SF_30_Amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Block 14 Continuation Page for more information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 21

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-May-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91151-18-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Mar-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (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 APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) 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 date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

04-May-2018

CODE

MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING

MISSION CONTRACTING OFFICE (MCO)

36000 DARNALL LOOP, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5095

W91151 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91151-18-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

SF 30 BLOCK CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 0003:

1. The Solicitation closing date has changed from May 8, 2018, 3:00PM to May 14, 2018, 3:00PM.

2. The Government does not anticipate any further extensions.

3. The Government is finalizing remaining answers to industry questions and Exhibit T (which combines T, W, and) and is anticipating release in an Amendment 0004 on or about May 7, 2018.

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

AMENDMENT 0002:

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

NOTE: Added or updated language are in RED in Solicitation.

1. The Solicitation closing date has changed from April 30, 2018, 3:00PM to May 8, 2018, 3:00PM.

2. UPDATE the following attachments and exhibits:

a. Exhibit AF, Wage Determination

3. ADDED the following exhibit:

a. Exhibit AK Collective Bargaining Agreement Memorandum of Understanding

4. Responses to questions and updates to Exhibits T, W, and V are expected to be provided in Amendment 0003 to the solicitation on or about 30 April 2018.

5. CHANGED 2 (c) on page 68 from 30 April 2018 to read 8 May 2018.

6. ADDED to C, 2, e on page 71 to read, "Tables and graphs may use a reduced font size, but no less than Arial 10-point font size.

7. CHANGED Tab F2-Subfactor 2,a on page 73 from 7th of May 2018 to 14th of May 2018.

8. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

AMENDMENT 0001:

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

NOTE: Added or updated language are in RED in Solicitation and PWS.

1. UPDATE the following attachments and exhibits:

a. Attachment 5, Resume Format

b. Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire Form

c. Attachment 7, Past Performance Information Sheet

d. Attachment 1, Cost Price Matrix

e. Exhibit AG, PWS

i. Updated Sections C.1.17, C.1.3.6, C.5.3.2.1, C.5.3.3.6, and C.5.3.2.2.1

f. Exhibit AH, CDRL Monthly CAP Purchase Request Status Form 1423-1

g. Exhibit P, Reference for Contract Management and Compliance

2. UPDATED ODC Plug numbers X002, X004, X006, and X008 were rounded to the nearest dollars.

3. CHANGED, "The Government fully expects," to read, "The Government intends," on page 69, paragraph B.5

4. ADDED in C.2 (e) page 70, "The Executive Summary has been included in Volume II, Mission Capability page count. Property Management Plan will be submitted as a separate document and will not count toward the before mentioned page limits."

5. UPDATED, added the sentence, "Fold-outs will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper." On page70 C.2(f).

6. UPDATED Tab F2 (c) on page 74 to read, "the PWS Section C.1.6.3, Financial Tracking and Reporting, and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

7. UPDATED Tab F3, Subfactor 4, Continuity of Operations on page 74 to read, "excluding C.1.3.8

8. UPDATED TAB G, Page 75 with Attachment 2 Past Performance Contact List

9. ADDED Past Performance Questionnaire language on page 76 to read, "Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 4. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contracts, TAG G, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to worner.o.heath.civ@mail.mil and jermain.m.compton.civ@mail.mil not later than 11 May 2018. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the KO will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance."

10. ADDED, "A signed letter from the corporate DCMA/DCAA representative will satisfy this requirement." to Section L, Volume V, Paragraph c on page 79.

11. CHANGED Section L, Volume V Cost, Factor 4 (g) (1-3), page 80 to remove X009 and 0010; X0002,X004, X006, X008; and X001, X003, X005, and X007.

12. CHANGED Section L, Volume V Cost, Factor 4 (g) (1-3), page 80 to remove X009 and 0010; X0002,X004, X006, X008; and X001, X003, X005, and X007.

13. ADDED "lead to worker ratio," to Factor 1, Mission Capability (a)(ii) Organization Structure on page 83

14. UPDATED Factor 1, Mission Capability, (c) Subfactor 3, Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise on page 84 to read, "sub-sections C.5.3.1 through C.5.3.3."

15. UPDATED Table 4a page 88.

16. The Solicitation closing date remains unchanged.

17. Questions from Industry are included as an attachment titled Government Responses to the amendment post.

18. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 08-May-2018 03:00 PM to 14-May-2018 03:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Basis for Contract Award

1. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated risk assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost Factors.

The Government will award a contract to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented. The awarded Offeror’s proposal must conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

2. As part of making the assessment, the Government will perform a best value tradeoff analysis determining whether exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

3. As a basis for award, the Government permits trade-offs between cost and non-cost factors.

THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE

LOWEST PROPOSED COST. However, the degree of importance of cost as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-cost factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost factors, the more important cost becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for realism and reasonableness using cost and price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as excessive may be determined a higher cost risk and may result in the removal of a proposal from competition. Unrealistically low costs may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirement.

b. Award for All of the Work.

1. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government will consider Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule ineligible for award.

Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

2. Prior to discussions, the Contracting Officer will determine a competitive range. If the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which the Government can conduct an efficient competition, 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.

Evaluation Criteria.

Evaluation Factors. The proposals will be evaluated under four evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost. Please note: acceptance of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Proposal does not preclude the requirement prescribed by FAR 19.702 for the submittal and approval of a Subcontracting Plan.

Factor 1: Mission Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Cost Management Subfactor 3: Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise Subfactor 4: Continuity of Operations

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4: Cost

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor. The Past Performance factor is equal to the Small Business Participation Factor.

The combined non-cost factors (Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation) are significantly more important than the Cost Factor. Within the Mission Capability factor, all subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1 – Mission Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria includes: adequacy of response; feasibility of approach;

completeness; and understanding of the requirement. The following will be evaluated for an overall assessment of Mission Capability.

Adequacy of Response. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely demonstrated, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with Section L of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The Government will evaluate the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

a. Subfactor 1. Program Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed capability in program management approach, and organizational structure through the Offeror’s key personnel qualifications, management structure, teaming agreements, quality control procedures and continuous process improvement methods.

(i) Key Personnel Qualifications. The evaluation will focus on breadth, depth, and relevancy of the qualifications of the proposed key personnel and the extent to which they meet or exceed the minimum personnel qualification requirements in PWS Section C.5.3, Program Management.

(ii) Organizational Structure. The evaluation will focus on the quality, completeness and feasibility of the Offeror's proposed management structure to ensure successful performance as a prime contractor on this requirement. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s flexibility in dealing with rapid increases and decreases in workload, problem solving, decision-making capability, organizational lines of authority, lead to worker ratio and the level of integration between primes/subcontractors to achieve mission performance and cost effective workload management.

(iii) Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement. The Quality Control methodology will be evaluated for its ability to do the following:

provide and maintain quality services;

identify and correct deficiencies and/or discrepancies;

successfully develop and implement a Quality Control program with effective processes and procedures.

Identify and correct instances of non-conforming services Preventing the re-occurrence of non-conforming services.

Provides for continuous process improvement (i.e. methods and techniques used) throughout the contract performance.

b. Subfactor 2. Cost Management. The Government will evaluate the Offerors approach to reducing or controlling costs, employing effective business processes, and policies to perform sound fiscal stewardship over funds during contract performance. The Government will assess the Offerors automated system for adequacy as required in the PWS Section C.1.6.2, Financial Tracking and Reporting and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

(i) Oral Demonstration of Project Cost Management System. The Offeror’s Project Cost Management demonstration will be evaluated for its demonstrated efficient and effectiveness at tracking and reporting contractor incurred costs billed against the contract. The Project Cost Management presentation will also be evaluated for its ability to track real time data, perform data searches and perform archival and backup of cost and project data.

(ii) Contract Cost Management. The evaluation will focus on the adequacy and efficiency of the Offeror's business processes and policies to perform sound fiscal stewardship over contract funds. The evaluation will address how comprehensive the approach is in addressing the sound use of resources. This will include examining methods for efficient use of personnel and tools for expenditure reduction. Viability of cost control methods and the degree to which these methods are capable of reducing and controlling costs IAW PWS Section and sub-sections of C.1.6, Cost Management and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

(iii) Project Cost Management System. The Government will assess the adequacy of the Offeror’s automated cost management system as required in the PWS Section and sub-sections of C.1.6, Cost Management, and Section and sub-sections of C.1.7, Mission Support Codes, and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates: Efficiency and effectiveness of the system at tracking and reporting contractor incurred costs billed against the contract; Ability of the system to track real time data, perform data searches and perform archival and backup of cost and project data; Ability of the system to be adaptable; Ease of use.

c. Subfactor 3. Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to recruit and retain a workforce possessing the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of the PWS Sections C.5.4 through C.5.11. The evaluation will focus on the adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror's approach to recruit, retain, and maintain technical acumen of qualified permanent and temporary staff throughout the duration of the contract period of performance as described in PWS Sections C.5.3, Program Management, sub-sections C.5.3.1 through C.5.3.3 and Exhibit AC, CBA. The Offeror's proposal must demonstrate how they will successfully respond to short notice changes in support requirements. Additionally, in conjunction with the Cost Factor, the Government will evaluate an Offeror's compensation plan for compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

d. Subfactor 4. Continuity of Operations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and risk mitigation strategies for minimizing disruption of operations due to contract transition and assumption of workload as described in PWS. Adequacy, completeness, and feasibility of the Offeror's approach and risk mitigation strategies to ensure continuity of operations during contract transition (PWS Section C.1.3, Contract Transition and Phase-out) to full performance (PWS Section and sub-sections under C.5.1) will also be evaluated.

Each subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level Mission Capability. The Subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any Subfactor that receives a “Marginal” or an “Unacceptable” rating will result in a “Marginal” or an “Unacceptable” rating, respectively, for the overall Mission Capability Factor. An Offeror must receive a minimum rating of “Acceptable” (Mission Capability) at the factor level to be eligible for award.

Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance in PPIRS to be reviewed in the evaluation process include:

Business Relations Quality of Service Service Cost Control Customer Satisfaction

a. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will perform a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined as relevant in Section M. The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance based on following:

i. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size and complexity.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral." Although the evaluation may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Goverment may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

b. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Scheme. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Rating Description

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.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Factor 3- Small Business Participation. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition.

The government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the TCV; and

e. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the small business participation goals.

Small Business Participation Proposal Factor Rating Methodology: The Government will assign an overall Small Business Participation Factor Rating based on the level of small business participation in each of the areas listed above, utilizing the Small Business Factor Rating Definitions provided in Table 4. Table 4a is included, for reference purposes only, to provide offerors with indicators of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable ratings in each of the five small business participation areas. Any offeror found to be "Marginal" or "Unacceptable" under any of the five small business participation areas will be automatically assigned a "Marginal" or "Unacceptable" rating for the Small Business Participation Factor, respectively.

Rating Description

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 factor 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.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

Table 4a. Indicators of Ratings by Small Business Participation Area (For Reference Purposes Only) Indicators for Assigned Ratings

Extent to Which SB Firms are Specifically Identified

Extent of Commitment to Use SB Firms

Complexity & Variety of Work SB Firms will Perform

Extent of Participation of SB Firms in Terms of the Total Contract Value (TCV)

Extent to Which the Offeror Meets or Exceeds the Small Business Participation Goals

Outstanding SB Firms are identified by name in each category proposed.

Enforceable written Agreements in place with all SB firms.

Wide variety of work to be provided by SB firms to include technically complex work.

SB firms will provide a significant amount of the

TCV (>22%SB

participation).

Exceeds all goals.

Good SB Firms are identified by name in most categories proposed.

Enforceable written agreements in place with most SB firms.

Some variety of work to be performed by SB firms to include technically complex work.

SB firms will provide a substantial amount of the TCV (>20% up to 22% SB participation).

Meets all goals and exceeds at least one goal, but not all goals.

Assigned Ratings

Extent to Which SB Firms are Specifically Identified

Extent of Commitment to Use SB Firms

Complexity & Variety of Work SB Firms will Perform

Extent of Participation of SB Firms in Terms of the Total Contract Value (TCV)

Extent to Which the Offeror Meets or Exceeds the Small Business Participation Goals

Acceptable

SB Firms are identified by name in some categories proposed.

Written agreements in place with some SB firms.

Some variety of work to be performed by SB firms yet absent technically complex work.

SB firms will provide meaningful amount of the TCV, which meets the minimum SB participation goal of 20%.

Meets all goals, but does not exceed any goals.

Marginal SB Firm identified by name in only one category proposed.

Written agreement in place with only one SB firm.

SB firms will only be utilized to provide supplies on the contract.

SB firms will provide a minimal amount of the

TCV.

Meets at least one goal, but does not meet all goals.

Unacceptable No SB Firms Identified by Name.

No indication of any written agreement in place with any SB firm.

No identification of how SB firms will be utilized.

SB firms will provide an insignificant amount of the value of the TCV.

Does not meet any goals.

Evaluation Factor 4 – Cost.

a. The base year and all options shall be included in the cost/price calculation. The Government will evaluate all responsive offers for realism and reasonableness and balance of the offered prices. The Government may use any or all of the applicable techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise options. For evaluation purposes, FAR 52.217-8 will be added to the overall price evaluation and evaluated at 50% of the final option year most probable cost.

b. The resultant contract will be a contract consisting of FFP, CR, and CPFF CLINs. The Cost Factor will include evaluation of price for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism.

(i) The total evaluated price/cost (TEP/C) for conducting a best value analysis will be calculated as follows:

1. The proposed price of all FFP CLINs; plus

2. The most probable amount of the CR CLINs plus the impact of any applicable indirect rates; plus

3. The Probable Cost estimate of all CPFF CLINs; plus

4. The probable cost/price total of Option Year 4 will be multiplied by 0.5 for evaluating the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

(ii) The overall proposed price/cost will be evaluated for reasonableness based on price analysis IAW FAR 15.404- 1(a) and balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) (Unbalanced pricing).

c. The CLIN pricing will be evaluated as follows:

FFP CLINs: FFP CLINs will be evaluated in accordance with IAW FAR 15.404-1(a) & (b). The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness for the proposed prices in FFP CLINs.

CR CLINs: The CR CLINs with no fixed fee are based on the NTE amounts provided by the Government. The Government has provided the estimated value for CR CLINs. These CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism of the contractor proposed material handling or other applicable indirect rate. The total value of Government supplied NTE amount plus the product of the NTE and the proposed indirect rates, if applicable will be evaluated for the base and all option years.

CPFF CLINs: The CPFF CLINs will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d). The Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the Offeror’s 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 and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal. Cost realism analyses will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost resulting from such analysis will be applied as described in paragraph b (i) above. For the purpose of conducting cost realism analysis, lower direct labor rates proposed for the same labor category will be adjusted to the highest direct labor rate proposed for that labor category (e.g., an offeror proposes $25, $40, and $50 for Engineer III then the $50 rate will be used for the probable cost adjustment). The Government does not intend to reforecast the Offerors projected base and pool amounts for recalculating indirect rates as a result of adjustments made to direct labor cost as part of its probable cost adjustment. Indirect rates will themselves be evaluated for realism in accordance with the solicitation. These rates will, in turn, be utilized to markup probable cost adjustments made to the direct costs proposed. Accordingly, the Government recommends the offeror be as realistic as possible with its direct costs, as proposed, to ensure that any potential impact of their adjustment is minimized.

d. The Government has provided the opportunity for the Offeror to propose overtime as part of its lead to worker structure as instructed in the Note on Exhibit T. Offerors are advised that proposed overtime will be evaluated as part of the cost realism analysis.

e. In addition to the cost realism analysis, and in conjuction with the Factor 1, Subfactor 3 Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise, the Goverment will evaluate the professional employee's compensation plan in accordance with the provision of FAR Clause 52.222.46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

a. Basis for Contract Award

4. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated risk assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost Factors.

The Government will award a contract to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented. The awarded Offeror’s proposal must conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

5. As part of making the assessment, the Government will perform a best value tradeoff analysis determining whether exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

6. As a basis for award, the Government permits trade-offs between cost and non-cost factors.

THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE

LOWEST PROPOSED COST. However, the degree of importance of cost as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-cost factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost factors, the more important cost becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for realism and reasonableness using cost and price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as excessive may be determined a higher cost risk and may result in the removal of a proposal from competition. Unrealistically low costs may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirement.

b. Award for All of the Work.

3. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government will consider Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule ineligible for award.

Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

4. Prior to discussions, the Contracting Officer will determine a competitive range. If the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which the Government can conduct an efficient competition, 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.

Evaluation Criteria.

Evaluation Factors. The proposals will be evaluated under four evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost. Please note: acceptance of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Proposal does not preclude the requirement prescribed by FAR 19.702 for the submittal and approval of a Subcontracting Plan.

Factor 1: Mission Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Cost Management Subfactor 3: Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise Subfactor 4: Continuity of Operations

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4: Cost

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor. The Past Performance factor is equal to the Small Business Participation Factor.

The combined non-cost factors (Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation) are significantly more important than the Cost Factor. Within the Mission Capability factor, all subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1 – Mission Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria includes: adequacy of response; feasibility of approach;

completeness; and understanding of the requirement. The following will be evaluated for an overall assessment of Mission Capability.

Adequacy of Response. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely demonstrated, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with Section L of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The Government will evaluate the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

e. Subfactor 1. Program Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed capability in program management approach, and organizational structure through the Offeror’s key personnel qualifications, management structure, teaming agreements, quality control procedures and continuous process improvement methods.

(i) Key Personnel Qualifications. The evaluation will focus on breadth, depth, and relevancy of the qualifications of the proposed key personnel and the extent to which they meet or exceed the minimum personnel qualification requirements in PWS Section C.5.3, Program Management.

(ii) Organizational Structure. The evaluation will focus on the quality, completeness and feasibility of the Offeror's proposed management structure to ensure successful performance as a prime contractor on this requirement. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s flexibility in dealing with rapid increases and decreases in workload, problem solving, decision-making capability, organizational lines of authority, lead to worker ratio and the level of integration between primes/subcontractors to achieve mission performance and cost effective workload management.

(iii) Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement. The Quality Control methodology will be evaluated for its ability to do the following:

provide and maintain quality services;

identify and correct deficiencies and/or discrepancies;

successfully develop and implement a Quality Control program with effective processes and procedures.

Identify and correct instances of non-conforming services Preventing the re-occurrence of non-conforming services.

Provides for continuous process improvement (i.e. methods and techniques used) throughout the contract performance.

f. Subfactor 2. Cost Management. The Government will evaluate the Offerors approach to reducing or controlling costs, employing effective business processes, and policies to perform sound fiscal stewardship over funds during contract performance. The Government will assess the Offerors automated system for adequacy as required in the PWS Section C.1.6.2, Financial Tracking and Reporting and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

(i) Oral Demonstration of Project Cost Management System. The Offeror’s Project Cost Management demonstration will be evaluated for its demonstrated efficient and effectiveness at tracking and reporting contractor incurred costs billed against the contract. The Project Cost Management presentation will also be evaluated for its ability to track real time data, perform data searches and perform archival and backup of cost and project data.

(ii) Contract Cost Management. The evaluation will focus on the adequacy and efficiency of the Offeror's business processes and policies to perform sound fiscal stewardship over contract funds. The evaluation will address how comprehensive the approach is in addressing the sound use of resources. This will include examining methods for efficient use of personnel and tools for expenditure reduction. Viability of cost control methods and the degree to which these methods are capable of reducing and controlling costs IAW PWS Section and sub-sections of C.1.6, Cost Management and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

(iii) Project Cost Management System. The Government will assess the adequacy of the Offeror’s automated cost management system as required in the PWS Section and sub-sections of C.1.6, Cost Management, and Section and sub-sections of C.1.7, Mission Support Codes, and Exhibit R, Project Cost Management System.

The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates: Efficiency and effectiveness of the system at tracking and reporting contractor incurred costs billed against the contract; Ability of the system to track real time data, perform data searches and perform archival and backup of cost and project data; Ability of the system to be adaptable; Ease of use.

g. Subfactor 3. Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to recruit and retain a workforce possessing the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of the PWS Sections C.5.4 through C.5.11. The evaluation will focus on the adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror's approach to recruit, retain, and maintain technical acumen of qualified permanent and temporary staff throughout the duration of the contract period of performance as described in PWS Sections C.5.3, Program Management, sub-sections C.5.3.1 through C.5.3.3 and Exhibit AC, CBA. The Offeror's proposal must demonstrate how they will successfully respond to short notice changes in support requirements. Additionally, in conjunction with the Cost Factor, the Government will evaluate an Offeror's compensation plan for compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

h. Subfactor 4. Continuity of Operations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and risk mitigation strategies for minimizing disruption of operations due to contract transition and assumption of workload as described in PWS. Adequacy, completeness, and feasibility of the Offeror's approach and risk mitigation strategies to ensure continuity of operations during contract transition (PWS Section C.1.3, Contract Transition and Phase-out) to full performance (PWS Section and sub-sections under C.5.1) will also be evaluated.

Each subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level Mission Capability. The Subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any Subfactor that receives a “Marginal” or an “Unacceptable” rating will result in a “Marginal” or an “Unacceptable” rating, respectively, for the overall Mission Capability Factor. An Offeror must receive a minimum rating of “Acceptable” (Mission Capability) at the factor level to be eligible for award.

Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance in PPIRS to be reviewed in the evaluation process include:

Business Relations Quality of Service

Service Cost Control Customer Satisfaction

c. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will perform a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined as relevant in Section M. The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance based on following:

i. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size and complexity.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral." Although the evaluation may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Goverment may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

d. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Scheme. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Rating Description

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.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Factor 3- Small Business Participation. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition.

The government will evaluate the following areas:

f. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

g. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

h. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

i. The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the TCV; and

j. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the small business participation goals.

Small Business…