W56KGY-17-R-0026_(0006).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

0006 2017OCT25

W56KGY

ACC-APG Division C (W56KGY)

6001 Combat Drive

APG, MD 21005-1846

PRETTINA BIEDENKAPP

EMAIL: PRETTINA.J.BIEDENKAPP.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56KGY-17-R-0026

2017SEP28

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

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: PRETTINA BIEDENKAPP

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP CCC/(443)861-5392

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

1) The purpose of this Amendment (0006) to Solicitation W56KGY-17-R-0026 is to:

a) Revise language in Section M.

b) Incorporate revised attachment in Section J.

2) The following sub-section in Section M are revised as follows:

a) M.3.2 - Price Factor

3) Attachment 0012 - Total Evaluated Price Worksheet CD-1 24 October 2017.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0007 ***

2 8

W56KGY-17-R-0026 0006

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 0012 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE WORKSHEET (TEP) 24-OCT-2017 001 EMAIL

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1- Basis for Award (Section M)________________________________

a. \*.This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offerors capabilities and proposals for the

Capability Drop-1 Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government will compare each Offerors capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria listed in Section M.2 below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection using a Best Value Tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 12 and Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 212 and Part 215, and Army Federal

Acquisition Supplement (AFARS) Part 5112 and 5115.

The Government anticipates approximately awarding 2-5 contracts in response to this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to award to more or less than the amount stated. There is no upper or lower limit as to how many or how few contracts the

Government may award.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the

Government with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The

Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor. The Past Performance Factor will be rated as

Acceptable/Unacceptable. A minimum rating of acceptable must be achieved for the Technical and Past Performance Factor to be considered for award. All non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than Price, and Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest prices offered.

b. Notes:

This contract includes post-award on-ramp and off-ramp opportunities. Please see section H for more details.

The award of this contract is subject to the receipt of adequate and proper funding.

The Government reserves the right to cancel this requirement at any time without being responsible for bid and proposal costs.

The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range at any time during the evaluations. Offerors that are found

Unacceptable or non-compliant for any Factor or Subfactor may be removed from the competition and made ineligible for award at any time prior to award.

If the Offeror fails to comply with the terms of the solicitation, its proposal may be considered noncompliant and ineligible for award.

M.2- Factors and Sub-Factors to Be Evaluated____________________________________________

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL: The technical factor is comprised of the following Subfactors:__________________

(a) Subfactor 1 Technical Product Demonstration

(b) Subfactor 2 Usability Maturity

(c) Subfactor 3 Technical Solution Narrative

Subfactor 1 Technical Product Demonstration shall be evaluated on a best value basis. The Government shall evaluate and assess an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, as further defined below in Section M.3.1.1.

Subfactor 2 Usability Maturity shall be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, as further defined in Section M.3.1.2

Subfactor 3 Technical Solution Narrative shall be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, as further defined in Section M.3.1.3.

An Offeror must receive a minimum rating of Acceptable for each of the technical Subfactors in order to eligible for an award.

FACTOR 2 PRICE: Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. The total evaluated price will________________ be calculated in accordance with the Total Evaluated Price worksheet. The Total Evaluated Price in the worksheet is the Total Evaluated

Price for purposes of the Governments award decision. The Total Evaluated Price will include the five (5) year IDIQ base contract ordering period and the five (5) year optional ordering period.

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

All of the pricing for each CLIN identified in the Total Evaluated Price worksheet will be incorporated into the contract at the time of award. The prices incorporated into the contract shall be ceiling prices which the awardee shall not exceed, binding upon the awardee for the duration of the contract. After award, awardees may downward adjust their prices during fair opportunity delivery order competitions.

FACTOR 3 PAST PERFORMANCE: The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offerors overall record of recency,___________________________ relevancy, and quality of performance.

M.3- Evaluation Approach________________________

M.3.1- Technical________________

The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.3.1.1- Subfactor 1: Technical Product Demonstration_____________________________________________________

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which an Offerors solution is able to accomplish the tasks called out in the Product Demonstration Plan (PDP) (Attachment 0008), which is provided for evaluation purposes only.

During the Technical Product Demonstration Offeror solutions are not required to successfully complete all of the tasks in the PDP, but

Offeror solutions that successfully complete many or all of the PDP tasks will be more favorably rated by the Government. Conversely, Offeror solutions that accomplish less of the PDP tasks will be rated lower. Offeror solutions that do not present a viable solution to the Government may be considered Technically Unacceptable.

The Government will consider assigning findings as stated below. Findings may be assessed based on an offerors proposed solution to an individual task set forth in the PDP, and/or may be assessed based upon the extent to which an Offerors solution is able to accomplish all of the tasks in the PDP.

Significant Strength: is an aspect of an offeror's 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: means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance._________

Significant Weakness: in the proposal is a flaw 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 significant weaknesses in a___________ proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Adjectival Rating: OUTSTANDING ___________

Description: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Adjectival Rating: GOOD ____

Description: 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.

Adjectival Rating: ACCEPTABLE __________

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

Adjectival Rating: Marginal ________

Description: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Adjectival Rating: Unacceptable ____________

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

M.3.1.2- Subfactor 2: Usability Maturity________________________________________

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

This Subfactor evaluates the Offerors Usability Maturity and whether the Offeror meets the requirements in the L 2.2.2.

The evaluation team will arrive at a single consensus performance rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for each Offerors Usability

Maturity after evaluating the items set forth in L.2.2.2. As set forth in L.2.2.2, the Government will evaluate: (1) program usability maturity (2) research methods and maturity (3), design of the user interface, (4) and sustain and user acceptance.

The Government may assess findings as follows:

Significant Weakness: in the proposal is a flaw 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 significant weaknesses in a___________ proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

This subfactor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with the below table.

Rating: ACCEPTABLE __________

Description: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Rating: UNACCEPTABLE ____________

Description: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1.3- Subfactor 3: Technical Solution Narrative__________________________________________________

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate whether or not the Offerors proposed solution will meet all of the requirements outlined in the Performance Requirements Document (PRD) (Attachment 0003) within 22 weeks after award of Delivery Order 1 through a review of the submitted Verification Cross Reference Matrix.

The Government will also evaluate under this subfactor whether or not the Offerors proposed implementation plan demonstrates clearly defined and sound business management practices and processes to meet the requirements as outlined in Section L.2.2.3, and the SOW.

The Government may assess findings as follows:

Significant Weakness: in the proposal is a flaw 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 significant weaknesses in a___________ proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

This subfactor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with the below table.

Rating: ACCEPTABLE __________

Description: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Rating: Unacceptable ____________

Description: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1.4- Overall Technical Factor Rating________________________________________

The overall factor rating will be determined in accordance with the following definitions:

Adjectival Rating: OUTSTANDING ___________

Description: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Adjectival Rating: GOOD ____

Description: 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.

Adjectival Rating: ACCEPTABLE __________

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

Adjectival Rating: MARGINAL ________

Description: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

performance is high.

Adjectival Rating: UNACCEPTABLE ____________

Description: 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.

If an offeror receives a rating of Unacceptable in any Technical subfactor, then its overall Factor 1 Technical rating will be

Unacceptable and the offeror will not be eligible for award. If an offeror receives a rating of Acceptable in Subfactor 2 Usability

Maturity and a rating of Acceptable in Subfactor 3 Technical Solution Narrative, then the offerors overall Factor 1 Technical rating shall be the same as its Subfactor 1 Technical Product Demonstration adjectival rating.

M.3.2- Price____________

a. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404, to include analysis to ensure unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data, procedures as described in Section L.2.3 shall be utilized. Indications of potential unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report, and an offer may be rejected and ineligible for award if the contracting officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

b. The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated in accordance with the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet (Attachment 0012).

c. Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each Offerors proposal is affordable by comparing the offerors CLIN pricing, applicable to anticipated Delivery Orders 0001 and 0002, to the pre-determined affordability caps identified in the Total Evaluated

Price Worksheet (Attachment 0012). If an offeror exceeds the affordability caps intended for Delivery Orders 0001 and 0002 then the offeror shall be ineligible for award.

M.3.3- Past Performance_______________________

The Government will evaluate the Offerors record of recent and relevant past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the Relevant Past Performance forms and Past

Performance Questionnaire.

b. The Government will focus its evaluation on the Offerors (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offerors overall team who are anticipated to perform more than twenty (20) percent of the proposed Total Evaluated Price.

A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Evaluation will only consider those recent efforts proposed by the Offeror that includes performance of contracts occurring within thirty-six (36) months of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the

Offeror will be assigned an unknown confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services.

c. Offerors shall either provide completed Relevant Past Performance Information, solicitation attachment 0006, forms or, if applicable, include a written statement that it has no relevant past performance. Offerors failing to comply with this requirement will be considered to have submitted a noncompliant proposal.

d. The Government will address past performance of the Offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and for all non-U.S. small businesses Offerors, its past performance in complying with FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan or DFARS 252.219- 7004, as applicable. The Government may consider any information substantiating the Offerors track record of utilizing U.S. small business on past contracts for ALL small business categories in detail, to include any justifications explaining why goals or targets were not met.

e. The Government may contact references provided by the offeror, and may contact references other than those provided by the Offeror including sources outside the Government. The evaluation will take into account the same type of information regarding major subcontractors proposed in the Offerors proposal.

f. If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offerors past performance, that Offeror will receive an Unknown Confidence rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If the Offeror provides reference information that is not relevant and current as stated in Section L, the Offeror will receive an Unknown Confidence past performance rating for those contracts.

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

g. The Past Performance Factor considers each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offerors present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts.

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS__________________________________

Rating: RELEVANT ________

Definition: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Rating: NOT RELEVANT ____________

Definition: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the Offerors past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by__________________ determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus past performance assessment for the Offeror,___________________________ selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered, and correlates to the appropriate rating from the chart below. Offerors must receive a rating of acceptable to be eligible for contract award.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING_______________________

Rating: ACCEPTABLE __________

Definition: Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror's performance record is unknown (see note below).

Rating: UNACCEPTABLE ____________

Definition: Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or

"neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable".

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

8 8