W52P1J16R0157-0003.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 2017JAN10

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

ANNA E. WELKER

EMAIL: ANNA.E.WELKER.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-16-R-0157

2016SEP30

X

X 2017JAN13 04:30pm

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 10

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: ANNA E. WELKER

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRC-FB/(309)782-8366

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0003 to Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0157 is to reduce the Past Performance Annual Average Dollar Value (AADV) thresholds for determining if a reference is similar in magnitude and complexity to the Rock Island Arsenal Task Order. See below for the changes made in Section M.

1) Revise Section M.5.2.8(c)(ii) and M.5.2.8(c)(iii) that originally read:

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

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

Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $1M average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $200K average annually

Supply: Offeror Reference - $1.2M average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $240K average annually

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $1M average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $200K average annually

Total $3.2M average annually

M.5.2.8(c)(iii) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the relevant functional areas contained in a contract reference and apply the minimum applicable threshold. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $3.2M 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 $2.2M for the reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

Revision to Section M.5.2.8(c)(ii) and M.5.2.8(c)(iii) now reads:

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

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

Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $500K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $100K average annually

Supply: Offeror Reference - $600K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $120K average annually

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $500K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $100K average annually

Total $1.6M average annually

M.5.2.8(c)(iii) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the relevant functional areas contained in a contract reference and apply the minimum applicable threshold. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $1.6M 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 $1.1M for the reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

2) As a result of this amendment the closing date is 4:30 pm Central 13 January 2017. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 10

W52P1J-16-R-0157 0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS OF AWARD:

M.1(a) 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 must be explained in the proposal. For example, if the use of new and innovative techniques is intended, the impact on cost must 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 a 60 day transition, 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. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

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

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

4.

M.1.1.3 NOT APPLICABLE

M.1.1.4 A review of the Offerors property management plan will be conducted to determine the acceptability of the Offerors approach to satisfy the outcomes listed in FAR 52.245-1(f)(1) and the net-centric electronic approach to GFP traceability.

M.1.2 The Government reserves the right to award no task order at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds. An award under this RFP in no way compels the Government to obligate additional dollars or additional option year periods.

M.2 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.

The Government reserves the right to: waive the strict compliance review, 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:

M.3.1 Listing of Total Proposed Prices. All timely offers will be listed according to the total proposed price (labeled as Total

Proposed Price in Attachment 0005 Cost/Price Matrix) from lowest total proposed price to highest total proposed price. A cost/price analysis will not be completed prior to listing by total proposed price.

M.3.2 Strict Compliance Review. Proposals will be reviewed to determine if all compliance requirements set forth in Section L are satisfied. The Government will conduct the strict compliance review starting with the lowest total proposed priced offer to the highest total proposed priced offer, until at least five (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.

M.3.2.1 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 non-compliant per paragraphs M.3.2.1.1 through

M.3.2.1.3 below, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. The compliance review will also include the

3 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

following:

M.3.2.1.1 NOT APPLICABLE

M.3.2.1.2 The Government will verify that the Offeror's proposal includes approved Teammates by comparing the Offeror's Teaming Matrix

(Attachment 0005, Tab 2) 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. If an Offeror is required to propose itself ____________________________________________ and/or approved Teammates in any of the three functional areas (i.e. Maintenance, Supply, Transportation) and it lists a company that is_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ not an approved Teammate by the closing date of this RFP, its proposal shall be rendered non-compliant. Non-compliant proposals will______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award.______________________________________________________________

M.3.2.1.3 The Government will verify the Offeror's Option Period Total Proposed Functional Labor Category 1 (FLC1) hours, on its

Attachment 0002 - Staffing Labor Mix, are equal to or greater than the total minimum FLC1 hours, indicated in Exhibit A TE 5-001 M-S-T

Minimum Functional Labor Category 1 Hours, by Functional Area. The minimum hours for this effort are: Maintenance 18,944, Supply

1,904, and Transportation 20,608 as provided in Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-0001 Minimum Functional Labor Category 1 Hours. See

L.5.2.1.1(c)(5)(ii).

M.3.2.1.3(a) 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 proposed Option Period Total Proposed FLC1 Hours by Functional Area (i.e. Maintenance, Supply, Transportation), the Government will:

M.3.2.1.3(a)(1) 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

M.3.2.1.3(a)(2) Multiply the rounded number of proposed FLC1 FTEs for all FLC1 Labor Categories by the applicable Offeror-provided number of hours per year by employee type for Option Periods 1-4.

M.3.2.1.3(b) If the FLC1 hours contained in the Offeror's Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix are not equal to or greater than the _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ minimum FLC1 hours for each Functional Area (i.e., Maintenance, Supply, Transportation) identified in Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-0001________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Functional Labor Category 1 Hours, the Offeror's proposal shall be rendered non-compliant and will not be evaluated nor further________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ considered for award. The Offeror must satisfy the minimum FLC1 hours requirement as stated in this RFP without exception._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

M.3.2.1.3(c) If the FLC1 hours calculated from the Offeror's Attachment 0002 - Staffing/Labor Mix are equal to or are greater than:

Maintenance 18,944, Supply 1,904, and Transportation 20,608 as provided in Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-0001 Functional Labor Category 1

Hours, 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.

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

M.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

M.4.1 This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors will be evaluated against three evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment by assigning confidence ratings. Cost/Price will be an evaluated factor; however it will not be rated. The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor. 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. The Government will pursue the following evaluation approach in support of an award decision:

STEP 1: Technical Factor Evaluations. The Technical Volumes will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis in accordance with the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below. The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals of the first five (5) or 20% of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria. The Technical evaluations will continue 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.

Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with M.4.4 as set forth below if the Contracting

Officer determines that discussions would be advantageous to the Government.

STEP 2: Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price Factor Evaluations. All compliant proposals that are determined Technically Acceptable at Step 1 will be evaluated for Past Performance and Cost/Price 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 price reasonableness. It will not be assigned a rating.

4 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

c. Not Applicable

d. All proposals which are determined to have Substantial Confidence in Past Performance, with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price, will move to Step 3.

e. If there are less than two (2) proposals found to have a Substantial Confidence rating in past Performance, with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price, the Government will then 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) proposals eligible to receive an award. [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.]

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

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 priced proposal that is determined to be

Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. However, if all Offerors were assessed to have other than

Substantial Confidence in Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to award to an Offeror with other than a Substantial

Confidence rating in Past Performance. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will consider all factors and make a best value award decision.

M.4.2 Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Contents of written proposals and written responses to Evaluation Notices (if applicable) will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the

RFP are satisfied. No assumptions will be made by Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror's written proposal.

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. 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.

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

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

M.4.4.3 IF AND ONLY IF discussions are conducted, 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 and Cost/Price evaluations identified in STEP 2 above.

M.4.4.4 IF AND ONLY IF discussions are conducted in Step 2, upon completion of the Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price Factor evaluations, the Government will make a competitive range determination, in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment by assigning confidence ratings. The Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated for price reasonableness and cost realism, but it will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Only highly rated proposals or proposals not requiring a major rewrite will remain in the competitive range. Discussions will be held with all Offerors remaining in the competitive range.

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. In order to receive an overall Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor, an Acceptable rating must

5 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

be received on all of 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 be Technically Acceptable in order to be considered for award. Offers determined Technically Unacceptable will not be considered for award.

M.5.1.2 Staffing and Management Plan (SMP): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's SMP (to include the use of appropriate descriptions for all labor categories proposed that are not contained in the Attachment 0008 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), SCA

Directory or TE 1-G-005 Key & Specified Non-Key Positions, in order to determine if the Offeror's proposal adequately details a realistic and feasible approach to deliver services required in the PWS, provided Technical Exhibits, and Attachments 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.

Offerors management structure demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements related to executing the program by proposing adequate management and supervision of the effort.

M.5.1.2(b) Flexible Staffing Approach: The Offeror adequately demonstrates its ability to effectively and efficiently support short term fluctuations in effort (increase/decrease), long-term increase to workload, and long-term decrease to the effort by providing an approach that addresses:

M.5.1.2(b)(i) A realistic and feasible cross-utilization / temporary reallocation approach that effectively and efficiently makes use of existing staffing to better support short term requirement changes; provides better and more timely support; and reduces cost through more efficient staffing. Cross utilization adequately addresses a realistic and feasible approach that ensures safety, training, and certification requirements are met and does not impact or appear to impact quality of the effort.

M.5.1.2(b)(ii) A realistic and feasible approach to rapidly increase staffing during surges in effort addressing both long-term and short-term increases in workload where cross-utilization or temporary reallocation is not appropriate.

M.5.1.2(b)(iii) A realistic and feasible approach to effectively and efficiently reduce staffing to levels commensurate with decreased requirements during periods of protracted reductions in workload.

M.5.1.2(c) Transition-in Approach: The Offeror provides its time-phased approach to transitioning-in the effort from Notice to Proceed

(NTP) to successfully reaching a fully operational capability (FOC), within the time indicated at M.1.1 that adequately addresses:

M.5.1.2(c)(1) A realistic and feasible approach to ensure open communication with the incumbent contractor and the Government to include timely periodic meetings documenting progress of transition (i.e., GFP/GFE inventories, hiring actions).

M.5.1.2(c)(2) A realistic and feasible approach to proper and timely hiring actions which include: pre-employment drug screening;

qualification verification; requisition and issuance of contractor Common Access Cards (CAC) and access badges (as required); and processing of required security clearances (as required); while ensuring no impact to current operations.

M.5.1.2(c)(3) A realistic and feasible approach to the proper and timely assumption of accountability of GFP / GFE that includes properly conducting a joint inventory, to include reconciliation (prior to end of transition), with incumbent contractor while ensuring no impact to current operations.

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

Note: For Technical evaluation purposes only, the Government will utilize the labor category definitions provided in the Attachment 0008

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition) and TE1-G-005 Key & Specified Non-Key Positions, or

Offeror provided definitions to determine if the proposed labor category is consistent with the task(s) proposed. A cross-walk between the CBA and the SCA is provided in Attachment 0017.

6 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.5.1.2(d)(i) Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the effort by providing appropriate staffing that is realistic and feasible to successfully perform all of the PWS requirements. Staffing levels support workload requirements identified at Exhibit A TE 1 M-S-T-001

Minimum Functional Labor Category 1 Hours for both the base period and option periods (fully operational capable 12-month / 365 day periods)

M.5.1.2(d)(ii) Properly proposes and identifies the required Key and Specified Non-Key positions as instructed at L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(i).

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

Offeror's proposed plan adequately details a realistic approach as to how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 0013 - Mission Essential Contractor Services. The proposed MECS Plan must specifically address each part of the

DFARS 252.237-7024 (b)(2)(i through v).

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

M.5.1.4(a) Adequately identifies the tasks to be performed by the Offeror, all proposed teammate(s) and proposed subcontractor(s) expected to perform 20% or more of the Offerors total estimated dollar value as found in column F of the Offerors Teaming Matrix

(Attachment 0005, Tab 2).

M.5.1.4(b) Adequately identifies all of the command and control relationships among the Offeror, all proposed teammate(s) and proposed subcontractor(s) expected to perform 20% or more of the Offerors total estimated dollar value as found in column F of the Offerors

Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2). Adequately identifies leadership positions (e.g., team leads, foremen, supervisors, deputies, managers) 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 and will not be evaluated as part of the Organizational Diagram.

M.5.2 Past Performance Factor:

M.5.2(a) Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance."

M.5.2(b) Definitions:

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

M.5.2.1 The Government will assess the contract references provided in the Offeror's BOA proposal, the BOA annual review process, and task order proposals to date, data calls, 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 Subcontractor that is expected to perform 20% or more of the total value of column F in the Offerors Teaming

Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2) for this effort. The Government will confirm a proposed Teammate and Subcontractor is expected to perform 20% or more of the total value by referring to column F of the Offerors Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2).

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 Subcontractors, 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 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 Subcontractor(s).

M.5.2.2(b) The Offeror's, its Teammate(s) or its 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

7 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

disclosed to the Government by the Offeror. It may also use any past performance that occurs after the RFP closing date and prior to award. The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors.

M.5.2.5 The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. An adverse finding in any element or a lack of relevant data 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. Past performance for parent/sister companies or other corporate entities may be evaluated only if these companies or entities are listed as approved teammates or subcontractors on the Offerors Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2) and are expected to perform 20% or more of the total value of column F in the Offerors Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2).

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, regardless of the award date.

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

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

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

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

M.5.2.8(c)(i) In order to determine if a reference is similar in scope to the Rock Island Arsennal Task Order, the reference must have demonstrated similar experience, to the Rock Island Arsenal 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 Rock Island Arsenal Task Order, the

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

Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $500K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $100K average annually

Supply: Offeror Reference - $600K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $120K average annually

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $500K average annually; Subcontractor/ Teammate Reference - $100K average annually

Total $1.6M average annually

M.5.2.8(c)(iii) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the relevant functional areas contained in a contract reference and apply the minimum applicable threshold. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $1.6M 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 $1.1M for the reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

M.5.2.8(c)(iii)(1) Please note that for Joint Ventures (JVs), Past Performance references need not be performed by the JV itself.

References for efforts performed by one or more of the entities comprising the JV, that are otherwise determined as recent and relevant, will be considered when evaluating the JV's past performance. In determining relevancy the reference must meet the thresholds for magnitude and complexity applicable for the Offeror.

M.5.2.9 Performance Confidence. Based on an assessment of all of the recent, relevant past performance information identified, the

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

M.5.2.9(a) Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation ______________________

8 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.2.9(b) Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable _______________________ expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.2.9(c) Limited Confidence: Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the __________________

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.2.9(d) No Confidence: Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror _____________ will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.2.9(e) Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so ______________________________ sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.5.3 Cost/Price Factor:

M.5.3.1 The total evaluated price will be the total of the Offeror's submitted cost/price proposal as detailed in Attachment 0005 Cost

Price Matrix plus any Government identified probable cost adjustments as determined in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost Realism

Analysis. Cost/Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Firm Fixed Price and Cost Proposals will be evaluated for cost realism and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

M.5.3.2 Cost Realism Analysis. Cost Realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the

Offeror's proposed cost elements to determine the following: whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic and feasible for the work to be performed; whether the proposed cost elements reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and whether the proposed cost elements are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Technical Proposal. Cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is likely to result from the Offeror's proposal.

M.5.3.2.1 The Government will evaluate proposals for Cost Realism. Offerors are cautioned that the Government has concerns with the potential for post-award performance problems if Offerors propose unrealistically low costs. Therefore, the Government reserves the option of rejecting a proposal if, in the exercise of its judgement, it determines that an Offerors cost proposal is unrealistically low, regardless of technical merit and/or evaluated costs. The magnitude of any necessary and appropriate most probable cost (MPC) adjustments may be taken into consideration. For example, if as a result of the Cost Realism analysis it becomes clear to the

Government that any necessary upward MPC adjustments are so substantial that they present an unacceptable risk (notwithstanding an assessed rating of acceptable under the technical factor), the proposal may be rejected and not further considered for award.

Therefore, failure of the Offeror to establish the credibility of its proposed costs may result in a MPC adjustment being made to the costs proposed, and/or the proposal being rejected as unrealistically low and not further considered for award.

M.5.3.3 Capped Rates.

M.5.3.3(a) Indirect Rates: If the Offeror's or Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s)' proposals include indirect expense rates not fully supported, those rates will be capped at the proposed rates for evaluation purposes and contract execution. By submitting a proposal for this task order, the Offeror and Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s) understand and accept that the Government will cap any indirect expense rates not fully supported at the proposed rates. An Offeror or Teammate/Subcontractor that takes exception to this requirement will be deemed unacceptable and will not be further considered for award. The Offeror and Teammate/Subcontractor capped rates will be included in the contract award.

M.5.3.3(b) Fee Rates: The Offeror's fee rate will be capped as proposed for contract execution.

M.5.3.4 Teammate/Subcontractor Proposal Consistency. If a Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s) detailed cost proposal differs from the pricing that the Offeror includes in its proposal, the Teammate(s)/Subcontractor(s) detailed cost proposal will take precedence and may result in an adjustment to the Offeror's proposal.

M.5.3.5 Evaluation of Option to Extend Services. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend

Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding one-half of the Offeror's final option period price to the Offeror's total price.

Therefore, the Offeror's total evaluated price will include the prices for the base period, first option period, second option period, third option period, fourth option period, plus one-half of the fourth option period price.

M.5.3.6 The Government will review the Offeror and Teammate/Subcontractors cross-walk(s) of all proposed labor categories subject to the SCA and/or CBA to the corresponding labor categories and/or occupation codes in either the Attachment 0007 - Department of Labor

Wage Determination (DOL WD) or the Attachment 0008 - Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to ensure proposed labor rates are in accordance with the SCA and/or CBA.

M.5.3.7 Unbalanced Pricing. As part of the cost/price evaluation, proposals will be reviewed to identify any potential Unbalanced

9 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 to the Government.

M.5.3.8 Sources. The methods of evaluation noted above may include the use of information from sources such as, but not limited to, the DCAA and the DCMA.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

10 10