitted timely, but not delivered to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist. Any proposals, or partial proposals, received after the date and time set for submission may be considered late and treated as such IAW 15.208.

Note: Please note the maximum e-mail attachment size is 20MB and self- extracting .exe and .zip files are no longer accepted. All computer files shall be virus checked prior to submission. Offerors may be held financially liable for damage caused to the USG computer systems by any virus introduced during review of these submitted documents.

L.3.2.3. Files shall be in English. Digital MS Word files and MS Excel files shall be compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2013.

3 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

L.3.2.4. Proposal Limitation: Technical proposals shall not exceed 50 pages for the Technical Volume. Management proposals shall not exceed 50 pages for the Management Volume. Past Performance Summary shall not exceed 5 pages. Small Business Participation shall not exceed 15 pages. There is no page limit for the Price Volume.

L.3.2.5. Page Limit Does Not Include: The following areas which have their own page limitation which include: an introduction (maximum of three pages), and table of contents (No limitation the table of contents should list all of the topics in order by page numbers).

Page limits also do not include signed first page of the RFP, signed first page of amendments, Past Performance Questionnaires, Resumes, SAM/DSBS certifications, teaming arrangements, Contract Participation Matrix, letters of commitment, exhibits, tables, certificates, licenses, Memorandums of Agreement (MOA)s, coversheets, table of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked; This page intentionally left blank will not be counted. Anything else not specifically specified in this paragraph will be included in the page count.

L.5 Security Requirements (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Offerors must provide proof of a current U.S. Facility Clearance at the Secret level in accordance with DoDD 5220.22, National

Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This Secret level clearance requirement applies to the prime Contractor, subcontractors, and personnel that will perform on this contract. For those Offerors submitting a proposal as a newly formed partnerships, joint venture, or limited liability company, the requirement can be satisfied through the submittal of documentation evidencing the fact that at least one of the lead partners or member companies of the partnership currently possesses the required Facility Clearance. Offerors shall include the CAGE and DUNS codes for verification.

L.6 Volume I Factor I Technical Capability

L.6.1 Factor I: Technical Capability

The introduction shall consist of no more than three pages and shall provide a brief overview of the company. The Technical proposal shall describe the Offeror's understanding, processes, abilities, and experiences to successfully execute all requirements identified in the PWS.

L.6.1.1 Subfactor IA: Cybersecurity Technologies

The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe its technical experience and approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy and operations within a large organization.

L.6.1.2 Subfactor IB: DoD and Foreign National Systems Analysis

The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe its technical experience and approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to analysis performed on DoD and Foreign National Systems and its ability to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies moving forward.

L.7 Volume II Factor II Management Approach

The introduction shall consist of no more than three pages and shall provide a brief overview of the company's Management Approach. The

Offeror's Management Approach proposal shall include a comprehensive approach to successfully execute the mission requirements, comprised of two sub-factors as follows:

L.7.1 Subfactor IIA: Staffing Plan/Retention.

L.7.1.1.a. The Offeror shall define and describe its proposed management approach to meeting the PWS requirements, to include the procedures and processes. The plan shall describe the Offerors ability to plan, manage, control, and satisfy the PWS objectives and performance requirements. The Offeror shall describe its overall workload management plan. The plan shall describe how the Offeror will approach task requirements specified in the PWS, including the development of deliverables, and describe the Offeror's planned

"Chain of Command" for managing this effort. If a teaming, partnering or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, a full explanation of the relationship of the parties and responsibilities shall be included. Offerors shall submit a detailed Organizational Chart identifying the proposed structure for all proposed employees. The Offeror's corporate structure, on-site management team, and management approach, shall also be provided. The Offeror shall demonstrate how it has successfully managed day to day operations in a large diverse organization.

L.7.1.1.b. The Offeror's plan for recruitment and retention of personnel shall encompass all tasks identified in the PWS. The

Offeror's proposal should provide a high degree of confidence to the USG that the Offeror's plan for continuity demonstrates an ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets to support the requirements.

L.7.1.1.c. The Offeror's Certification and Training Plan shall demonstrate how it will ensure personnel are trained in and maintain mandatory certifications as outlined in DoDD 8570 (Information Assurance Training, Certification and Workforce Management, Dec. 2005) as well as certifications and training required within the IT specialty each contractor supports. The Offeror will show proof of certification and training for each contractor prior to placement on the contract. The Offeror's Training Plan must address how the

4 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

staff will maintain technical expertise, using a two-year window towards the future, to ensure that the staff can modify and enhance the unit's IT system baseline.

L.7.1.2. Subfactor IIB: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

L.7.1.2.a. The Offeror's QCP shall include a comprehensive, verifiable, and self-implementing approach for monitoring the Offeror's performance at each organization while ensuring that it does not require the USG to perform this assurance function. The Offeror shall provide the following:

L.7.1.2.b. Overall Approach - Submit a quality, relevant, and appropriate approach describing procedures, documentation, and methods for tracking the requirement objectives including communicating with the USG, handling corrective actions, and implementing improvements.

L.7.1.2.c. Performance Standard - Submit quality, relevant, appropriate, and innovative performance standards for meeting objectives.

L.7.1.2.d. Quality Assurance for Subcontractors - Demonstrate the effort-based relationship that will be established with each subcontractor. Describe how the subcontractor is assigned a unique 'land in the road' due to recognized expertise. The subcontractors' role in Quality Assurance should be included with the prime Contractor's proposal submission.

L.7.1.2.e. Measures and Metrics - The Plan shall describe how the Offeror will ensure quality of deliverables (e.g., what internal performance metrics will be used), to include the employment measures and metrics. Offeror shall propose measures and metrics that will provide obtainable goals to demonstrate that the quality and quantity being delivered are consistent with the requirements as set out in the PWS. The Offeror shall provide explanations of how measures and metrics will be employed to satisfy the PWS objectives in all functional areas. The final terms of the QCP will be negotiated with the USG post award. The Offeror's understanding of the requirements shall be demonstrated in the QCP.

L.8 Volume III Factor III Past Performance

L.8.1 Past Performance Data: Data submitted may represent either USG or commercial type contracts that are recent and relevant. If the

Offeror has no recent or relevant Past Performance, the Offeror shall state so. For the purpose of submitting proposals, "recency" is defined as a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. For this procurement, a "recent" contract is defined as occurring within the three years prior to the solicitation closing date. Relevant is defined as a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The maximum number of allowable contracts that an Offeror may submit for Past

Performance evaluation is three recent and relevant contracts. The USG will assess past performance information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the service/support effort, dollar value, contract type, and size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The USG reserves the right to eliminate any past performance reference information that is determined to be irrelevant to this acquisition, (i.e., not recent or relevant). In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Offeror may use past performance of current contracts (including Federal, State, local USG, and private) for efforts that are similar to the required services. The Offeror's past performance documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

a. Contract Number, Award Date, and Contract Type.

b. Price originally awarded and final price (or projected final, if contract is current).

c. Period of Performance (PoP)

d. Name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address for the following: Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO); Administrative

Contracting Officer (ACO); USG technical point of contact; Contracting Officer Representative (COR), or Commercial Technical

Representative.

e. A narrative description on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved.

f. Narrative explanation of why the contract is recent and relevant.

L.8.1.2 General Information: The burden of providing thorough, complete, and current information as requested in the above paragraph and within the solicitation remains with the Offeror. In the event that an Offeror has no past performance history, e.g., a new firm, the Offeror may submit past performance information for key personnel performance information, the Offeror should also include past performance information on major subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement, team members, partners, and other entities that comprise the proposal. The USG will consider past performance of subcontractors identified in the Offerors proposal when assessing the Offerors past performance.

L.9. Volume IV Factor IV Small Business Participation

5 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The Offeror shall demonstrate small business participation by detailing its proposed approach to meet the requirements under this factor by addressing the following two areas in their Small Business Participation proposal:

L.9(a) Proposed Small Business Participation in performance of the potential contract.

L.9(b) Commitment to Small Business

L.9.1 Definitions:

L.9.2 Participant, as used in this factor, includes the Offeror as well as any subcontractor.

L.9.2.1 Participation, as used in this factor, includes the work (dollars) performed by the Offeror, as well as the work (dollars) performed by subcontractors.

L.9.2.2 Recent, as used in this factor, is defined as any contract action where services or deliverables were performed or still being performed anytime within three (3) years of the issuance of this RFP.

L.9.2.3 Requirement, as used in the adjectival ratings for this factor, is defined as a small business participation plan that maximizes opportunities for small businesses.

L.9.3 Proposed Small Business Participation

L.9.3.1 The Offerors proposal shall include a completed Contract Participation Matrix, Attachment 0006. The Offeror shall populate every column on the Attachment 0006 for each participant. The Contract Participation Matrix shall identify:

L.9.3.2 Each proposed participant, including:

L.9.3.3 Full Company Name

L.9.3.4 CAGE Code each

L.9.3.4.1 Each Socio-Economic Category the participant qualifies for (Small Business (SB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service

Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically

Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business).

L.9.3.4.2 Total Dollars allocated to the participant

L.9.3.4.3 The total dollars proposed to each category (SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, and Other than Small Businesses).

L.9.3.5 The participation dollars (total dollars proposed to Small Businesses + total dollars proposed to Other than Small Businesses).

The total participation dollars shall equal the total evaluated price.

L.9.3.6 The percentage of participation (goal) for each socio-economic category.

L.9.3.7 Note: Small Business participation shall include total dollars allocated for the business in each category for which the business qualifies. For example, if the Offeror allocates $100 to a HUBZone-certified SDVOSB, the Offeror would include $100 in the SB category, $100 in the HUBZone category, $100 in the SDVOSB category, and $100 in the VOSB category.

L.9.4 The Offeror shall provide the written certification of size (either small or other than small) and socio-economic status for each small business subcontractor proposed for this procurement. The Offeror may, but is not required to, provide a copy of the System for

Award Management (SAM) certifications for clause 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations in lieu of written certifications.

However, for HUBZone certified subcontractors, the Offeror shall provide evidence of HUBZone certification using one of the methods in

FAR clause 52.219-8(d)(2). The written certifications shall match the size and socio-economic status identified in the Contract

Participation Matrix for each subcontractor.

L.9.5 Commitment to Small Business

L.9.5.1 The Offerors proposal shall also provide evidence supporting the Offerors commitment to small business.

L.9.5.1.1 The Offeror shall provide information on its historical small business participation. This information shall address:

L.9.5.1.1.1 Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (when required on recent contracts). This shall include procedures established to ensure timely payments to small business subcontractors. This clause is normally in most Federal contracts, and is also applicable to small businesses. If not required in any recent and relevant contracts, 6 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the Offeror shall so state. The offeror is not required to specifically address each recent contract, and can simply provide evidence that shows the organization's commitment to compliance with the clause.

L.9.5.1.1.2 Compliance with terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting plan (when required on recent contracts). If not required in any recent contracts, the Offeror shall so state. The offeror is not required to specifically address each recent contract, and can simply provide evidence that shows the organization's commitment to compliance with the clause.

L.9.5.1.1.3 Actual small business utilization compared to small business participation goals identified in the approved subcontracting plan for a minimum of 3, but no more than 5 recent contracts that included a subcontracting plan. Offerors shall identify the date of the last Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR). Offerors shall address achievement on each individual goal stated within the subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved. If not required in any recent contracts, the offeror shall so state. If the offeror has less than three recent contracts, the offeror shall provide the most recent ISR for each contract it has, and state that the offeror does not have three recent contracts.

L.9.6 The Offeror shall submit documentation that demonstrates a commitment to small business. The documentation may include bilateral teaming arrangements, an explanation of internal controls/documentation/systems, or any other documentation that demonstrates a commitment to small business. The Offerors submission must explain how the documentation demonstrates a commitment to small business.

Lack of documentation may be viewed as the Offeror not having a strong commitment to small business.

L.9.6.1 Note for Other than Small Business ONLY. Separate from Small Business Participation, Other than Small Business Offerors shall also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required by FAR 19.7 (FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan). The

Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be consistent with proposed Small Business Participation. The subcontracting plan shall be submitted in Volume 2, not this Volume.

L.10. Volume V Factor V Price

L.10.1. Offerors shall submit their proposals using the Price Matrix, Attachment 0003. Failure to propose prices for all yellow highlighted cells may result in the Offerors proposal being considered unacceptable and ineligible for award.

L.10.2. Offerors shall completely fill out the Price Matrix, Attachment 0003, by entering the required information in the yellow highlighted cells. Gray shaded cells represent totals or USG-developed surrogates; no action is required by Offerors in relation to gray shaded cells.

L.10.3. All prices for this acquisition shall be stated in U.S. dollars, rounded and displayed to two decimal points.

L.10.4. Price proposals are assumed to represent the Offeror's best efforts, as final proposal revisions may not be requested. Any additional information considered necessary to explain the proposed pricing shall be submitted at the time of proposal submission.

L.10.5. Certified Cost or Pricing Data/Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data The USG anticipates receiving competitive proposals and using competition to determine price reasonableness. However, the USG reserves the right to request certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data necessary to determine price reasonableness if competition is not adequate for that purpose. Certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data, if required, must be submitted in accordance with the instructions specified at FAR 15.403-5.

L.10.6. The Price Matrix has been locked to prevent inadvertent changes. Offerors shall not alter the Price Matrix in any way. If an

Offeror changes the price matrix, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Price Matrix shall be completed as follows:

L.10.6.1. Summary Total Proposed Tab

Offerors shall complete the Summary Total Proposed Price tab by entering its name in the yellow highlighted cell. The remaining cells on the Summary Total Proposed Price tab are linked to total in other areas of the Price Matrix, which allows this tab to act as a summary of the proposal.

L.10.6.2. Phase In/Phase Out, Base Year, and all Option Year Tabs

Offerors shall enter amounts into all cells highlighted yellow on the Phase In/Phase Out, Base Year, and all Option Year tabs.

L.10.6.3. Signed proposals must indicate the total price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The USG has provided surrogate dollar amounts for travel and other direct costs (cost reimbursable) for evaluation purposes only in the Price Matrix. The Offeror shall not change these dollar amounts.

L.10.7. Price Information: All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

L.10.8. The price factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair

7 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

and reasonable. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. The price proposals will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

L.10.9. Option to Extend Services The USG will include an estimate for the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 in the

TEP. For evaluation purposes, the extension will be calculated as one-half of the Offerors evaluated price for the Option Period 4 and is included on the Summary tab of the Price Matrix.

L.10.10. Unbalanced Pricing As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

*** END OF NARRATIVE L0001 ***

8 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD_______________________________________

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This acquisition will use formal source selection processes and techniques IAW Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.1, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2011; and the Army Source Selection Supplement to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated 21 December 2012. Award will be made using a Best Value Continuum Tradeoff

Process authorized at FAR 15.101-1 as described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Technical

Capability, Management Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price. Security Requirements will be evaluated prior to the factors given above, based on an acceptable/unacceptable rating. If an Offeror is determined to be unacceptable in the

Security Requirements portion, the Offeror will no longer be considered for award. The Security Factor will be evaluated upon receipt of proposals. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an award to the responsible Contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the USG considering price and non-price factors with relative importance assigned to each in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.105. This may result in an award to other than the lowest-priced Offeror. The USG intends to award without discussions, however, the USG reserves the right to conduct discussions should the need be necessary.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. ACC-RI intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract with Cost Reimbursable travel and other direct cost CLINs. The USG reserves the right to set a competitive range and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the USG. An award under this RFP in no way obligates the USG to any additional funds or additional option years.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the PCO may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS. The USG will review the completed proposals and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. Evaluation of the proposals submitted shall address each factor and subfactor as it applies to the PWS. During evaluations of each proposal, the USG will assign each factor and subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L IAW the relative importance detailed below for the following factors and subfactors:

SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

VOLUME I TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Subfactor IA Cybersecurity Technologies

Subfactor IB DoD and Foreign National Systems analysis

VOLUME II MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Subfactor IIA Staffing Plan/Retention

Subfactor IIB Quality Control Plan (QCP)

VOLUME III PAST PERFORMANCE

VOLUME IV - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

VOLUME V PRICE

M.6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. The USG assigns the following order of importance:

M.6.1. The five (5) evaluation factors will be rated as follows: Security Requirements will either be acceptable or unacceptable. If an Offeror is found unacceptable in the Security Requirements portion, its proposal will not be further evaluated nor will that Offeror be considered for award. Technical Capability is significantly more important than Management Approach. Management Approach is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is significantly more important than Small Business Participation.

Small Business Participation is significantly more important than Price. A rating of unacceptable in any single factor/subfactor will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.6.2. The subfactors IA and IB under the Technical Capability Factor are of equal importance. A Technical Capability Factor rating will be assigned as a combination of the subfactors' individual ratings.

M.6.3. The subfactors IIA and IIB under the Management Approach Factor are of equal importance. A Management Approach Factor rating will be assigned as a combination of the subfactors' individual ratings.

9 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB of

USG personnel. Evaluators may use information in any Volume within the proposal submission to complete a crosswalk.

M.8. EVALUATION RATINGS. The USG will evaluate the Technical Capability Factor and Management Approach Factor and Subfactors using the following adjectival scale:

Rating

Outstanding - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good - Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

M.8.1. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed as follows:

Rating

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

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

Weakness - Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness - In the proposal there is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a USG 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.

IAW FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 15.306(d), Evaluation Notices will be used to document each significant weakness, weakness and/or deficiency identified during evaluations.

M.9. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The USG will evaluate proof of a current U.S. Facility Clearance at the Secret level IAW DoDD 5220.22, National Industrial Security

Program Operating Manual. This Secret level clearance requirement applies to the prime Contractor, subcontractors, and personnel that will perform on this contract. For those Offerors submitting a proposal as a newly formed partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company, the requirement can be satisfied through the submittal of documentation evidencing the fact that at least one of the lead partners or member companies of the partnership currently possesses the required Facility Clearance. Offerors shall include the

CAGE and DUNS codes for verification. The Security Requirement will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Vendors that are determined to be unacceptable will not be further evaluated nor will that Offeror be considered for award.

M.10. VOLUME I TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Technical Capability Factor will be evaluated to determine the extent that the Offeror understands the USGs requirements, the technical quality of the proposed approach, and the Offerors ability to fulfill the requirements of the PWS and meet the performance criteria. The evaluation of this factor will include examination of the Offerors proposed technical capability plan, knowledge of Army requirements, as well as application of industry standards and best practices. In evaluating the Offerors Technical Capability proposal, the USG will review each subfactor to determine how well the proposal shows the following:

M.10.1. Understanding of the Requirements: The USG will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to be satisfied. The USG will evaluate the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed. The

USG will evaluate the Offerors submission to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a logical and effective approach for providing the personnel and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements.

10 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.10.2. Completeness / Adequacy of Response: The USG will evaluate the extent to which the proposal adequately and completely considers, defines, and satisfies the PWS and other requirements specified in Section L. The USG will evaluate the extent to which each requirement of the RFP has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal instructions in the RFP. Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the requirements without a complete discussion and analysis is unsatisfactory.

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L. The USG will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the three subfactors:

M.10.3. Subfactor IA: Cybersecurity Technologies

The USG will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach addressing cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy, and operations in a large diverse organization.

M.10.4. Subfactor IB: DoD and Foreign National Systems Analysis

The USG will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach on how analysis for the DoD and Foreign National systems will be conducted.

M.11. VOLUME II MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The USG will evaluate the Offerors proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound and well-developed Management

Approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality-based manner. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offerors approach facilitates the ability to meet changing requirements in the dynamic environment of Army programs.

M.11.1. Subfactor IIA: Staffing Plan/Retention

The USG will evaluate the Offerors proposed Staffing Approach Plan to determine if the Offeror demonstrates a management approach methodology for successful performance of the requirements in the PWS. The Plan will be evaluated to determine the Offerors ability to provide a sound management approach and a thorough understanding of the actions, and procedures required to meet the all the requirements in accordance with the PWS.

M.11.1.a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's proposed management approach to meeting the PWS requirements, to include the procedures and processes. The plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror's ability to plan, manage, control, and satisfy the PWS objectives and performance requirements. The Offeror shall describe its overall workload management plan. The USG will evaluate how the Offeror will approach task requirements specified in the PWS, including the development of deliverables, and describe the Offeror's planned

"Chain of Command" for managing this effort. If a teaming, partnering or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, a full explanation of the relationship of the parties and responsibilities will be evaluated. The USG will evaluate the Offerors detailed Organization Chart identifying the proposed structure for all proposed employees, the Offeror's corporate structure, on-site management team, and management approach. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's plan on how it has managed day to day operations in a large diverse organization.

M.11.1.b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's plan for recruitment and retention of personnel encompassing all tasks identified in the

PWS. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's plan for continuity demonstrating an ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets to support the requirements.

M.11.1.c. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's Certification and Training Plan ensuring personnel are trained in, maintain, and retain mandatory certifications as outline in DoDD 8570 (Information Assurance Training, Certification and Workforce Management, Dec. 2005) as well as certifications and training required within the IT specialty each contractor supports. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's proof of certification and training for each contractor prior to placement on the contract. The USG will evaluate how the Offeror's

Training Plan addresses how the staff will maintain technical expertise, using a two-year window towards the future, to ensure that the staff can modify and enhance the unit's IT system baseline.

M.11.2. Subfactor IIB: Quality Control Plan

The USG will evaluate the Offeror's proposed QCP for its completeness and responsiveness to the USG's requirement, specifically the

Offeror's understanding of the necessary tasks and implementation requirements as they relate to the USGs Quality Assurance Surveillance

Plan.

M.11.2.a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's QCP for its comprehensive, verifiable, and self-implementing approach for monitoring the

Offeror's performance at each organization.

M.11.2.b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's overall approach for its quality, relevance, and appropriate approach describing procedures, documentation, and methods for tracking the requirement objectives including communication with the USG, handling of corrective actions, and implementing improvements.

M.11.2.c. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's performance standard for its quality, relevance, appropriate, and innovative of standards for meeting objectives.

M.11.2.d. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's Quality Assurance for Subcontracting demonstrating the effort-based relationship that will be established with each subcontractor. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's approach in assigning a subcontractor a unique "lane in the

11 15

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

road" due to recognized expertise. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's approach in detailing the subcontractors' role in Quality

Assurance included in the prime Contractor's proposal submission.

M.11.2.e. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's proposed measures and metrics ensuring the quality of deliverables and how the Offeror will provide obtainable goals to demonstrate that the quality and quantity being delivered are consistent with the PWS requirements.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror's explanations of how measures and metrics will be employed to satisfy the PWS objectives in all functional areas. The USG will evaluate the Offeror's final terms of the QCP and the Offeror's understanding of the requirements being demonstrated in the QCP.

M.12. VOLUME III PAST PERFORMANCE

M.12.1. The USG may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts or task orders performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge. The USG may review the Offerors current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreements. The USG is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror.

M.12.2. The USG may use 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 and problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. A negative finding in any element could result in a lower past performance rating.

M.12.3. The USG will focus its inquiries on the record of performance as it relates to all RFP requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offerors overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an unknown, confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The USG may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to, data in USG files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or

Local USG, or commercial contracts for same or similar services. The USG may consider the source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and corrective actions. The USG is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L.

M.12.4. Recent contract are defined as follows:

- occurring within the three years prior to the solicitation closing date.

M.12.5. In evaluating the past performance factor, the USG shall consider each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and performance confidence assessment.

M.12.5.1. RELEVANCY

The USG will evaluate the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.