A07-W911NF-18-R-0001_Amendment_01.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

The purpose of this amendment is to

1) Add H.2.2.8;

2) Revise the table of attachments in section J to add attachment 2a;

3) Remove duplicative text from M.4.1.1 All other terms and conditions remain unchanged as a result of this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Jan-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 W911NF-18-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-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 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 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

31-Jan-2018

CODE

US ARMY ACC-APG-RTP W911NF

800 PARK OFFICE DRIVE

SUITE 4229

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 27709

W911NF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911NF-18-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

H.1 MINIMUM GUARANTEE AND ORDERING PROCEDURES

Orders will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.505. The Government has no obligation to issue any orders except for the minimum guarantee of $2,500.00, which will be met through issuance of the first task order award.

H.2. TASK ORDER PROPOSAL PROCESS

H.2.1. Task Order types may include: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)

H.2.2.2. The Government estimates that the majority of the task orders may be issued on a cost reimbursement basis.

Fee shall be determined in accordance with Section H, paragraph H.5.1. Profit will be negotiated on the FFP task orders at the task order level and not greater than the maximum amounts established in Section H.4.2.

H.2.2.3. The Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and the Contract Security Classification Specification DD Form 254 that are incorporated into the Base IDIQ Section J are applicable to task orders unless otherwise specified at the task order level.

H.2.2.4. SPECIFIC: The contractor shall commence work upon assignment of a specific task order by the Contracting Officer. The work shall be accomplished at the location specified in the task order.

H.2.2.5. TASK ORDER REQUEST (TOR): The task order request constitutes the specific work packages and functions assigned to the contractor within the scope of work and contracted for task orders issued by the Contracting Officer. TORs include specific instructions and details regarding the requirements to be performed.

H.2.2.6. TASK ORDER FORMAT: Proposed TORs will contain sufficient information to allow the contractor to prepare the task order proposal. The proposed TOR will contain as a minimum the following:

a. TOR Number

b. Applicable Contract Number

c. Proposal Instructions

d. Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

e. Description of Requirement (PWS)

f. Deliverables

g. Contract Requirements Data Lists (CDRL)

h. Performance Location

i. Security Classification

j. Period of Performance

k. Procurement History, as applicable

l. COR and Technical Monitor, as applicable

m. Government Furnished Property, as applicable

n. Theater Business Clauses, as applicable

o. Special Clauses and Notes to Awardees

p. Key Personnel

H.2.2.7 TASK ORDER PROCESS

Awardee shall submit to the KO, a written Task Order Proposal (TOP) within the time specified in the TOR, and shall contain as a minimum, the following:

a. TOR Number

b. Contract Number

c. Authorized Negotiator Point of Contact

d. TOR Content as prescribed in TOR Instructions

e. Technical Proposal to include Performance Schedule and Milestones and subcontract participation Cost Proposal that includes as a minimum; a complete breakdown of direct, indirect cost, other direct cost such as travel, equipment and materials, fully disclosed subcontract information pursuant to FAR

15.408 and Certified Cost or Pricing Data for Prime and Subcontractor as applicable.

f. A cost narrative with sufficient documentation necessary to adequately support and explain each individual cost element proposed.

g. Subcontractor price or cost analysis as applicable and justification for subcontract type

h. Compliance with FAR 52.215-22 Limitations of Pass-Through Charges--Identification of Subcontract Effort, FAR 52.215-23 Limitations of Pass-Through Charges and FAR 52.219-4 Limitations On Subcontracting

i. Data Rights and Assertions

H.2.2.8 AUTHORIZED ORDERING OFFICE

ACC-APG RTP Division is the only office authorized to issue orders under this contract.

H.3. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSAL (TOP) SUBMISSIONS:

H.3.1. COST PLUS FIXED FEE (CPFF) TASK ORDERS

Pursuant to FAR 16.301-3(3), the Awardees' accounting system must be determined adequate to receive CPFF task orders.

H.3.2. LIMITATION OF PASS-THROUGH CHARGES

FAR 52.215-22, Limitation on Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort and 52.215-23 Limitation on Pass-Through Charges: FAR 52.215-22, Limitation on Pass-Through Charges- Identification of Subcontract Effort and 52.215-23, Limitation on Pass-Through Charges are applicable to this requirement. If subcontractor costs proposed exceed 70% of the total costs to be performed, Contractors must comply with the subject clauses by providing sufficient information for the Contracting Officer to determine the added value along with assessment of fee and indirect costs. This information will be used as part of the best value decision and evaluation of all elements of costs.

H.3.3. SUBMITTAL OF SUBCONTRACTOR FULLY DISCLOSED PROPOSAL

In order to facilitate expedience when evaluating proposals in response to TORs it is important that the following be adhered to. It is an acceptable practice for Prime contractors to utilize subcontractors in response to requirements. However, costs associated with the prime and "subcontractor" partnership must be evaluated for its fair and reasonableness. "Undisclosed" or "loaded" cost does not allow a proper cost analysis. Therefore the following must be adhered to:

H.3.3.1. FAR 52.215-12 "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data" must be adhered to and required information SHALL BE provided as part of the prime contractors proposal submissions by the TOR due date.

H.3.3.2. Prime contractors are responsible for ensuring THAT fully disclosed rates are provided for evaluation of proposals in response to TOR.

H.3.3.2.1. Subcontract proposals <$750K. The Prime Contractor must provide a cost analysis that fully supports the reasonableness of subcontractor costs to include an analysis of costs and fee/profit.

H.3.3.2.2. Subcontract proposals >$750K. Prime Contractor must provide a cost analysis that fully supports the reasonableness of subcontractor costs to include an analysis of costs and fee/profit. In addition, Prime contractors must either provide along with prime proposals or ensure that subcontractors provide a complete breakdown of costs to include subcontractor cost and fee/profit proposed to the KO by the closing date. See format in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408 for guidance. Primes shall require subcontractors TO submit fully disclosed rates to the contracting officer by the closing date of the TOR. FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION BY THE TOR

CLOSING DATE MAY RESULT IN PROPOSALS BEING ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION OF

TASK ORDER AWARDS.

H.3.4. FEE/PROFIT ON TRAVEL AND EQUIPMENT COSTS

Fee or Profit is not authorized for Prime or Subcontractors on travel and equipment costs.

H.3.5. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AT THE TASK ORDER LEVEL:

Subcontractors proposed will be considered the established subcontracting team and incorporated into the resultant contract.

Additions to the subcontracting team may be considered to support a specific task order request, however, will be highly scrutinized. Awardees are highly encouraged to submit request to add subcontractors as early as possible to preclude delay. Request will only be considered if the requirement dictates the need for a capability that does not currently exist on the subcontractor team. Therefore, all requests to add subcontractors must be provided to the contracting officer and include a complete rationale and specify the basis for not utilizing approved subcontractors, the need and value added of the proposed new subcontractor. A Contracting Officer response will be provided in two (2) working days. The Task Order Proposal date will not be extended to accommodate these requests.

H.4 FIXED FEE AND PROFIT

H.4.1 The Government estimates that the majority of orders will be issued entirely on a cost reimbursable basis, the maximum fixed fee allow is described below:

H.4.1.1 The maximum fixed fee rates apply to any and all cost reimbursement orders and any new requirements added to the order and any orders that may extend beyond the ordering period. Contractors shall not propose fee for cost reimbursement orders or CLINs that exceeds the maximumfee rate of 9%

H.4.1.2 Fixed fee will be negotiated for each task order. Contractors will be allowed fixed fee on subcontract costs, excluding equipment and travel costs. The maximum Fixed Fee the Prime contractors will be allowed to apply to subcontracts is as follows:

Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 5% Other Than Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 3% H.4.1.3 Fixed fee shall not be included on proposed travel and equipment costs.

H.4.2 Profit: Profit will be negotiated on FFP task orders at the task order level.

H.4.2.1 The maximum profit rates apply to any and all firm fixed price orders and any new requirements added to the order and any orders that may extend beyond the ordering period. Contractors shall not propose profit for firm fixed price orders or CLINs that exceed the maximum profit rates as TBD at the task order level.

H.4.2.2 Profit will be negotiated for each task order. Contractors will be allowed profit on subcontract costs, excluding equipment and travel costs. The maximum profit the Prime contractors will be allowed to apply to subcontracts is as follows:

Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 5% Other Than Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 3% H.4.2.3 Profit shall not be included on proposed travel and equipment costs.

H.5 COMPUTER HARDWARE, ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS (CHESS)

In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 25-1, when procuring commercial off the shelf (COTS) software, desktops, notebook computers, video teleconferencing or other commercial IT equipment (e.g. routers, servers, printers) contractors shall use the Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) contract vehicle at https://chess.army.mil. Contractors shall indicate CHESS items and use catalog prices in order proposals.

Contractors shall be authorized upon award to order through CHESS contract vehicles.

H.6 TRAVEL

H.6.1 Travel arrangements, including extended travel, shall be provided to and are subject to approval by the COR in advance of travel.

H.6.2 Travel arrangements shall be made in accordance with the order requirements. Contractor personnel may require theater clearance for some OCONUS locations. Contractor personnel are responsible for preparing and/or obtaining all required documentation required for OCONUS locations, including but not limited to, Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) and visas. Travel to OCONUS locations shall be in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including but not limited to, TESA requirements and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) policies.

H.6.3 Costs for transportation shall be based upon mileage rates, actual costs incurred, or on a combination thereof, provided the method used results in a reasonable charge. Travel costs will be considered reasonable and allowable only to the extent that they do not exceed on a daily basis the maximum per diem rates in effect at the time of the travel as set forth in the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR).

H.6.4 Maximum use is to be made of the lowest available customary standard coach or equivalent airfare accommodations available during normal business hours. Using Government funds to pay for premium travel (including first and business class) is not allowable unless specifically authorized. Exceptions for the use of premium travel shall be approved in writing by the COR prior to travel.

H.6.5 Contractors are required to register all OCONUS travelers in the Synchronized Deployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) system as the single source to track all deployed contractor personnel supporting DoD military operations worldwide. Upon approval and signature by the Contracting Officer a letter of authorization (LOA) will be generated.

H.6.6 Additional compensation including danger or hardship pay, if necessary to obtain and/or retain contractor personnel, shall be considered reasonable and allowable only to the extent that they do not exceed the rates in effect at the time of travel as set forth by the Department of State.

H.7 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)

H.7.1. The term "Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) is defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.1;

also see FAR 9.502 (c). An "OCI exists when a Contractor would face an actual or potential conflict of interest if it worked on a planned contract, due either to its other business interests or to the nature of the effort to be performed.

However, organizational conflicts of interest are more likely to occur in contracts involving:

Management support services;

Consultant or other professional services;

Contractor performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a Contractor that does not have overall contractual responsibility for development or production.

The Contracting Officer will review and analyze (PWS/SOW/SOO) under this contract prior to issuance of a Task Order Request and determine that no OCI has been identified, potential or otherwise. However, Awardees shall make a preliminary disclosure to the Contracting Officer, prior to the due date for receipt of Task Order Proposals, of any OCI issues the Awardee has identified. Such preliminary disclosure will allow the Contracting Officer more time to assess both the potential OCI and the Awardees proposed strategy to negate or mitigate the OCI. This assessment may be crucial since, per FAR 9.504(e), the Contracting Officer may not award the task order/delivery order to a Contractor with an OCI that cannot be negated or mitigated. If the Contractor demonstrates to the

Contracting Officer that there may be a possible conflict of interest arising out of an existing contract, the Contracting Officer will take the necessary action to delete that requirement and/or mitigate any conflict of interest that may be present. The Contractor agrees that the Government may, up to three years after acceptance of all programmatic documentation to be delivered under applicable Task Orders, restrict the Contractors future participation in any resulting program managed system acquisition action(s).

H.7.2. Title 10, US Code Section 2399 prohibits the involvement of a defense contractor in the operational test and evaluation of its own systems and equipment. Consequently, all parties must be particularly sensitive to potential, actual, or perceived organizational conflicts of interest where system contractors are or appear to be involved in the operational testing and evaluation of their own equipment or systems, including involvement as a test support contractor. Such involvement is strictly prohibited. The Contractor acknowledges that it is familiar with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2399 and FAR Subpart 9.5 and agrees that it will avoid conflicts of interest and, to the maximum possible extent, the appearance of conflict of interest, in accordance with the principles set forth in the Statute and FAR. The contractor also acknowledges that statutory operational testing and evaluation conflicts of interest arising under 10 U.S.C. 2399 and Army Regulation 73-1, paragraph 5-6, may not be mitigated or "firewalled" using the FAR Subpart 9.5 procedures.

H.8 FEDERAL HOLIDAYS

H.8.1 Contractor personnel performing at a Government site shall observe federal holidays and other days identified in this section unless otherwise indicated in an order.

The Government observes the following days as holidays:

New Years Day Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Washington’s Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day In addition to the days designated as holidays, the Government may also observe any day designated by Federal Statute, Executive Order, or Presidents Proclamation.

H.9 GOVERNMENT SITE CLOSURES

H.9.1 All or part of a Government site may be closed in response to an unforeseen emergency. Such emergencies may include, but are not limited to, adverse weather such as snow or flood, a natural disaster such as tornado or earthquake, or a site disaster such as a gas leak or fire. Contractor personnel are non-essential personnel for purposes of any instructions regarding such emergencies.

H.9.2 Contractor personnel shall be officially dismissed upon notification of a Government site closure.

H.9.3. Contractor personnel shall promptly secure all Government furnished property appropriately and evacuate in an expedient but safe manner.

H.9.4 Regarding Government site closure notifications, contractors shall follow instructions for non-essential personnel provided by local radio, television, official websites, and/or official Government site hotlines. Contractors may not receive any other form of notification of a Government site closure from the Government. If a decision to close all or part of a Government site is made during the duty day and the decision is transmitted through official notification channels, contractors shall follow the instructions provided.

H.9.5.Regarding the requirements of an order under this contract, the Government shall retain the following options:

H.9.5.1. The Government may grant an extension for any order delayed by the closure equal to the time of the closure, subject to the availability of funds.

H.9.5.2. The Government may forego work. Contractors shall not receive payment for any work not performed.

H.9. 5.3. The Government may reschedule the work on any day that is mutually satisfactory.

H.9.5.4. The Government may, at its discretion, permit the contractor personnel to perform at an off-site location during the period of the Government site closure, if meaningful work can be accomplished. If given the approval to work off-site during the closure, the contractor shall certify to the Government in writing within five (5) business days of returning to the Government site the nature and scope of the work completed off-site. If applicable, the contractor shall be permitted to bill the Government at the labor rates specified in the cost proposal for the specific task order.

H.10. ADDITIONAL CLAUSES

Additional clauses may be added to orders issued under this contract as applicable. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Theater Business Clearance (TBC)

b. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

c. Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA)

d. FAR Part 29 tax clauses

e. TBC, SOFA and TESA will be obtained for the applicable order and the clauses will be included in the order as applicable.

f. Additional intellectual property and data rights clauses

g. FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation clauses may be added depending on the basis for award of an order.

H.11 OCONUS COSTS

For Task Orders issued that require performance in OCONUS locations, costs related to OCONUS performance including, but not limited to, Cost of Living, Hardship, Living Quarters, Education, Danger Pay, and Foreign Per Diem, shall be proposed and billed in accordance with Department of State guidelines.

H.12 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

H.12.1 Additional CLINs may be added to orders if necessary to meet the requirements of the order. For example, CLINs may be added for ancillary items or data requirements.

H.12.2 The Government will not reimburse contractors for bid and proposal costs associated with any request for proposal for orders awarded on a competitive, sole source, or single offer basis, any contract or order modification, or any no cost settlement unless mutually agreed upon in writing.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

Name Title of Document Provided in RFP Attachment 1 Fee Yes Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire and

Survey - Yes

Attachment 2a Utilization of Small Business Yes

Attachment 3 Questions Template Yes Attachment 4 DD Form 254 - Contract Security

Classification Specification Yes

Attachment 5 TOR 0001 Yes Attachment 6 Pricing Template Yes Exhibit A DD Form 1423 Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRLs) Yes

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

M.1.1 The Government will not evaluate any pages that exceed the page limitations identified in Section L.

Proposals that fail to separate cost information from Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7 will be determined to be non-compliant, and will not be considered for award. Proposals with an omission of any required information shall not be considered for award.

M.1.2 The Government will not reimburse any Offeror for bid and proposal costs associated with responding to this solicitation. The award of this contract is subject to the availability of adequate funds. The Government reserves the right to cancel this requirement at any time without being responsible for bid and proposal costs.

M.2 BASIS OF AWARD

M.2.1 This procurement will be awarded through a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). A single award will be made based on the best overall value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Corporate Experience, Management and Contract Management, Key Personnel, Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Cost. A single award will be awarded to an Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, that also provides a proposal that conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

M.2.2 For an offeror to receive consideration for award, an adjectival rating of no less than “Good” must be achieved in Factor 1 - Corporate Experience, Factor 2 - Management and Contract Management Approach, Factor 3

- Key Personnel and Factor 4 - Technical Approach. Factor 5 - Past Performance must receive at least a minimum rating of “Relevant” and “Satisfactory Confidence.” In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral/unknown risk will be assigned. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

M.2.3 All non-cost factors when combined are significantly more important than Cost. Corporate Experience and Technical Approach are equal and significantly more important than the Management and Contract Management, Key Personnel and Past Performance Factors which are of equal importance.

M.2.4 Evaluation Process. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. A competitive range will be established in the event that discussions are deemed necessary. 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.

Only those Offerors determined to be within the competitive range will be included and notified by the Contracting Officer.

M.3 TWO-PHASE PROCESS

M.3.1 Phase I - Pre-Evaluation Screening Compliance. The first phase of the evaluation is screening of all seven volumes of the proposals to validate compliance to the proposal submission instructions of Section L. If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to be non-compliant, the Offeror will be notified by the Contracting Officer.

M.3.2 Phase II - Evaluation of Volumes 1 - 6

The second phase will include evaluating the Offeror’s response to Volumes 1 through 6 pursuant to the evaluation instructions in Section L and the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP. The specific volumes are denoted below:

Volume 1 - Corporate Experience, Volume 2 - Management and Contract Management Approach;

Volume 3 - Key Personnel Volume 4 - Technical Approach Volume 5 - Past Performance; and Volume 6 - Cost

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.4.1 All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST). The evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

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 be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.4.1.1 Factor 1 – Corporate Experience

The evaluation will assess the relevancy of the offeror’s experience, strengths, and teaming arrangements/subcontracts. The evaluation will assess whether the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to successfully provide task appropriate solutions. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated full understanding of the PWS requirements. The evaluation will gauge whether the Offeror fully understands the support required by ARL and examine how the Offeror demonstrates capabilities with special emphasis on the Offeror’s knowledge aligned to mission requirements of the PWS and the procedures and processes used by DoD Labs Science and Technology Mission. The evaluation will assess if the Offeror has demonstrated that it has necessary access to all resources and assets necessary to conduct this effort and justifies the application of those resources within mission requirements. The evaluation will assess if the Offeror has assured responsive access to the facilities, capabilities, and processes through the life of the contract.

M.4.1.2 Factor 2 – Management and Contract Management Approach

The evaluation will assess the extent to which management effectively and efficiently implements assignment and execution of work, how it will support management of multiple task orders for a variety of customers and performers at dispersed locations and how it includes teaming partner capabilities in response to internal and external problem areas and solution development. The evaluation will also assess whether these capabilities are likely to be available through the life of the contract.

The evaluation will assess the efficacy of the approach proposed to manage, control and report on all associated tasks and maximize performance while keeping costs controlled.

The evaluation will assess how the Offeror proposes to employ management and technical personnel toward the goal of optimizing core experience and expertise across the task orders. The evaluation will assess how the proposed contract management capabilities and processes will work effectively, with the Government Team, customers and stakeholders through the life of the contract. The evaluation will also examine the qualifications of the teaming partners and determine the added value to the requiring activity of those teaming partners. The evaluation will assess whether the offeror is getting the most benefit from its teaming partners and its internal corporate capabilities.

M.4.1.3 Factor 3 - Key Personnel

The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s designation of key personnel, their qualifications and the level of autonomy given to the Program Manager. Letters of Commitment provided by all Key Personnel will be evaluated.

M.4.1.4 Factor 4 - Technical Approach

The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror possesses the expertise, knowledge, level of security clearance, and capabilities for successful performance of the requirements identified in the TOR and PWS. The evaluation will assess the description/qualifications/certifications and Resumes of the proposed employees to include proposed subcontractors.

Reference Attachment 5, TOR 001, for the basis of award for Technical Approach Factor.

M.4.1.5 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The factor ratings, excerpted below are for Volumes 1 through 4 and focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating describes how well the proposals meet the terms of the factors.

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.4.2 Past Performance

M.4.2.1 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.

M.4.2.2 Proposed past performance will be evaluated using the Offeror’s proposal, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires and any other sources available to the Government.

M.4.2.3 The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors are to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

M.4.3.4 If an Offeror states they have no recent or relevant past performance and the Government obtains negative past performance information from a source other than an Offeror’s proposal (i.e. PPIRS, questionnaires, etc.), the information may be used to determine the performance confidence rating for that Offeror. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems found in proposals.

M.4.4.5 If an Offeror only has recent and relevant past performance examples as part of a predecessor company, the Government may consider that past performance in the evaluation.

M.4.4.5.1 Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired as described in the PWS. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2: 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.

M.4.4.5.2 Quality Assessment: Assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

M.4.4.5.3 Utilization of Small Business Assessment: Assess the past performance of the Offeror’s compliance with requirements for utilization of small business concerns as provided by the Offerors in Attachment 2a (Utilization of Small Business).

M.4.4.5.4 Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered to include utilization of small business assessment. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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.

M.4.5 Factor 6 - Cost:

M.4.5.1 Part 1 - Fee:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposed fee to determine if the proposed fee is 9% or less for Cost- Plus-Fixed-Fee task orders and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract line item numbers (CLINs). The Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed fee to determine if the proposed fee does not exceed the maximum nominal fee for Prime contractors allowed on Other Direct Costs for subcontracts.

M.4.5.2 Part 2 - Cost: For Task Order Request only

M.4.5.2.1 The Cost Factor evaluation will be conducted on the basis of cost and fee. The proposed cost and fee will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism of proposed costs/prices to accomplish the technical approach. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(c), and (d) will be the primary means of assessing Task Order Proposal (TOP) reasonableness and realism.

Realism and Reasonableness are defined as follows:

Cost Realism: The Government will evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the Offeror’s proposed cost estimates and prices to perform the resultant TO, to determine whether the proposed TO Costs are (a) realistic to meet the requirements of TOR 001 and (b) accurately reflect the technical approach contained in the Offeror’s Technical Approach Proposal. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the probable Cost of performance by the Offerors.

The probable Cost may differ from the proposed Cost. The probable Cost, rather than the proposed Cost, shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value. The probable Cost will be determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost and fee to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements, to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.4.5.2.2 The results of the Cost Realism assessment may be used in the assessment of proposal risk under the Technical Approach Factor. In the event that the Offeror’s Cost Factor proposal is inconsistent with, and/or reflects a lack of realism regarding the Offeror’s Technical Approach Factor, the Cost Factor evaluation results may be downgraded commensurate with the extent and impact of the realism shortfalls.

M.4.5.2.3 The total evaluated cost to be evaluated for purposes of award determination (subject to cost realism adjustments) will be the total identified in the Offeror’s xxxx COST MMDDYY.xls file. The objective of the proposal analysis is to ensure all proposed costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic. Cost proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Contracting Officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating each Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic.

M.4.5.2.4 The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed direct labor rates in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(d) and/or (c). The probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) an Offeror’s proposed direct labor rates, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. If an Offeror does not provide specific rationale for any proposed direct labor rates, the Government reserves the right to adjust the proposed rates for purposes of evaluation and cost realism.

M.4.5.2.5 The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation including, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, Defense Contract Audit Agency, and Defense Contract Management Agency. This does not preclude the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for proposed costs.

M.4.5.2.6 Cost Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the cost reasonableness of the Offeror's proposed cost and profit in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.5 Findings Definitions

Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength in the proposal is an aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency Is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

M.6 Additional Requirements Offeror Shall Meet To Be Eligible for Award

Offerors shall not submit any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals. All concerns shall be addressed by submitting questions by the date specified in this solicitation. If an Offeror includes any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals, the proposal will not be considered for award.

(End of Summary of Changes)