W911QX-17-R-0008-0004.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 correct and clarify the requirement for letters of commitment, key personnel only.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jun-2017

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 W911QX-17-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Apr-2017

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

14-Jun-2017

CODE

US ARMY ACC - APG / ADELPHI CONT DIV

ACC - APG / ADELPHI DIV

2800 POWDER MILL ROAD

CCAP-SCA

ADELPHI MD 20783-1138

W911QX 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911QX-17-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD (SECTION M)

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. This source selection will be conducted as a best value source selection in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).

Award(s) will be made based on the best overall proposal(s) that is/are determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors:

(I) Technical; (II) Past Performance and (III) Cost.

2. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror(s) whose Technical Proposal receives an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Technical (to include all subfactors ). In addition, the proposal must show a Past Performance of at least “Satisfactory Confidence” and “Relevant” or “Unknown

Confidence (Neutral)”. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be considered “Unknown Confidence (Neutral). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered or the highest technically rated proposal due to the best value determination. The Technical Factor is of paramount importance and is significantly more important than the Cost factor, which is less important than the Past Performance Factor. However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the cost increases.

3. The Government’s objective is to maximize practicable opportunities for Small Businesses. As such, the

Government may reserve at least one (1) of the anticipated exclusively for Small Businesses who achieve a rating of no less than “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor (to include all subfactors), as well as achieve a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” and “Relevant” or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” for the

Past Performance Factor. All offerors, regardless of their socio-economic status, will be evaluated using the same evaluation criteria, identified in Section M “Evaluation Approach” below. This is necessary in order to provide the best possible solution for the Warfighter. To be eligible for award, both small and large businesses must have submitted a fully responsive proposal and be selected based upon the evaluation criteria and the terms and conditions of this Solicitation. To be selected for the Small Business reserved awards, the Small Business must be eligible pursuant to FAR Part 19. Proposals received that do not qualify as Small Business concerns under NAICS 541712 shall not be considered for the Small Business reserved awards, if any such awards shall be made.

4. The Request for Proposal (RFP) includes a Performance Work Statement (PWS) for all possible types of requirements under the base IDIQ award, as well as two (2) awardable Task Order PWSs for Task’s which will be identified as being required for proposal purposes, offerors shall ensure their proposal conforms to both Section L, “Instructions to Offerors” and Section M “Evaluation Approach”.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals provided the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors (Technical, Past Performance and Cost) as well as the subfactors described below.

1. Technical: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a) Personnel

b) Understanding of Work to be Accomplished

c) Management

d) Small Business Participation

Technical Subfactors (a – d) are adjectival factors of equal weight.

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (iii) Volume III – Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment

3. FACTOR III– COST

The resulting award(s) will be a MATOC IDIQ contract using CPFF Task Order contract(s). Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (ii) Volume II –

Cost

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation considerations for all factors and subfactors are 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 offeror shall address in detail each task and subtask requirement in PWS and provide a QASP that demonstrates full understanding of the requirements. 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.

A valid U.S. facility clearance of TOP SECRET at time of award. The Offeror shall ensure that 100% of the personnel shall possess or have the ability to obtain a SECRET security clearance issued by the Defense

Security Service. The Offeror shall provide information for investigation existence/eligibility for all personnel listed within the proposal submission. The Government will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror. For the Subtasks that require a security clearance at the TOP SECRET level, the Offeror shall ensure at least 90% of the cleared personnel servicing the awarded contract shall possess or have the ability to obtain a final TOP SECRET security clearance issued by the Defense Security Service, with eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented

Information (SCI) in accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense (DoD) 5200.2-R (Personnel Security

Program), Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704, and Intelligence Community Directive

(ICD) 704. The Offeror shall provide information for investigation and/or SCI eligibility for all applicable personnel with the proposal submission. The Government will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror. The Offeror shall ensure that upon contract award a minimum of 40% of the personnel staffing the subtasks requiring a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance do so.

The Offeror shall ensure that 90% of the personnel staffing the subtasks that specify a TOP SECRET/SCI requirement, maintain a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance not later than one (1) year after contract award. The offeror shall provide evidence of an adequate cost accounting system as defined by FAR 16.301-3(a) and

DFAR 252.242-7006 to provide CPFF task orders.

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.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Personnel. This portion of the offeror’s proposal naming technical personnel available to or obtainable for the contract (including prospective subcontractor personnel) will be evaluated using the three (3) following elements:

(i) Availability: The proposed personnel are available to support the contract effort. The key personnel required for the Base Award is the Program Manager. Resumes for Key Personnel will be required for the

Base Award. Any additional Key Personnel will be identified in the issued Task Orders. For each Task

Order award, the offeror shall provide full resumes for key personnel employees. The offeror shall include a letter of commitment attached to all resumes for proposed key personnel that are not direct employees of the prime contractor. The letter of commitment should include the person’s name, position/labor category they will fill, current status as either a current or contingent employee of the contractor or subcontractor and state their intention to commit to employment if the contractor should be selected for award. The letter should also indicate intention to work for the offeror if they receive the award. The offeror shall ensure each resume states education, skills, certifications, and clearance level.

(ii) Experience: The offeror shall propose personnel that have experience and qualifications in the stated C5ISR requirements and adhere to one (1) of the two (2) following elements dependent upon the applicable task area.

a. For task areas requiring R & D functions (BASE PWS C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, C.2,7, and C.2.10), which will be specified as: Ability to conduct basic and applied research in the areas requested in the PWS to include the following: Computational Sciences, Computational Architectures, High Performance Networking, Network Sciences, and Cybersecurity Defense. All resumes for proposed personnel that will be assigned to basic or applied R & D, to include Cyber Defense task areas must include at least one (1) example of published work in its entirety to demonstrate recent research capability and demonstrate writing quality

(not counted towards page count). If a candidate is unpublished, the offeror shall state so.

b. For tasks providing resumes (Key Personnel for the Base Award and all Key Personnel proposed for Task

Orders) for IT/Cyber Defense and Computer Network Defense Service Provider (CNDSP) that meet the certification requirements of DoD 8570.01-M and describe the additional supplemental skills, certifications and experience, clearance level, and project management where applicable within the past five (5) years in the following Cyber Security-related fields to include years of experience:

i. Computer Network Defense

ii. Certification & Accreditation

iii. Continuous Monitoring & Risk Scoring

iv. Threat Analysis

v. Research System Management & Administration

vi. Research Database Administration

vii. Basic and Applied Cyber Research

viii. Cyber Vulnerability Assessments

ix. Information Assurance Management

(iii) Recentness: The most recent related experience must not be more than two (2) years from the current date.

Subfactor 2: Understanding of Work to be Accomplished. Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed set forth in the Basic PWS and Task Order PWS’;s. Offeror’s grasp and understanding of the methods and techniques required to perform in the technical areas set forth in the Basic PWS and Task Orders PWS's. This subfactor has five (5) elements:

i. Completeness - The proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the entire spectrum of the C5ISR effort. The offeror shall provide QASP that addresses each of the required tasks and subtasks listed in the

RFP and demonstrates a clear understanding of all aspects of the C5ISR effort.

ii. Accuracy – The proposal precisely and unerringly reflects the Contractor’s required actions.

iii. Soundness of Approach – The proposal describes accepted practices used to carry out the work.

iv. Clarity – The proposal is clearly worded and unambiguous.

v. Recentness of Experience – The offeror has recent experience (within two (2) years of the date of the RFP) of a similar nature to the proposed work, which will assist in understanding what is to be accomplished

Subfactor 3: Management. The portion of the proposal describing the offeror’s intended plan for managing the overall contract effort shall be evaluated using the following six (6) subfactor elements:

(i) Corporate Management Structure and Approach - The offeror shall provide a Program Management Plan describing their corporate structure and how it will ensure completion of all tasks and oversight of personnel throughout the period performance.

(ii) Communications - The offeror shall demonstrate the proposed communication methods between the

Government and offeror to ensure the most effective and efficient manner of meeting requirements.

Some task areas, such as Cybersecurity, may require 24x7 interaction, while others may require less.

(iii) Internal Controls - The offeror shall provide their internal management policies and procedures to demonstrate the ability to manage and execute operations of this requirement, to include but not be limited to management of employees, and assignment of tasks.

(iv) Recruiting and Retention - The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to recruit and retain highly qualified personnel for this requirement to include training plans, employee Individual Development

Plans, and employee incentives. The offeror shall provide staffing plans that verify their recommended paybands/rates and benefit packages and their relative relationship to national, regional and local averages with supporting detail on how their recommended pay & benefit will successfully support their proposed recruitment and retention rates for highly competitive candidates in the required areas to ensure no lapses in meeting requirements.

(v) Project Management & Controls - The offeror shall demonstrate the programs it has in place to ensure that tasks are completed correctly, on time, and within budget by providing examples of status reports, weekly summaries, cost reports, and customer feedback.

(vi) Accounting - The offeror shall provide evidence of an adequate cost accounting system as defined by

FAR 16.301-3(a) and DFAR 252.242-7006 to provide cost plus fixed fee task orders.

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation. All Offerors (both Large and Small Businesses) will be evaluated on the level of practicable proposed participation of United States Small Businesses in the performance of acquisition (as

Small Business prime offerors or Small Business subcontractors) relative to the objectives established herein. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

i. Socioeconomic Concerns – The extent to which Small Businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in the proposal. The proposal identifies the complexity and variety of work small firms are to perform and the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones).

ii. Small Business Participation Past Performance – All Offerors shall submit information substantiating the

Offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business”, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan on prior or relevant contracts within the past three (3) years. Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information.

Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same.

iii Participation – Small Business Participation will be evaluated as one of the

Technical subfactors. As part of this evaluation, all offerors (both large and small businesses) will be required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. Each Offerors' Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated in terms of its approach and understanding of the small business objectives for this effort.

Based on Market Research, the Government's Small Business Participation goals for this effort are: Small

Business: {35%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business(SDB): {5%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB):{5%} of the total contract value; Historically

Underutilized Business Zone(HUBZone) Small Business: {2%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned

Small Business (VOSB): {3%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Business (SDVOSB): {3%} of the total contract value.(Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {5%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal;

and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB). Offerors are encouraged to propose small business participation goals that are both reasonable and obtainable, as supported by their historical evidence provided from similar, past requirements (see Section M, Evaluation Approach, for more details).

Offerors (other than U.S. Small Business offerors) must also submit an acceptable subcontracting plan to be eligible for award. The subcontracting plans must meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, DFARS

252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan), AFARS

5119.704 and AFARS AP-DD. For informational purposes, DoD's subcontracting goals are: Small

Business: {34.5%} of the total subcontracting value; HUBZone Small Business: {3.0%{ of the total subcontracting value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: {3.0%} of the total subcontracting value; Small Disadvantaged Business: {5.0%} of the total subcontracting value; Women-0wned Small

Business: {5.0%} of the total subcontracting value. Offerors are encouraged to propose small business subcontracting goals that are both reasonable and obtainable, as supported by their historical evidence provided from similar, past requirements. Subcontracting plans are reviewed for determining award eligibility; they are not part of the source selection's evaluation criteria. However, it is important to note that offerors' small business subcontracting past performance will be evaluated as part of source selection as an element within the Small Business Participation subfactor (see Section M, Evaluation Approach, for more details). Offerors' small business subcontracting past performance will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The Technical Factor Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or

Unacceptable based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. A separate rating table will be used when evaluating the Small Business Participation subfactor. Specifically, the Small Business

Participation Rating Table, provided below, will be used.

Small Business Participation Rating Table

Definitions:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table

Color 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.

Small Business Participation Rating Table

Color Adjectival Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

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. See FAR 15.001.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is 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.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Factor 1, Technical Approach will be the most important factor. The technical approach will describe their proposed approach for executing all elements identified in the PWS for C5ISR support. The Government will evaluate the validity of the offeror’s technical approach for executing the requirements of the PWS and how well the offeror has complied with all of the requirements of the RFP.

iii.

3. FACTOR II & SUBFACTORS – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required effort of the Basic PWS, and Task Order PWS’s.

The following approach will be taken in the evaluation of past performance:

(a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires provided as an attachment in Section J. See Attachment “Past Performance Q”.

(b) The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (joint venture partners and major

Subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of Subcontractors. Major Subcontractors and joint venture partners are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past two (2) 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. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local

Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services for C5ISR under the same North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (541712). Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past two (2) years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past two (2) years without regard to the contract award date.

(c) Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major

Subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past two (2) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

(d) 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 (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, Quality Assessment, and Performance Confidence

Assessment.

(i) 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 through the source selection.

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

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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

4. FACTOR III & SUBFACTORS – COST EVALUATION APPROACH

The Cost Evaluation Approach shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices as defined in the awadable task orders.. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the

Government reserves the right to request such data prior to task order award if applicable. The information submitted in this factor shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

In accordance with FAR 16.301, the Contracting Officer shall determine that a contractor’s accounting system is adequate. To assist in this determination all offerors shall submit a “Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor’s

Accounting System Checklist” (S 1408), Appendix G, within their Factor III – Cost, along with a copy of the offeror’s current Accounting Policies and Practice.

The contract will be an IDIQ MATOC where CPFF type Task Orders will be issued. The Government will evaluate cost realism of the offerors’ proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. The probable cost may differ from the proposed and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. The base IDIQ MATOC award shall be included in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low

(an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

The competitive environment will ensure that costs and fixed fees are fair and reasonable. A cost realism analysis will be performed during the evaluation process to verify the costs are consistent with the work to be performed.

Additionally, adequate surveillance will be available to ensure that the Contractor is employing efficient and effective cost control methods. An award will be made to the best overall proposal, which is determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government.

The Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide information necessary to help the Government understand why the proposed costs are realistic and reasonable in its cost narrative. Each Offeror's cost proposal shall contain sufficient quantitative and narrative documentation necessary to adequately support and explain that the costs proposed are realistic and reasonable, to include subcontractor proposed costs.

Certified Cost and Pricing Data will not be required if adequate competition exists. If the Government determines adequate competition was not obtained, the Government reserves the right to request certified cost and pricing data.

The cost file of the proposal shall be submitted via Excel spreadsheet(s) in the offerors preferred format. There is

NO requirement to submit a printed copy of the Cost file of the proposal.

Basis of estimate write-ups in the cost file shall follow this structure.

a. Describe the base data used to estimate the labor hours, cost of a service, or hardware cost.

b. Describe why the offeror chose to use this base data for the proposal.

c. Describe the adjustments, if any, to the base data and why the adjustments were appropriate. The basis of estimate write-ups will be contained in the methodology description section for each line of the cost proposal.

Cost Reimbursable Requirements:

1) Probable Cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical and management approaches, adjusted by any additional cost to the Government, including use of the Government facilities and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) requirements other than those specified in the PWS. In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors Contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major Subcontractors. Major

Subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of major Subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and this paragraph.

(f) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) and Subline Item Number (SLIN) costs, including any potential options.

(g) Contractor support may be utilized to support proposal evaluation in a non decision making capacity.

(h) A competitive range may be established based on the ratings of this factor

(End of Summary of Changes)