W52P1J-20-R-0050 Amendment 0001 - 26 March 2021.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

0001 2021MAR26

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

KATHERINE CRAWFORD

EMAIL: KATHERINE.E.CRAWFORD.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-20-R-0050

2021MAR04

X

X 2021APR12 04:30pm

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 11

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: KATHERINE CRAWFORD

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRI-QH/(309)782-8746

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Type of Contract 2: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to Solicitation W52P1J-20-R-0050 is as follows:

1. Update Section J, Attachments and Exhibits, as follows:

a. Revise Exhibit A - Technical Data Portfolio - dated 08 March 2021 to update TD-01 Historical Workload. All other TDs in the portfolio remain unchanged.

b. Revise Attachment 0001 - Performance Work Statement - dated 24 March 2021

(1) Revise PWS paragraphs 1.1, 1.3.2.4, 1.4.6.1, 1.4.6.2, 1.4.8, 1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.5, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.10.2.1, 1.10.6.2.

(2) Incorporate PWS paragraph 1.3.2.8.

c. Revise Attachment 0002 - Staffing and Labor Mix - dated 11 March 2021

d. Revise Attachment 0005 - Cost/Price Matrix - dated 18 March 2021

e. Revise Attachment 0007 - DOL Wage Determination to incorporate Revision 12 - dated 21 December 2020

2. Revise Section L to delete clause 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

3. Revise paragraph M.4.1, STEP 2, e. from:

"If there are less than two proposals found to have a Substantial Confidence rating in past Performance with a realistic cost, the

Government will then complete the strict compliance review of the next lowest total proposed priced proposal(s) IAW paragraph M.3 and will proceed to Step 1 to evaluate technical acceptability until there are 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.]" to:

"If there are less than two (2) proposals found to have both a Substantial Confidence rating in past Performance with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror for past performance and cost/price until there are 2 proposals with both a Substantial Confidence rating in Past

Performance with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price. [Note: If there are no additional technical proposals left to evaluate at Step 1, the Government may proceed as indicated in M.4.4 below or may move forward to Step 3.]"

4. Extend the closing date and time of this solicitation from 5 April 2021 at 4:30 PM CT to 12 April 2021 at 4:30 PM CT.

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0002 ***

2 11

W52P1J-20-R-0050

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Number List of Number

Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________

Exhibit A TECHNICAL DATA PORTFOLIO 08-MAR-2021 011

Attachment 0001 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) PORTFOLIO 24-MAR-2021 064

Attachment 0002 STAFFING & LABOR MIX 11-MAR-2021 001

Attachment 0005 COST/PRICE MATRIX 18-MAR-2021 001

Attachment 0007 DOL WAGE DETERMINATION 21-DEC-2020 022

3 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Status Regulatory Cite Title Date Status Regulatory Cite Title Date _______ _______________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________ _______ _______________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________

L-1 DELETED 52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES FEB/1993

4 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS OF AWARD:

M.1.1 The Government expects to award a single combination Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm-Fixed Price (Transition-In CLIN and PMO CLINs only) task order with 1, 12-month base period, to include a 30 day transition, and 4, 1 year evaluated option periods as a result of this

RFP. The Government will only evaluate proposals from Offerors that are certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA program IAW FAR Part 19. Prior to award, the SBA will confirm the eligibility of the apparent successful

Offeror to receive the contract award. The Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance. The responsibility determination shall include the following:

M.1.1.1 A review of the Offerors accounting system IAW 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 Subcontractor(s) with the requirements of FAR 9.104-4.

M.1.1.3 An evaluation of the Offeror's DoD Pre-Award Safety Responsibility to ensure the ability to comply with the contract safety requirements IAW DFARS Clause 252.223-7002, Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives, Clause 252.223-7003, Change in Place of

Performance Ammunition and Explosives and paragraph 5.22 of the PWS.

M.1.1.4 Mission Essential Contractor Services (MECS): The Government will evaluate the Offeror's MECS Plan by determining if the

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

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

M.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Government reserves the right to: waive the strict compliance review, limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency;

conduct discussions; and make no award should no offer prove to be acceptable based on the criteria set forth in this RFP. The

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.3.2 Strict Compliance Review. Proposals will be reviewed to determine if all compliance requirements set forth in Section L are satisfied. The Government will conduct the strict compliance review starting with the lowest total proposed priced offer to the highest total proposed priced offer, until at least 5 or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be compliant. Note that initially only the pool of 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 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.3.2.1.2(c) below, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. The compliance review will also include the following:

5 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.3.2.1.1 The Government will verify that the Offeror and any other entity so designated on Tab 2 of Attachment 0005 possess a SECRET

Facility Clearance at the time of the RFP closing date. The verification will be performed via the DSS ISFD. The SECRET Facility

Clearance must be issued for the specific CAGE code referenced on Attachment 0005, Tab 2. If the CAGE code noted on Tab 2 of Attachment ______________________________________________

0005 for any entity designated as Yes does not in fact possess a SECRET Facility Clearance, the Offeror will be found non-compliant.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Offerors proposal will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award._________________________________________________________________________________________

M.3.2.1.2 RESERVED

M.3.2.1.2(a) RESERVED

M.3.2.1.2(a)(1) RESERVED

M.3.2.1.2(a)(2) RESERVED

M.3.2.1.2(b) RESERVED

M.3.2.1.2(c) RESERVED

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. 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 IAW the criteria detailed in "EVALUATION CRITERIA" in Section M.5 below. The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals of the first 5 or 20% of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria. The Technical evaluations will continue until 5 or 20% of the proposals (whichever is greater) are determined to be technically acceptable. Note that only the three lowest proposed priced compliant offerors determined technically acceptable will move to Step 2. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions IAW M.4.4 as set forth below if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions would be advantageous to the Government.

STEP 2: Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price Factor Evaluations. The lowest three total proposed price (labeled as Total Proposed

Price in Attachment 0005 Cost/Price Matrix) compliant proposals that are determined Technically Acceptable at Step 1 will be evaluated for Past Performance and Cost/PriceIAW the criteria detailed in Section M.5 below.

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

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

c. NOT APPLICABLE.

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

e. If there are less than two (2) proposals found to have both a Substantial Confidence rating in past Performance with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror for past performance and cost/price until there are 2 proposals with both a Substantial Confidence rating in Past Performance with a realistic cost and a fair and reasonable evaluated price. [Note: If there are no additional technical proposals left to evaluate at

Step 1, the Government may proceed as indicated in M.4.4 below or may move forward to Step 3.]

f. The Government reserves the right to simultaneously evaluate Technical, Past Performance (if applicable), Small Business

Participation (if applicable), and Cost/Price proposals.

STEP 3: As stated in M.1.1, the Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror (IAW 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 and reasonable Total Evaluated Price. However, if all Offerors were assessed to have other than Substantial Confidence in Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to award to an Offeror with other than a Substantial

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

6 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

award decision.

M.4.2 Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Contents of written proposals and written responses to

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

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

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, upon completion of the Technical Factor evaluations, the Government will make a subsequent competitive range determination, IAW 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.4.4.2 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, IAW 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.4.4.3 Definitions:

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

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

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

M.5.1 Technical Factor:

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an overall Acceptable/Unacceptable basis against all 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 be received on all of the following element:

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

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

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

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

An Offeror must be Technically Acceptable 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 determine if the Offeror's proposal adequately details a realistic and feasible approach to delivering services required in the PWS, provided Technical Data, and

Attachments (including the necessary duty descriptions for any labor categories proposed on Attachment 0002 that are not found within the SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition). The SMP will be evaluated for the following elements:

M.5.1.2(a) Offeror adequately demonstrates its ability to properly staff/organize the required effort by providing a realistic approach to its management structure from general staff oversight by first line supervisors through its company headquarters management.

7 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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) RESERVED

M.5.1.2(b)(1) RESERVED

M.5.1.2(b)(2) RESERVED

M.5.1.2(b)(3) RESERVED

M.5.1.2(c) 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:

M.5.1.2(c)(1) Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the effort by providing appropriate staffing that is realistic and feasible to successfully perform the specific workload requirements in Exhibit A TD-01 Historical Workload and the PWS requirements identified therein. Staffing levels support the provided workload requirements for both the base period and option periods (fully operational capable 12-month / 366 day periods).

Note: For Technical evaluation purposes only, the Government will utilize the SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition), TD-01

Historical Workload and/or the SMP narrative to determine the skill set / skill level being proposed and to determine whether the proposed laborer can perform the required task(s).

It is further noted that the inclusion of only some of the PWS paragraphs in Exhibit A (TD-01 Historical Workload) was for Technical evaluation purposes only. During contract execution, compliance with all PWS requirements is expected and required.

M.5.1.2(c)(2) RESERVED

M.5.2 Past Performance Factor:

M.5.2(a) Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements IAW the contract terms based on the

Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

M.5.2(b) Definitions:

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

M.5.2.1 The Government will assess the contract references provided in the Offeror's task order proposal to date, and other information available from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, against the past performance evaluation criteria set forth below.

The Government will include in its past performance evaluation the Offeror and any proposed Subcontractor that is expected to perform

20% or more of the total value of column F in the Offerors Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2) for this effort. For Offerors that are Joint Ventures (JV), the Government will evaluate both the past performance of the JV itself as well as the past performance of each individual JV partner. Additionally any subcontractor performing a critical performance task will receive a past performance evaluation. The Government will confirm a proposed Subcontractor is expected to perform 20% or more of the total value by referring to column F of the Offerors Teaming Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2). For purposes of this RFP, the tasks which are considered critical are

Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) (PWS Paragraph 5.22). The Government will confirm a proposed Subcontractor is expected to perform critical task areas by referring to column J 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. For

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

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

Offeror or its Subcontractor(s).

M.5.2.2(b) The specific critical performance task of PWS Paragraph 5.22 (ASP) the Offeror or its Subcontractor(s) have performed as reflected by their respective past performance history, and the ASP tasks to be performed on the task order requirement by the Offeror or its Subcontractor(s).

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

8 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.5.2.2(d) The Offeror's, and/or its Subcontractor(s)' performance details and ratings received in Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs), as well as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), which includes both the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) and the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). CPARS and PPQs will be utilized to assess a contractor's performance in the areas of Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management.

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

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

M.5.2.5 The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. An adverse finding in any element or a lack of relevant data 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 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) or who are expected to perform a critical performance task.

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: three (3) years prior to this RFP closing date, regardless of the award date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.5.2.8(c)(2) In order to determine if a reference is similar in magnitude and complexity to the Ft. Riley Task Order, the Annual

Average Dollar Value (AADV) must meet or exceed the minimum level of relevant experience identified below:

Maintenance: Maintenance: Offeror Reference - $2.5M average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005, Tab 2 - Teaming Matrix - $500K average annually.

Supply: Offeror Reference - $2M average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005, Tab 2 - Teaming Matrix - $400K average annually.

Transportation: Offeror Reference - $700K average annually; Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the total estimated dollar value, as found in Column F of the Offerors Attachment 0005, Tab 2 - Teaming Matrix - $140K average annually.

Total: Offeror Reference $5.2M average annually; Subcontractor Reference $1.04M average annually.

M.5.2.8(c)(3) When reviewing contract references for magnitude and complexity, the evaluator will determine the relevant functional areas contained in a contract reference and apply the minimum applicable threshold. For example, if all three functional areas apply to the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $5.2M for a Prime reference and $1.04M for a

Subcontractor reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity. If the Maintenance and Supply functional areas apply to

9 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the Offeror's contract reference, the average annual dollar value must be at least $4.5M for a Prime reference and $900K for a

Subcontractor reference to be determined similar in magnitude and complexity.

M.5.2.8(c)(3)(i) Please note that for Joint Ventures (JVs), Past Performance references need not be performed by the JV itself.

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

M.5.2.9 Performance Confidence. Based on an assessment of all 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 Subcontractor(s)' (who are expected to perform 20% or more of the total value for this effort or who are expected to perform a critical performance task) recent/relevant performance record and the

Government's expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. When determining the confidence assessment, consideration will be given to the depth and breadth of the Offeror's and Subcontractor(s) demonstrated recent/relevant experience.

M.5.2.9(a) Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation 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 IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost Realism Analysis. Price analysis shall be used to determine price reasonableness for the total evaluated price. Cost/Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The proposal will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Only the offeror who is determined to be the lowest total evaluated priced proposal that is determined to be Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past

Performance will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

M.5.3.1(a) Reserved

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 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 cost CLINs for Cost Realism. Offerors are cautioned that the Government has concerns with the potential for post-award performance problems related to the cost CLINS if Offerors propose unrealistically low costs. Therefore, the

Government reserves the option of rejecting a proposal if, in the exercise of its judgment, it determines that an Offerors cost CLINS are unrealistically low, regardless of technical merit and/or evaluated costs. The magnitude of any necessary and appropriate Probable

Cost 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 Probable Cost 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 cost CLINS may result in a Probable Cost 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 Subcontractor(s)' proposals include indirect expense rates not fully supported, those rates will be capped at the proposed rates for evaluation purposes and for the life of the requirements task order (52.216-21). By submitting a proposal for this task order, the Offeror and Subcontractor(s) understand and accept that the Government will cap any

10 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

indirect expense rates not fully supported at the proposed rates. As stated in L.4.1.2, an Offeror or Subcontractor that takes exception to this requirement will be deemed unacceptable and will not be further considered for award. The Offeror and Subcontractor capped rates will be included in the contract award for the life of the requirements task order (52.216-21).

M.5.3.3(b) Fee Rates: The Offeror's and Subcontractor(s)' fee rate(s) will be capped as proposed for the life of this task order contract, including any additional workload outside the original estimate pursuant to the Requirements clause FAR 52.216-21. The

Offerors and Subcontractor(s)' FEE rates will be CAPPED as proposed and included in the contract award terms and conditions for implementation any time during the life of this requirements task order (52.216-21) when a change order is necessary for modification of the requirements.

M.5.3.4 Subcontractor Proposal Consistency. If a Subcontractor(s) detailed cost proposal differs from the pricing that the Offeror includes in its proposal, the 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 Subcontractors cross-walk(s) of all proposed labor categories subject to the SCA to the corresponding labor categories and/or occupation codes in either the Attachment 0007: Department of Labor Wage Determination (DOL

WD) to ensure proposed labor rates are IAW the SCA. Additionally, the Government will review the Offeror and Subcontractors cost proposal to ensure compliance with the fringe benefit(s) (total compensation package) identified in Attachment 0007.

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

Pricing. IAW 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.

M.5.3.9 NOT APPLICABLE

M.5.4 NOT APPLICABLE

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

11 11