W911QX23R0004 - Amendment 0001.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 Amendment 0001 is to revise the language in Section M; 8. SB Participation Plan; subsection paragraph a) on p. 66. See bolded Section for revised language.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-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 W911QX23R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Feb-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 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

02-Mar-2023

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:

W911QX23R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION INFORMATION

EVALUATION INFORMATION

Section M – Evaluation Approach

Introduction

1. This is a full and open competition acquisition for a hybrid Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, and TO 0001 that is anticipated to be issued after base award. This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted 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 will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to provide the best value trade-off to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the following five (5) evaluation factors: (I) Management; (II) Technical Approach; (III) Cost Proposal; (IV) Small Business Participation Plan; and (V) Past Performance. The Management factor is slightly more important than the Technical factor, Technical is significantly more important than Cost/Price, Cost/Price is slightly more important than Small Business Participation, and Small Business Participation is of equal importance to Past Performance. As the difference between the non-cost factors decreases, the importance of the Cost/Price factor increases. Offerors are thus cautioned that best value trade-off award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

2. The ordering period of the IDIQ is for five (5) years. At time of award, TO 0001 will be awarded, and in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D), the guaranteed minimum award for the basic IDIQ contract of $25,000.00 will be fulfilled.

3. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals (unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2)) based on the evaluation criteria identified within Section M of this Request for Proposal (RFP). After completion of discussions with each offeror in the competitive range (if conducted) and in accordance with FAR 15.307(b), all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a specified period to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

4. The RFP includes a Basic PWS and TO PWS. Offerors must be able to perform all areas of the PWS to be eligible for a contract award. It is imperative that offerors expressly provide that their proposal(s) is valid for a 90-day period after the date of the RFP response date.

5. The Solicitation will close at 5:00PM EST on 22 March 2023. No proposals will be accepted after that time. If the Offeror experiences technical difficulties when submitting their proposal, the Contracting Office should be notified in writing prior to the Solicitation closing for assistance.

A. Basis for Award.

Award will be made on a tradeoff basis to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government after evaluation of cost and non-cost factors. Award may not necessarily be made to the lowest-cost offer, nor to the offer that is rated highest on technical merit. All non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

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 offeror whose proposals are determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

1. Evaluation factors and sub-factors.

Factor I: Management (Volume I) Sub-factor #1: Project Management Sub-factor #2: Quality Control

Factor II: Technical Approach (Volume II)

Factor III: Cost Proposal (Volume III)

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan (Volume IV)

Factor V: Past Performance (only rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable) (Volume V)

2. Relative weighting of evaluation factors.

“Management” is slightly more important than “Technical.”

“Technical” is significantly more important than “Cost/Price.”

“Cost/Price” is slightly more important than “Small Business Participation.”

“Small Business Participation” is of equal importance to “Past Performance.”

3. Relative weighting of the Management evaluation sub-factors.

Project Management is equal in importance to Quality Control

B. Evaluation Approach.

1. General Approach. Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Government will evaluate proposals in a two (2) phase process.

Phase I. Pre-Evaluation Screening Compliance

The first phase of the evaluation is screening all Volumes I-V of the proposals to validate compliance to the proposal submission instructions of section L. If an Offer’s proposal is determined to be non-responsive, the Offeror will be notified by the Contracting Officer.

Phase II. Evaluation of Volumes I-V

The second phase is to evaluate the contractor’s Management Plan, Technical Approach, Cost Proposal, Small Business Participation Plan, and Past Performance Information to determine which contractor represent the best offer. The evaluation team (known as the Source Selection Evaluation Board) will rate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content against the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation and will not assume that performance includes areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal.

2. Ratings.

a. Management, Technical, and Small Business Participation Plan Rating Definitions. The rating for Factor I (Management), Factor II (Technical Approach) and Factor IV (Small Business Participation Plan) will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal‟, or “Unacceptable‟ as defined below:

Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

b. Past Performance Factor Rating Definitions. Past Performance must be recent and relevant for consideration and will receive one (1) of the ratings shown below. For the purposes of this solicitation, “recent” is defined as present/past performance within the past five (5) years. “Relevant” is defined as present/past performance effort that involved a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities to this solicitation.

Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "acceptable."

c. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating Definitions.

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3. Management and Technical Evaluation Approach. The Technical and Management factors, and each sub-factor, will receive an adjectival rating, along with a narrative evaluation. This rating relates to technical and management merit and reflects the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation. The evaluation, in part, will be based upon use of TO 0001 which is representative of almost a full year’s worth of effort. All information requested in Section L and provided within the page limitations will be evaluated, but special emphasis will be placed on areas listed in each factor or sub-factor below.

The overarching evaluation for all factors and sub-factors for the Management and Technical 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 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.

4. Management Factor Evaluation Approach. The Management factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Project Management

Emphasis will be placed on whether the offeror has proposed a staff (including key personnel) with the necessary knowledge and qualifications. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror has the required experience and knowledge of the Army Logistics Information System. In addition, the proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed retention, training, transition, and spillage avoidance plan are workable and the proposed end results are achievable. The OCI plan will be evaluated to ensure that it is comprehensive and the proposed mitigation strategies are reasonable.

Sub-factor 2: Quality Control

Emphasis will be placed on the extent to which the proposal presents a clear understanding of all features involved in ensuring accurate recordation of data, ensuring quality control, ensuring software quality through the Software Life Cycle, and monitoring appropriately.

5. Technical Factor Evaluation Approach. The Technical Factor is not divided into sub-factors. The evaluation will focus on the extent that the offeror presents a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements specified in the PWS; including identifying uncertainties and proposing resolutions, along with an overall understanding of the Sustainment Modernization concept.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements to manage a worldwide mission, complete inventories, develop alternative workflows to the central repository, and ensure all deliverables and reports are provided in accordance with the PWS.

6. Cost Evaluation Approach. Proposed price/cost will not be adjectively rated. A completed and totaled Cost Model shall be submitted with the offeror's price proposal. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the sum of all CLINs for the attached TO and reflect close to a year's worth of performance. Transition costs will be evaluated, but not considered as part of the TEP. All CLINs will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Only the costs on cost reimbursable CLINs will also be evaluated for cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1) the analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 will be used singly or in combination with others as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer based on competition and other factors.

A proposal is presumed to represent the offeror's best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost/price shall be explained in the proposal.

Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise a fundamental issue of the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

7. Past Performance Evaluation Approach. The Past Performance factor will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, which will define performance risk. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. The evaluation of past performance will include the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, providing highly trained personnel, commitment to customer satisfaction, and record of conforming to applicable law and industry standards. In this context, “offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed subcontractors. The prime and proposed subcontractors will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the offeror’s overall past performance rating.

The Government reserves the right to contact any other sources of information that may have knowledge or information on an offeror’s relevant past performance history. The Government will use data provided in the offeror’s proposal as well as data obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and interviews with other Government officials.

8. Small Business (SB) Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) Evaluation Approach.

SB Participation Plan

(a) The SB Participation Plan is evaluated as a basis for award. The SB Participation Plan must receive a rating of acceptable or better to be eligible for award. The SB Participation plan consists of two elements: the Small Business Participation Commitment Document and the SBPCD Worksheet.

The SBPCD is a narrative discussion of the offerors methodology and proposed level of SB Participation including the extent to which firms are identified, the complexity and variety of work to be performed, the commitment to use such SB firms. The SBPCD Worksheet shall be completed by all offerors and shall reflect at a minimum, the total amount of work to be performed by SB and each SB socio-economic category, the total amount of work to be performed by other than small business subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed by the offeror all shown in total contract value. The SB Participation Plan will receive a rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable with a narrative discussion, that reflects the extent of subcontracting to small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBzone) small business, small disadvantaged business to include historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions, and women-owned small business.

(b) The offeror’s SB participation plan will be evaluated on the basis of:

extent to which SB firms are specifically identified in proposals extent of commitment to use SB firms complexity and variety of the work SB firms are to perform extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(a) The Government intends to evaluate only the SB Subcontracting Plan(s) submitted by the apparent successful offeror. If an offeror’s total proposed cost/price is less than the threshold at FAR 19.702(a)(1) or (2), the Government may, at its sole discretion, choose not to evaluate the offeror’s submitted SB Subcontracting Plan. The offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 19.705-

4. The offeror’s plan must also fully satisfy the required elements set forth by FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. The offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan must correlate properly with the information regarding SB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB subcontractors identified in the offeror’s SB Participation Plan.

The Government may elect to not award a contract to the apparent successful offeror if the subcontracting plan is found unacceptable.

(b) The Government will determine the basic acceptability of the SB Subcontracting Plan in accordance FAR

19.7. A Subcontracting Plan goal structure which fails to correlate mathematically with the values used in the SB Participation Plan is unacceptable.

(End of Summary of Changes)