MOD_W9115123R0024 Amendment 0003_06 Mar 23.pdf

0011634815

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

The changes for Amendment 0003 are as follow s: In the follow ing list of documents, the documents w hich have been revised have their titles stricken through and the name of the revised document is listed in red text. The documents that are listed in black text w hich has not been stricken through have not been revised.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Mar-2023

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 W9115123R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jan-2023

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 is extended, X 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 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

03-Mar-2023

CODE

MICC - FORT HOOD (901ST CBN)

36000 SHOEMAKER LANE, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5025

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9115123R0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

See Technical Exhibit A – Performance Work Statement for Test and Evaluation Technical Support Services

(TETSS)

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The changes for Amendment 0003 are as follows: In the following list of documents, the documents which have been revised have their titles stricken through and the name of the revised document is listed in red text. The documents that are listed in black text which has not been stricken through have not been revised.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL PAGES

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A Performance Work Statement 89 Exhibit A Perfomance Work Statement, Dated 20230301 83 Exhibit Aa Deliverable Schedule 02 Exhibit Aa TETSS PWS Deliverable Schedule Dated 20230228 02 Exhibit B Performance Requirements Summary 04 Exhibit C Monthly Progress and Financial 08 Exhibit D Task Implementation Plan 03 Exhibit E Emergency Contact List 01 Exhibit F Test Plans Procedures Reports 03 Exhibit G Technical Manuals 06 Exhibit H Software Documentation 01 Exhibit J Personnel Training Status 01 Exhibit K AMDTD Base TAR 18 Exhibit K AMDTD Base Tar Final Dated 20230301 Rev 3 18 Exhibit L FSTD Base TAR 15 Exhibit L FSTD Base TAR Rev Dated 20230224 15 Exhibit M DD Form 254 04 Exhibit M DD Form 254 TETSS Dated 20230301 04 Exhibit Ma DD Form 25 Addendum 1 02 Exhibit Ma DD Form 25 Addendum 1 20230224 Recompete 02 Exhibit Mb DD Form 25 Addendum 2 02 Exhibit Mc DD Form 25 Addendum 3 01 Exhibit N Government Property List 01 Exhibit N 20230223 Government Property List 01

Exhibit P Plan of Action and Milestones 01 Exhibit Q DD Form 441 DoD Security Agreement 02 Exhibit R Wage Determination 2015-5229 Rev 20 Ft Bliss 12 Exhibit S Wage Determination 2015-5313 Rev 20 Ft Sill 14 Exhibit T CDRL A001-A004 02 Exhibit U CDRL A005-A008 02 Exhibit V CDRL A009-A011 02 Exhibit W Sensitive Item Inventory 01 Exhibit X Common Access Card Log 01

ATTACHMENTS DESCRIPTION TOTAL PAGES

Attachment 1 Sample Test TAR 11 Attachment 1 TETSS Sample Test TAR 20230224 11 Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire 06 Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire Rev 20230216 06 Attachment 3 Historical Staffing Ft Bliss 01 Attachment 4 Historical Staffing Ft Sill 01 Attachment 5 Cost Volume Workbook 01 Attachment 5 Cost Volume Workbook Revised 20230228 01 Attachment 6 Proposal Compliance Matrix 01 Attachment 6 Proposal Compliance Matrix Rev 20230328 01

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

A. EVALUATION FACTORS

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

The Government will award a contract to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFARS.

As part of making the assessment, the Government will perform a best value tradeoff analysis determining whether exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated cost provides the best value to the Government. 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 costs for realism and reasonableness using cost and price analysis techniques. Proposed costs evaluated as excessive may be determined a higher cost risk and may result in the elimination 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.

Award for all the Work. The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will consider offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Section B ineligible for award. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Prior to discussions, the KO 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 KO 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.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The Government will perform an initial assessment of the Offerors' proposals against the submittal requirements of Section L. Failure to submit the required documentation and in the format specified in Section L of this solicitation will render the Offeror's proposal unevaluable and the proposal will be eliminated from the competition without further consideration. 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 the solicitation) that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than Past Performance factor. The combined non-cost factors (Mission Capability and Past Performance) are significantly more important than Cost. Within the Mission Capability factor Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 3. Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 3. Each subfactor must be rated as acceptable for the overall factor to be rated as acceptable. To receive consideration for award, a rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Mission Capability factor (to include all subfactors).

The proposal will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance and Cost.

Factor 1: The Mission Capability factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Base Operations

b. Subfactor 2 - Key Personnel

c. Subfactor 3 - Test Support Operations

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Mission Capability subfactors as it applies to the PWS. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth below in the “Evaluation Approach” paragraph of section C. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost: The resulting award will be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of cost. Evaluations will include information to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed labor hour skill mix. Any findings related to the Offeror’s proposed labor hour skill mix will result in adjustments to the Offeror’s proposed price in the calculation of the evaluated cost.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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.

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

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

(i) Factor 1 – Mission Capability.

The Mission Capability factor is divided into the following subfactors:

1) Subfactor 1- Base Operations

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed methodology for Task Implementation Plan (TIP) response to each of the base operations Task Authorization Requests (TARs) (Fort Bliss, TX (AMDTD) TE K, and Fort Sill, OK (FSTD), TE L) using the TIP format listed as TE D – Task Implementation Plan Revision 20220106, as follows:

a. In accordance with PWS 5.1, Offeror’s TIP for management (key personnel and administrative staffing level with the appropriate skill mix to maintain the continuity of base operations). The Offeror’s organizational structure chart, supervisor to employee ratios, and use of technical leads, with personnel by labor category, functions each labor categories shall support, number of personnel used for each labor category, and all labor hours (i.e., full or part-time labor hours for each labor category) for innovative organizational processes and efficient use of personnel to execute the Base Operations Support requirement at Fort Bliss, TX, Base Operations Support requirement at Fort Sill, OK, and PWS paragraphs 1.6.11.1 and 5.1.

b. The Offeror’s proposed management controls used to recruit, retain personnel with requisite knowledge, skills, training, and experience to execute the requirements IAW PWS Section 1.6.11.2, for sufficiency and feasibility of using teaming arrangements, partnering agreements, and/or joint ventures to support the requirements throughout the contract performance period.

2) Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel

Resumes will be evaluated IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.10. through 1.6.10.1.4. of the Key Personnel qualifications, the clearance level eligibility, education, qualification, years of experience, and authority to support the requirement as part of the management organization.

3) Subfactor 3 – Test Support Operations

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Task Implementation Plan (TIP) (TE D – Task Implementation Plan Revision 20220106) response to Test Support Operations sample test TAR, Attachment 1, as follows:

a. In accordance with the entire PWS Section 5.2 technical approach to perform pre-test services, test execution, and post-test services. The TIPs methodology regarding workload shifts for personnel management for multiple locations simultaneously IAW Attachment 1.

b. The Offeror’s Fluctuating Test Workloads methodology feasibility and mitigation strategies for handling surge and lull periods for test support, including when to release or reassign test support personnel, minimizing disruption to on-going activities while also minimizing cost to the Government when changes in priorities to the Sample Test TAR support operations occur.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s methodology for the sample test TAR when:

The test support timeline slips 90 days.

The number of Systems Under Test (SUT) equipment increases by 1/3.

Multiple test events and locations that must execute simultaneously, resulting in overlapping SUTs.

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 3 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

(ii) Factor 2 - Past Performance.

1. Past Performance Factor. 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. The Government will review similar and recent performance comments received will be considered and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. The Government will review Offerors Past Performance in CPARS to include Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management and Regulatory Compliance.

a. 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. The Government will evaluate 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 the Government may use data provided about the in Attachment 2, Past Performance, and data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or similar system and State Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance to be reviewed in the evaluation process include: Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management and Regulatory Compliance.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Offeror’s significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years) in their

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

proposal. The Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance, in the absence of recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

c. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and confidence assessment.

(1) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(2) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 4) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 4 - 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.

(3) 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 the quality of an Offeror’ 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 relevancy in Table 4. The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned on the ratings in Table 5.

TABLE 5 - 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.

2. 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 favorable or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offer’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 Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

(iii) Factor 3 - Cost.

1. The Cost Factor will not be scored or rated. The Government will evaluate all responsive offers for realism, reasonableness and balance of the offered costs. The Government may use any or all of the applicable techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

2. For evaluation purposes, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR 52.217-8) by multiplying 0.5 of the Offeror’s cost from the final ordering period of performance to the Offeror's total cost Offerors are required only to price all ordering periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may develop a probable cost estimate for evaluation purposes only, to determine the overall best value. Cost calculation shall include all ordering periods added together into a total sum (contract ceiling), and the option to extend services, FAR 52.217-8. The Government will evaluate proposals for compliance with FAR clauses 52.222-46, 52.222-55 and 52.222-62, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, Minimum Wages and Paid Sick Leave, respectively.

(End of Summary of Changes)