W900KK-23-R-0031 SF 30 Amendment 1 DRTS Tier 1 CTR RFP.pdf

W900KK23R0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 -- SPEC

To:

Digital Multi-Purpose Training Range (DMPTR) Ft. Carson. IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 -- SPEC

CLIN 0004

Yakima Training Center Digital Multi-Purpose Range Complex (DMPRC) CTR Tier 1. IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 -- SPEC

CLIN 0005

Ft. Bliss, range 66, MPTR CTR Tier 1 and Spares. IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 --

SPEC

Ft. Bliss, range 66, Digital Multi-Purpose Training Range (DMPTR) CTR Tier 1. IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 -- SPEC

CLIN 0006

Digital Multi-Purpose Range Complex (DMPRC) Ft. Riley, IAW basic award, Attachment 1 – SOW and Attachment 2 -- SPEC

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following have been modified:

F.3 ESTIMATED PERIOD FOR OPT

ESTIMATED PERIOD TO EXERCISE THE OPTIONS: The Government reserves the right to unilaterally exercise the option CLINs at any time after award of the contract. The 42 month After Date of Contract (ADC) award will be updated after each individual option has been exercised to 18 months after the date of option exercise. The following table provides the estimated time when the Government intend to exercise the option CLINs:

CLIN Location Option Exercise Period Delivery Date 0004 Yakima Training Center DMPRC CTR Tier

24 Months ADC 18 Months after Option

Exercised

0005 Ft. Bliss, range 66, MPTR CTR Tier 1 and Spares

24 Months ADC 18 Months after Option Exercised

0006 Ft. Riley DMPRC CTR Tier 1 24 Months ADC 18 Months after Option Exercised

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. INTRODUCTION

a. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital copies, as set forth below. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) volumes. The Volumes are I – Technical, II –Management, III – Past Performance, IV –Price, and V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

b. Proposals shall be compliant with the full solicitation requirements and instructions contained within this section Offerors are required to comply with all requirements stated herein.

OFFERORS ARE HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT FAILURE TO SUBMIT ALL THE REQUIRED PROPOSAL

INFORMATION IN EXACTLY THE MANNER (TIMELINESS AND FORMAT) AS SPECIFIED IN THE

SOLICITATION MAY CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REJECT A PROPOSAL AS

NON-COMPLIANT AND THEREFORE INELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD, AT THE SOLE

DISCRETION OF THE PCO.

c. The DRTS Tier 1 CTR requirement is a Small Business Set Aside, to be competed among qualified small businesses under NAICS 333310, with a size standard of 1,000 employees. NAICS 333310 industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing commercial and service industry equipment.

d. An Offeror’s submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation constitutes approval for disclosure of proprietary information contained within the proposal to non-government participants involved in the source selection. If the contractor is not willing to provide this consent, written notification to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is required no later than 15 days prior to the proposal due date.

e. The proposal shall be valid for 180 calendar days from date of initial proposal submission. The Offeror shall insert the validity date in Block 12 of the SF 33.

f. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the SOW/SPEC with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the entire requirement and associated risks, and is able, willing, and competent to devote resources necessary to meet the requirement, and has a valid and practical solution for the requirement. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the requirements, and statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information/narrative are considered inadequate and unsatisfactory and may make the proposal non-compliant with the solicitation requirements. Additionally, mere reiteration of the requirement or standard reference material is discouraged and is considered inadequate and unsatisfactory and may make the proposal non-compliant with the solicitation requirements. The Offeror must include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. In presenting material in proposals, Offerors are advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Offerors are encouraged to use quantitative terms wherever possible and avoid the use of qualitative and subjective terms to the maximum extent practicable. The proposal should identify any unique or innovative approaches which ensure successful performance. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

g. Offerors are cautioned that while the Government will not evaluate every SOW/SPEC requirement for the purposes of the source selection evaluation, the awardee/Contractor will be required to comply with all SOW/SPEC requirements during performance of the contract. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to implementing SOW/SPEC requirements that are being evaluated.

h. Information previously submitted to the Government should be assumed unavailable as the Government will only evaluate information provided during this proposal evaluation and source selection process. Proposal data shall not be incorporated into the proposal by referring to another proposal or other source/s. Alternate proposals will not be evaluated or accepted.

i. The portions of the successful Offeror’s (Awardee’s) proposal that have merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance will be incorporated into Section C of the resulting contract and the SOW/SPEC if applicable.

j. The Offerors shall ensure that each proposal volume submitted contains only the information relevant to that specific volume. The Offerors are cautioned that each volume of the proposal is evaluated standalone against the criteria set forth in Section M and the evaluators for one volume may be different than the evaluators of another volume. It is incumbent upon the Offerors to ensure they properly submit their proposals. If the data is not contained in the appropriate volume of the proposal, it will not be evaluated. For example, if Past Performance narratives are submitted under the Price Volume rather than the volume specified, the proposal will be evaluated as if no Past Performance narratives were submitted at all. No cost information shall be included in the Technical and/or Management Volumes of the Offerors’ proposal. The volumes will be evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria provided in M. The Bill of Materials (BOM), attachment 6 of the RFP, is provided for reference purposes only. The BOM provides historical information related to the most recent refresh of the identified system. To the extent offerors find the historical information useful, offerors may utilize the BOM;

however, offerors are not required to provide the specific brand of materials specified in the BOM. The offeror is still responsible for providing a complete proposal solution to the requirements and the BOM does not relieve the winning offeror of any SOW or PERF SPEC requirement. The offeror shall independently determine the materials required to perform the work described in the SOW and PERF SPEC during performance as part of the business solution provided to the Government. The offeror can also decide to utilize or not utilize the historical BOM.

k. Solicitation Questions: All questions regarding the RFP shall be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, via email at Byron.E.Perez.civ@army.mil and roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@army.mil, within 15 calendar days after the RFP is published. Subject of the email shall state “Questions - RFP W900KK23R0031, DRTS Tier 1 Technical Refresh.” Offerors shall submit questions using RFP Section J, Attachment 5, Solicitation Question/Comment Form located in Section J. No phone inquiries regarding the RFP will be received or acknowledged. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via response to the email submission.

All inquiry items will be answered via an Amendment to the RFP/Solicitation and posted to SAM.gov website under the solicitation number. Answers will be posted without Offeror identification. The Government will not provide responses to questions that would reveal a potential Offeror’s confidential business strategy, technical solution, or any information that is considered unique to a particular Offeror. Questions received after the deadline may not be answered. Questions shall not include proprietary data.

l. In accordance with FAR Subpart 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. However, if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that discussions are necessary, then discussions may be held with each offeror in the competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(d) and 15.307(b). The decision to hold discussions is purely at the discretion of the PCO.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Delivery of Proposals. A proposal from an offeror shall be submitted by email or through Department of Defense Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE).

(1) Emails shall be submitted to Mr. Roberto Gotay Garcia, Contracting Officer, roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@army.mil, AND Mr. Byron Perez, Contract Specialist, byron.e.perez.civ@army.mil. The subject of each email shall be "W900KK23R0031 - DRTS Tier 1 Technical Refresh Proposal, Email XX of XX.

Emails shall be numbered to include total sent, for example “Email 2 of 6”. Each attachment within an email shall be numbered to ensure all attachments are received, for example “Attachment 3 of 4”.

(2) DoD SAFE:

i. CAC holders can access DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. Recipients shall be Mr. Roberto Gotay Garcia, Contracting Officer, roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@army.mil, AND Mr. Byron Perez, Contract Specialist, byron.e.perez.civ@army.mil. The field titled Short Note to Recipient shall include " W900KK23R0031 - DRTS Tier 1 Technical Refresh Proposal", Company Name, total number of documents attached, and POC name and email.

ii. Non-CAC holders that want to use DoD SAFE shall send an email to Mr. Roberto Gotay Garcia, Contracting Officer, roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@army.mil, AND Mr. Byron Perez, Contract Specialist, byron.e.perez.civ@army.mil not later than three (3) working days prior to proposal due date. Email subject shall include “W900KK23R0031 - DRTS Tier 1 Technical Refresh Proposal by DoD SAFE”. Email shall contain company name, POC name and email, and request to send proposal through DoD SAFE. An automated email from DoD SAFE will then be sent to the POC containing instructions to upload files in a DoD SAFE package to be sent back to Contracting. DoD SAFE maximum package size is 25 files and eight (8) GB. All files must be sent by proposal due date and time.

b. The Offeror must present its proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. Any pages that are changed as a result proposal revisions shall be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Maximum Pages

I Technical 15

II Management 10

III Past Performance 20

IV Cost/Price No page limit

V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Table of contents and summary sections are excluded from the page count. Summary sections are restricted to two (2) pages only.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

b. File Packaging. Proposals shall be submitted as electronic documents and shall be either Microsoft Office Suite or Portable Document Format (PDF) compatible. Spreadsheets shall be in Microsoft Excel 2016 compatible format (.xlsx format). Microsoft Excel files submitted shall be unlocked, formula driven, and numbers shall not be hard coded, where applicable. Proposals shall include separate electronic files for each volume. All file names shall include the respective company name, document name, and volume number (using abbreviations as necessary).

Each attachment within an email shall be numbered to ensure all attachments are received, for example “Attachment 3 of 4”. WINZIP (.zip) files cannot be accepted as they are routinely blocked by the domain firewall. Emails shall have a total attachment size no greater than seven (7) MB. Proposals that are sent in multiple e-mails shall be numbered to include the total sent, for example “Email 2 of 6” as specified in paragraph 2(a). **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. If a discrepancy exists between the native format documents and the PDF submitted, the PDF copy will take precedence.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Graphics, photos and charts may be landscape and may use color. Graphics, charts, and tables may be page size 11”x17” and counts as one (1) page. Font size contained within graphics is at the discretion of the offeror; however, information must be legible if printed.

d. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(1) VOLUME I – Factor I, Technical.

The Offeror shall respond with a complete and detailed write-up for the Technical volume to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough understanding and knowledge of the performance tasks and associated risks in performing the mission detailed in the SOW/SPEC. Offerors’ responses will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

At a minimum, Offeror shall address the following:

i. The offeror shall describe their technical approach for maintaining and updating the DRTS Accreditation artifacts across the six sites. The offeror shall describe how their technical approach supports and improves cybersecurity operations and sustainment over the expected life of the equipment (8 years).

ii. The offeror shall provide their Bill of Materials and approach for component selection, and baseline management across the six sites, accounting for any consolidation, deviations or obsolescence management with the hardware baseline.

***Note: The BOM will not count against the page limit under Volume I, Technical.

iii. The offeror shall describe their technical approach to the Tier 1 CTR hardware and software integration. The Offeror shall describe their understanding and experiences with integrating live training capabilities utilizing the Live Training Transformation software product line.

iv. The offeror shall describe their technical approach to reducing range down time associated with the Tier 1 CTR efforts. The range downtime for a Tier 1 CTR is currently 13 weeks.

(2) VOLUME II – Factor 2, Management.

The Offeror shall respond with a complete and detailed write-up for the Management volume to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough understanding and knowledge of the performance tasks and associated risks in performing the mission detailed in the SOW/SPEC. Offerors’ responses will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

At a minimum, Offeror shall address the following:

i. The Offeror shall provide their Integrated Master Schedules (IMS), both in PDF and MS Project format, covering all the work performed under this contract. The IMS shall identify key milestones, long lead times, timelines, critical paths, linkages between the CLINs including all options and dependencies on other external contractors or the Government.

***Note: The IMS PDF File will not count against the page limit under Volume II, Management.

ii. The offeror shall describe its proposed approach for managing the overall CTR efforts to ensure performance and schedules are met. The offeror shall describe its plan to ramp up resources to manage numerous work requirements simultaneously with a dispersed workforce under competing priorities at up to three (3) locations concurrently.

iii. The offeror shall describe their risk management approach and any anticipated key risks associated with managing the Tier 1 CTR contract, and mitigation strategies to address the risks identified.

(3) VOLUME III – Factor III, Past Performance.

Note: The letters of consent and commitment are excluded from the page count for this volume.

a. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 20 pages excluding Cure Notices and Show Cause Letters. Offeror shall submit a list of Government and/or Commercial contracts on which Offeror itself served as either the prime, as a major subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation in terms of Scope and Magnitude. Offeror shall also submit a list of Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its Major Subcontractor(s) served as either the prime, as a major subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture), in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation in terms of Scope and Magnitude.

b. Relevant scope shall be defined as contracts performed for the oversight, engineering, and management of the design, integration, installation, verification/testing, training, and logistics associated with the Continuous Technology Refresh (CTR) Ranges and similar facilities.

c. Relevant magnitude shall be defined as contracts with a comparable value as the DRTS effort in this solicitation.

d. The Offeror shall submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered.

e. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1 – Contract Description. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. Merely stating that the submitted effort is relevant in scope, magnitude, or complexity may deem the submitted contract as not relevant a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government SOW/SPEC subparagraph number. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who will perform more than 20% of the total proposed price.

f. Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POC for the Government contracting activity and the technical representative shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to Byron.E.Perez.Civ@Army.mil.

The Offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

Definition.

g. Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an Offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(4) VOLUME IV – Factor IV, Price.

The following information is required for Volume IV and shall describe all relevant material facts and their effect on the Offeror’s price; in a manner that is accurate, complete and clearly demonstrates its relationship to performance of the contract requirements.

a. The Offeror shall complete Section B by entering a price for each CLIN unless identified as NSP.

b. General Information and Executive Summary: This section sets the stage for the price proposal submission; the offeror must include information to provide the evaluator a clear understanding of the price proposal. Include the basis for proposed price and all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Price proposal.

c. It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition; therefore, the Offeror is not required to certify cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.403-1(c), the Offeror shall provide certified cost or pricing data (SF 1411) as requested by the Contracting Officer and IAW FAR 15.403-4.

d. Offerors shall avoid presenting unbalanced pricing information. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (TEP), the price of one or more CLINs are significantly overstated or understated.

Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Offeror shall include a statement acknowledging their understanding of unbalanced pricing and provide a basis if such pricing exists in the proposal.

(5) VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

a. Certifications and Representations – Each Offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

b. Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS.

c. A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its proposal/offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) for the following categories:

(A) Small Business;

(B) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB);

(C) Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB);

(D) Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB); or

(E) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business

Note: If the proposal is submitted by a Joint Venture, then the offeror is required to submit a completed DCMA Form 1620 – Guaranty Agreement as part of the Price Volume. No party to the joint venture may guarantee itself or any member of the joint venture.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

a. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 procedures, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures, the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), and applicable local guidance with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Factor 2 – Management Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

b. Factor 1 – Technical is equally important to Factor 2 – Management. Factor 1 – Technical and Factor 2 – Management are each more important than Factor 3 – Past Performance. All non-cost factors combined (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Price. The degree of importance allocated to Factor 4 – Price will increase as the Offerors' proposals become more equal in the non-cost factors.

c. The Government intends to make a source selection based on a competitive acquisition for a single award stand-alone contract with option CLINS, utilizing the Best Value Tradeoff Process. The rationale for tradeoffs will be documented IAW FAR Subpart 15.406. The Government intends to make a single award to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria of this Solicitation.

Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (See FAR 2.101). The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposal if the Government determines that paying a price premium is not warranted.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror.

d. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions; thus, the Offeror’s initial proposal material should contain the Offeror’s best terms, conditions, and prices. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions at the sole discretion of the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and be comprised of only the most highly rated proposals, based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors and subfactors of this solicitation. The decision to establish a competitive range will be made at the sole discretion of the PCO. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

e. An Offeror's proposal will be determined to be unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award if the proposal indicates that: it cannot or will not meet ANY of the SOW/SPEC requirements; provides an approach that clearly does not meet ANY of the SOW/SPEC requirements; or includes data which prompts the Government to question the Offeror's compliance with ANY of the SOW/SPEC requirements.

f. The Government intends to strictly enforce ALL of the solicitation/proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements will result in an offeror’s proposal being rejected and not being evaluated; the PCO will notify an offeror if the proposal is rejected IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1). All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Exceptions to the terms, conditions, and/or provisions of this solicitation or assumptions within the proposal will result in a determination that an offeror is ineligible to be considered for award.

g. The Government may use information other than that provided by the offeror in its evaluation. Such information, referred to as extrinsic information, is obtained from sources outside the proposal. Sources of extrinsic information may include DCAA, DCMA, and Government databases (for example, IAW PGI 215.404-2, the Government may request audit assistance from DCAA, if necessary).

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor I - Technical:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to determine the understanding and probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW/SPEC. Marginal levels of overall responses could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

b. The evaluation will focus on the following:

i. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for maintaining and updating the DRTS Accreditation artifacts across the six sites. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for supporting and improving cybersecurity operations and sustainment over the expected life of the equipment (8 years).

ii. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Bill of Materials, and approach for component selection and baseline management across the six sites with considerations for consolidation, deviations or obsolescence management with the hardware baseline.

iii. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to the Tier 1 CTR hardware and software integration. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and experience with integrating live training capabilities utilizing the Live Training Transformation software product line.

iv. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to reducing range down time associated with the Tier 1 CTR efforts.

v. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s efficiencies, effectiveness, and benefits to the above criteria.

c. In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very 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.

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 contract 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 un-awardable.

Factor II - Management:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and the probability of successfully managing the required efforts of the SOW/SPEC. Marginal levels of overall responses could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

b. The evaluation will focus on the following:

i. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) covering all the work performed under this contract, covering the key milestones, long lead times, timelines, critical paths, linkages between the CLINs including all options, and dependencies on other external contractors or the Government.

ii. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for managing the overall CTR efforts to ensure performance and schedules are met. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to ramp up resources to manage numerous work requirements simultaneously with a dispersed workforce under competing priorities at up to three (3) locations concurrently.

iii. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk management approach and any anticipated key risks associated with managing the Tier 1 CTR contract, and mitigation strategies to address the risks identified.

iv. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s efficiencies, effectiveness and benefits to the above criteria.

c. The methodology for evaluating Management Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Management/Risk Rating, (see Table 2 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 2 - Combined Management/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very 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.

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 contract 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 un-awardable.

Factor III - Past Performance.

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for the offeror.

NOTE: “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor, joint venture entity, affiliate/subsidiary/parent company, and all major subcontractors.

NOTE: A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who will perform more than 20% of the total proposed price.

b. When assessing past performance, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror (prime/joint venture partners, then major subcontractors, lastly officer/employee) as it relates to the solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of schedule and performance, including the offeror’s record of: 1) quality of products or services; 2) maintaining schedules; 3) management; and 4) customer satisfaction.

c. The prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the offeror's rating. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recentness of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

d. 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 a Neutral Confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably in regard to past performance.

e. 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.

f. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation, which the Government will evaluate in the following order:

1) Recency

2) Relevancy (including context of data), and

3) Quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Past Performance within the five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date will be considered recent past performance for the purposes of this solicitation.

Relevancy. The Government will assess for relevant past performance in terms of scope and magnitude.

-Relevant scope means contracts performed for the oversight, engineering, and management of the design, integration, installation, verification/testing, training, and logistics associated with the Continuous Technology Refresh (CTR) Ranges and similar facilities.

-Relevant magnitude shall be defined as contracts with a comparable value as the DRTS effort in this solicitation. Offeror will receive a rating in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Method as indicated below in Table 3.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Quality. The Quality of Products or Services is the third aspect of the past performance evaluation and is done to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see Table 4).

TABLE 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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.

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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.

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.

Factor 4 - Price.

a. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Price proposals. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

b. The price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed prices in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4. The Government will add all Firm Fixed Priced CLIN prices including Options to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP).

The TEP will be used in the Government’s subjective trade-off analysis to determine the Best Value.

2) The Government will review the pricing submission for completeness and compliance with Section L.

Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will evaluate the Price Volume for the presence of Unbalanced Pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced Pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4) Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness.

c. The Government will not conduct a price realism analysis.

(End of Summary of Changes)