Amendment_0002_-_W56KGY19R0006.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 2019JUL15

W56KGY

ACC-APG Division C (W56KGY)

6565 SURVEILLANCE LOOP

APG, MD 21005-1846

JOSHUA HARVEY

EMAIL: JOSHUA.M.HARVEY10.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56KGY-19-R-0006

2019JUN14

X

X 2019JUL16 11:00am

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

15Jul2019

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: JOSHUA HARVEY

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP-CCC/(443)861-5391

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of this Amendment 0002, to solicitation W56KGY-19-R-0006 is to incorporate the following changes:

1. The solicitation due date is hereby updated as follows:

From: 15 July 2019, 11:00 EST

To: 16 July 2019, 11:00 EST

2. Update Section M, Paragraph 2(c) entitled "Factor IV - Small Business Participation".

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0003 ***

2 8

W56KGY-19-R-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 0010 SOLICITATION TABLES 12-JUL-2019 004 EMAIL

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

------------------------------Section L------------------------------

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Offerors will be evaluated in a two phase approach. In Phase I of the evaluation Offerors will be evaluated based on two (2) Go/No Go requirements. The first requirement is to pass Task #1.1 described in the Product Demonstration Plan provided as an

Attachment 0006 in Section J of the solicitation. The second requirement is to provide evidence of successful experience with the

National Security Agency (NSA) Certification and for the proposed or a similar product (e.g. tactical radios) as a Prime Contractor.

Offerors shall meet both Go/No Go requirements to be further considered for JTT-NG evaluation. In Phase II Offerors who have passed the Phase I evaluation will be evaluated with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, Past

Performance and Small Business Participation. The Technical factor is significantly ore important than the Price factor, which is slightly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is slightly more important than the Small Business Participation factor.

All non-priced factors combined are significantly more important than price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors) and the Small Business Participation factor.

Offerors rated as no confidence in the past performance factor will not be considered for award. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

Table 1, Phase I and II, delineates the elements of each phase and how it will be evaluated.

*** See Table 1 - Phase I and II, in Attachment 0010, Solicitation Tables, of Section J ***

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract(s) without discussions with Offerors. Clarifications and/or discussions may be deemed necessary, as described in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal should contain its best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, under FAR subpart 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary. The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range if the

PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an effective competition can be conducted. Proposals with an omission or unclear proposals may be judged to mean the Offeror does not fully understand the requirements or understand what it takes to meet or exceed the requirements, regardless of the proposed price. In that case, the Offeror may be found unacceptable and ineligible for award.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

1. Phase I - Go/No Go Requirements

a. PART 1: Offerors shall successfully complete Task #1.1 described in the Product Demonstration Plan provided as Attachment 0006 in Section J of the solicitation. Failure to successfully complete Task #1.1 in the product capability demonstration will result in the

Offeror's elimination from consideration.

b. PART 2: Offerors shall provide evidence of successful completion of the National Security Agency (NSA) Certification for the proposed or a similar product (e.g. tactical radios). Only Offerors that have experience at the Prime Contract level of successfully completing NSA Certification will be further evaluated and considered for award. Failure to successfully provide NSA certifications will result in the Offeror's elimination from consideration

2. Phase II

a. Factor I: Technical: The Technical Factor shall be organized into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Product Capability Demonstration Task #1, Tasks #2, #3, and #4.

Subfactor 2: Testing and Certification

Subfactor 3: Technical Approach

Subfactor 4: Production and Sustainment

Subfactor 2 is significantly more important than subfactors 1, 3 and 4. Subfactors 1, 3 and 4 are all of equal importance.

Evaluation of the Offerors proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor either an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings or provide an acceptable/unacceptable rating as delineated below. A rating of no less than

Acceptable must be achieved for all Technical subfactors.

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

b. Factor II: Price: Each Offeror will be evaluated for price reasonableness (IAW) FAR 15.404-1.

The Total Proposed Price is the sum of the weighted unit prices applied to the evaluation quantity for each CLIN as detailed in the Price Evaluation Workbook provided as Attachment 0008 in Section J of the solicitation.

c. Factor III: Past Performance: Each Offerors past performance will be reviewed to determine recency and relevancy and then given an overall confidence assessment rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offerors overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

d. Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Phase I Go No Go Requirements

a. Offerors shall successfully complete Task #1.1 of the Product Demonstration Plan provided as an Attachment 0006 in Section J of the solicitation Failure to successfully complete Task #1.1 will result in the Offeror's elimination from consideration.

b. Offerors shall provide evidence of completion of the National Security Agency (NSA) Certification for the proposed or a similar product (e.g. tactical radios) as a Prime Contractor. Examples of evidence include: certification documents or combination of system configuration information and dates of certification for Government verification. Only Offerors that have experience at the Prime

Contract level of successfully completing NSA Certification will be further evaluated and considered for award. Failure to successfully provide NSA certifications will result in the Offeror's elimination from consideration

2. Phase II Evaluation Factors:

a. FACTOR I Technical Factor - The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

(i) SUBFACTOR 1: Product Capability Demonstration This factor evaluates the Offerors proposed solution to the extent to which an Offerors solution is able to successfully accomplish the tasks.

The Product Demonstration Factor focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties identified based on the

Offeror's product demonstration described in the Product Demonstration Plan provided as an Attachment 0006 in Section J of the solicitation.

Note: The Government will not provide funding for or reimburse travel cost associated with the product demonstration.

(ii) SUBFACTOR 2 - Testing and Certification: This subfactor evaluates the Offerors experience with Government testing and certification and the proposed JTT-NG solutions ability to meet Government required testing and certification standards for operation in the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) Enterprise Test standards include contractor qualification testing, validation testing, NSA certification, etc. described in the Performance Specification Verification Cross Reference Matrix (VCRM) provided as an Attachment 0002 in Section J of the solicitation.

(iii) SUBFACTOR 3 - Technical Approach. This subfactor evaluates the Offerors Technical Competency for the entire period of performance of this contract.

(iv) SUBFACTOR 4: Production & Sustainment. This subfactor evaluates the Offerors production and sustainment strategy of the proposed solution.

The Government will consider how the Offerors proposal will impact the sustainment of the JTT-NG software and hardware.

The Offeror's proposal will be given a Strength for proposed sustainment approach that:

(a) Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the technical data and computer software rights under this contract using a tabular format prescribed in DFARS 252.227-7017;

(b) Provide a thorough description of how the proposed sustainment approach impacts the Government's competitive procurement of JTT-NG software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services. Accordingly, the Offerors proposal will be given a

Weakness if the Offerors proposal does not show a thorough understanding of the following:

- technical data and computer software rights under this contract, or

- does not thoroughly describe how the proposed sustainment approach will impacts the Governments competitive procurement of JTT-NG software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services.

The Offeror's proposal will be given a Strength for a proposed sustainment approach that permits the Government to competitively procure JTT-NG software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services from third parties.

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

In contrast, the Offerors proposal will be deemed high-risk and given a Weakness if license restrictions (in technical data and software deliverables) impede competitive procurement of JTT-NG software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services related to technical data and software deliverables and there is no plan to mitigate hindrances to competitive procurement of JTT-NG software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services related to technical data and software deliverables.

If the Offeror's proposal provides a mitigation plan in cases where the Government's license rights in technical data and software deliverables do not facilitate competitive procurement of software and hardware maintenance/sustainment services, the proposal must provide supporting documentation to demonstrate how the mitigation plan will be reasonably executed.

For example, if the Offeror proposes a mitigation plan that is unreasonable (i.e., the mitigation plan does not allow the

Government to competitively procure the same or equivalent items, components, or services in the Offerors proposal at a similar or lesser price than that proposed by the Offeror; and/or the mitigation plan requires a binding agreement between the Offeror and alternate vendors, but the Offerors proposal offers no documentation of the Offerors plans to secure such agreements) then the proposed sustainment approach may be deemed high-risk and may be given a Weakness.

In addition, any proposals that offer the Government more restrictive license terms than a "Limited Rights" or

"Restricted Rights" license in NON-COMMERCIAL technical data or software deliverables (respectively) will be deemed deficient (in view of minimums set forth in the DFARS 227.71 and DFARS 227.72 for license rights in technical data and software deliverables).

Offerors will not be considered non-responsive to the solicitation or ineligible for contract award simply because the

Offeror did not offer the Government broader license rights than it is entitled under DFARS 252.227-7013 or DFARS 252.227-7014. In accordance with 10 USC\'a7 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1, Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense except for the data and rights identified at 227.7103-5(a)(2) and

(a)(4) through (9). An Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any additional rights in technical data related to items, components or process developed exclusively at private expense will still be considered responsive.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The Technical Factor Ratings (to include all subfactors), excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offerors proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

*** See Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, in Attachment 0010, Solicitation Tables of Section J ***

b. FACTOR II Price Evaluation Approach

The solicitation requires firm-fixed-priced (FFP) contract line items (CLINS). A price analysis approach in accordance with

FAR part 15.404-1 (b) will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and the proposed pricing is balanced in accordance with proposal analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(g) for the FFP CLINs. Note that an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data to support proposed prices where price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced. The Government will complete cost realism on the proposed costs for the Government provided key personnel for the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs. In accordance with FAR part 15.404-1(d)(1) Cost realism analyses is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offerors proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offerors technical approach. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offerors proposal. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offerors proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The Total Evaluated prices of the FFP CLINs plus the Probable cost for the key personnel will be combined to become the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be used in the trade-off analysis of the Source Selection Decision Authority.

The proposed fixed fee rate will be incorporated into the contract as a not to exceed fixed fee rate in proposals of Task

Orders throughout the performance period of the resulting contract.

NOTE: For evaluation purposes only, the proposed unit pricing will be weighted and applied to an evaluation quantity to determine the evaluated price for all CLINs However, all the proposed prices will be evaluated through price analysis and balance.

c. FACTOR III - Past Performance Factor

The Government will evaluate the Offerors record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

(i) Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct a structured past performance evaluation that examines an Offeror's recent, relevant present and past performance record to assess the Governments confidence in the Offerors ability to perform as proposed.

(ii) The Government will focus its inquiries 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 expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an unknown confidence (neutral) 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 as compared to the North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing & 334220 Radio and Television

Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

(iii) Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available. Contractors Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS) will also be used to assess the contractors past performance and ability to perform successfully in recent and relevant work on contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the work for tactical terminals. The Government reserves the right to consider information other than the references provided by the

Offerors. Potential sources of performance data are sources such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored to the requirements of the acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency records, and agency historical experience with the Offeror including any of its subcontractors or other sources. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments will be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(iv) The past performance factor will consider each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are four aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, quality of the assessment and performance confidence assessment.

(a) RECENCY: Performance is within the past three years, from the issue date of this solicitation,

(b) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

*** See Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, in Attachment 0010, Solicitation Tables of Section J ***

(c) 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.

(d) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence 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.

*** See Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments, in Attachment 0010, Solicitation Tables of Section J ***

c. FACTOR IV - Small Business Participation

Basis of Award: A rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for Small Business Participation factor. The Small

Business Participation will be a factor and will be assigned an acceptable/unacceptable rating on the basis of approach and understanding of small business objectives. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate:

(i) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(ii) The extent of commitment to use such firms;

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

(iii) Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(iv) The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

(v) The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {23%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {0%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {0%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone

(HUBZone) Small Business: {0%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {6%} of the total contract value;

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {3%}. (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

The Offeror provides explanation and documentation supporting the proposed percentage participation and how it will be attained or if applicable, the offeror provides explanation and/or documentation supporting why small businesses were not identified.

*** See Table 5 - Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions, in Attachment 0010, Solicitation Tables of Section J ***

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

8 8