W52P1J21R0003-0002.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

0002 2021NOV22

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

JOSELYN GRAY

EMAIL: JOSELYN.T.GRAY.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-21-R-0003

2021SEP20

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 7

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: JOSELYN GRAY

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRI-TE/(309)782-2865

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0002 to Solicitation W52P1J-21-R-0003 is as follows:

1. Remove duplicative language in the first three paragraphs at the begining of Section M.

2. Incorporate the questions and answers as Attachment 0038.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0003 ***

2 7

W52P1J-21-R-0003

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________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________

Attachment 0038 Q&AS 16-NOV-2021

3 7

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

Award will be made using the best value trade-off process authorized at FAR 15.101-1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and may award without discussions with Offerors. If the Government determines discussions are necessary, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals may be established IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2). If determined necessary, the competitive range can be further limited for purposes of efficiency (see "https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_52_215_1 "(f)(4)). The Government may engage in communications under FAR 15.306 (b) as necessary to determine which Offerors shall be included within the Competitive range. Therefore, the initial proposal shall contain the Offerors best terms from a Technical/Management, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price standpoint. Any proposal revisions, if requested, shall be limited to the areas negotiated. The Government will evaluate the

Offerors proposal submission as required by section L against the factors and subfactors established below.

Attachment 0002 AESMP ITSM SAAS PWS and Attachment 0003 AESD MSP PWS will be referred to as the Performance Work Statement (PWS) set.

Factor Order of Importance:___________________________

The relative order of importance assigned to the evaluation factors are: Technical/Management is more important than Past Performance;

Past Performance is more important than Small Business Participation. Small Business Participation is more important than Price. The three non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. An award will not be made to any offeror that receives a deficiency in any factor.

Technical /Management Subfactor Order of Importance: Subfactor one is more important than subfactor two, subfactor two is more important____________________________________________________ than subfactor three. All elements listed within subfactors are of equal importance. A single rating will be provided for each subfactor. The subfactor ratings will determine the overall factor rating based on this relative order of importance.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the low price Offeror. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical/Management Factor. The contract award decision will be determined based upon the evaluation of each offeror's complete proposal against the evaluation criteria.

Definitions: The following definitions will be used in the evaluation and in conjunction with the ratings provided below.

Significant Strength - is an aspect of an Offerors proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or____________________ capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength - is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way________ that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.________

Significant Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.____________________

Deficiency - is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that__________ increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror 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).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.________________________

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT Volume 1________________________________________

The Government will evaluate Offerors Technical/ Management submissions using the adjectival rating scheme depicted below. The combined

Technical/Management Risk Rating includes an assessment of performance risk associated with the Offerors proposal. The Government will evaluate Offerors Technical/Management submissions in accordance with the requirements set forth in the RFP, utilizing the adjectival ratings shown below:

Table 1 Technical/Management Factor Rating Definitions.

Outstanding - Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk___________ of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good - Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of____ unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

4 7

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Acceptable - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of__________ unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal - Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful________ performance is high.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/ or risk of____________ unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The Technical/Management Factor shall use the Table 1 Technical/Management Ratings. The Technical/Management Factor evaluation will arrive at a single Factor rating. The Technical/Management evaluators will only be provided the redacted version of the proposal submitted.

Technical/Management_____________________

The Government will evaluate the offerors entire technical/management proposal, to include all proposal submissions provided pursuant to section L Instructions to Offerors.

Subfactor One Transition Plan

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the transition tasks including the efficiency and completeness of all technical and support processes to be established and executed. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal provides an approach that utilizes a system that is detailed, through and efficient in operations and completion of tasks. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal provides a sound, logical transition staffing approach that will accomplish the transition in the timeline for each requirement in the PWS set.

Subfactor Two: Technical/Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding and sound approach for all requirements to include all optional capabilities and option periods. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a logical and effective technical approach that provides quality services that are responsive in the execution of the requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an efficient Management approach and proposed organizational structure. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates compliance with Key Personnel criteria included in the PWS set.

Subfactor Three: Technical Challenge:

The Government will confirm evaluator access to the environment configured to respond to the technical challenge. Each Offerors system will be tested with the same use cases as indicated in Attachment 0027 Use Case Buildup. Evaluators will enter tickets based upon the data provided in Attachment 0027 Use Case Buildup as users and process the use case as licensed users. The government will evaluate the extent each offerors challenge submission provides ease of use, flexibility, efficiency, operational effectiveness, and alignment with

AESMF.

The government will evaluate the extent the written proposal has demonstrated comprehension of the size and complexity of the Armys technical challenges and provides an effective approach to mitigate those challenges.

FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE__________________________

Past Performance Factor Rating Definitions. The Government will evaluate Offerors Past Performance submissions in accordance with the requirements set forth in the RFP, utilizing the adjectival ratings shown below for Relevancy and Performance Confidence.

Past Performance will be rated for recent and relevancy criteria, before evaluating quality of performance. If the past performance information is determined to meet recent and relevant it will be reviewed and ratings combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent and relevant past performance, provided outside of the

Offerors proposal submission.

RECENT DEFINITION: Recent contracts and/or task orders are defined as IT services performed, or still being performed, within the last

Five (5) years prior to solicitation release date.

RELEVANT DEFINITION: Relevant performance means at least one of the submitted references includes obtaining an authority to operate

(ATO) using the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for a cloud-based solution. The remaining two references must be of relevant size, scope and complexity to the AESMP procurement and utilize more than 80 agents on shift providing IT service desk support.

The following ratings will be assigned to determine relevancy.

Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating - Description

5 7

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Very Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this_____________ solicitation requires.

Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation________ requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this_________________ solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this____________ solicitation requires.

There is no separate quality assessment rating; rather, the performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the Offerors overall record of recent, relevancy, and quality of performance as follows:

Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence - Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the______________________

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence - Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the_______________________

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no__________________ meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence - Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror__________________ will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence - Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be_____________ able to perform the required effort successfully.

FACTOR 3 Small Business Volume 3_________________________________

Small Business Participation

Small Business Participation. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS WILL BE GIVEN

THE MAXIMUM SCORE, CREDIT OR RATING UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.

Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offerors Small Business

Participation Plan demonstrates the Offerors commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds. The Government will consider two areas:

- Proposed Small Business Participation.

- Commitment to Small Business.

The Government has established the following goals for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business (SB) _23____%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) __5___%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) _5___%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) __3__%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) __3__%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) __3__%

6 7

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The Offerors proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan Attachment 005 will be evaluated against the Governments Goal for each socio-economic category. The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will be evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary

Subcontract Reports (SSRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR or the goals stated in the associated commercial subcontracting plan and reported on each SSR, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

Small Business Participation Rating

The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below.

Outstanding - Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.____________

Good - Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.____

Acceptable - Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.__________

Marginal - Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.________

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet small business objectives.____________

FACTOR 4 PRICE______________

The total evaluated price will include all Service lines (to include optional services) as well as the Government Provided Incidentals amount for the base and all optional periods. If an offeror fails to submit firm fixed prices for all lines indicated within the price matrix, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and the Government may reject the proposal.

Price Competition will primarily be used to determine price reasonableness. Additional price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used as determined necessary by the procuring contracting officer. If an offeror's proposed price(s) cannot be determined fair and reasonable, the USG reserves the right in accordance with FAR 15.403-3 to request data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine a fair and reasonable price. Price realism analysis will not be used to evaluate submitted prices.

As part of the price evaluation, proposals will be reviewed to identify any potential 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 to the Government.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

7 7