A07_Amendment_0001.pdf

W911QY-18-R-0023

0011144407

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

Amendment 0001 is issued to answ er technical questions, update Section L c) Volume III Cost/Price to include addition Forw ard Pricing Rate Agreement information. In addition, in Section M 1. Factor 4. Contract Cost/Price move pars 2-3 to section L c) Volume III Cost/Price. The due date for submission of final questions is June 15, 2018 by 3pm, Eastern Time. After this date additional questions may not be addressed before the proposals are received. Solicitation due date remains for June 25, 2018 at 5pm Eastern Time.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jun-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 W911QY-18-R-0023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-May-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

11-Jun-2018

CODE

W6QK ACC-APG NATICK

CONTRACTING DIVISION

BLDG 1 GENERAL GREENE AVENUE

NATICK MA 01760-5011

W911QY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Amendment 0001 to W911QY18R0023 Single Edge Blades

Answers to Technical Questions:

Question 1a: Can you please confirm our assumption that the 5 page Volume III (Cost) limit as described in Section L, Para2.c, Table 1 (entitled Proposal Naming Conventions, Content, and Limitations) does not include the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet.xls, or Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices (Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee for each CLIN) or the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS Provision 252.215-7009)?

Question 1a Answer: The page limitation referenced in the solicitation Section L 2. Proposal Submission Requirements on page 93 does not include a limitation to the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet or Section B or the checklist.

Question 1b: Additionally, can you please confirm the elements listed above (minus the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet) may be submitted in Adobe PDF format?

Question 1b Answer: Per Section L 2. Proposal Submission Requirements on page 92 d) “Adobe Acrobat shall be used to create .pdf files” and e) “MS Excel submission shall be used to create .xls or .xlsx files.” For the two file types.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L – Instructions to Offerors)

1. Introduction

The Offeror shall submit a proposal consisting of four (4) volumes. These four volumes shall be labeled as Volume I, Technical Volume (Factor 1 – Key Personnel Qualifications/Prior Experience and Factor 2 – Technical Approach), Volume II, Past Performance Volume (Factor 3 – Past or

Current Performance), Volume III, Cost/Price Volume (Factor 4 – Contract Cost/Price), and Volume IV, Contract/Administrative Volume (to determine compliance with solicitation/contract requirements).

Each volume shall be a standalone document and shall clearly and completely describe the effort that the Offeror is proposing to accomplish under the contract. Volumes I and II shall not contain any cost/price information. Volume III shall only contain the cost/price information, which shall be submitted in Ms. Excel file titled “Cost Proposal Spreadsheet”.

The Offerors should clearly describe how they intend to accomplish this contract effort. Mere acknowledgment or restatement of requirements is not acceptable. Relevance to this acquisition effort is critical. The information in the proposal(s) should be in a clear, coherent, and concise manner. Vague or terse statements such as "will comply", "noted and understood", etc. are not acceptable. The information presented shall be limited to the information that is necessary to convey a point and should not be overly elaborate.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements:

a) Documents shall be stamped FOR OFFICIAL USE

ONLY AND SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE.

b) Each page shall contain as a header with the Offeror’s company name, address, solicitation number, date, volume number, and page count. A Table of Contents for each volume shall be provided.

c) The submission shall consist of four digital volumes. Volumes I, II and IV shall be in Adobe PDF format. Volume III shall be in Microsoft (MS) Excel format.

d) Adobe Acrobat shall be used to create .pdf files.

e) MS Excel submission shall be used to create .xls or .xlsx files.

f) The offeror is responsible for ensuring electronic copy in PDF is virus free.

g) All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine its submissions to essential matters sufficient to define the proposal and to provide an adequate basis for evaluation.

h) Files shall not contain classified data.

i) Electronic submissions must be delivered by the date and time defined for receipt of proposals to be considered timely.

j) Page limitations and number of copies for each volume shall be as specified below. Submission shall be limited to the number of pages specified herein, inclusive of any drawings, charts, etc. Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) and shall be single spaced or greater. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the table below.

Table 1. Proposal Naming Conventions, Content, and Limitations

VOLUME FACTORS PAGE LIMIT FILE NAME

I – Technical 1. Key Personnel Qualifications/Prior Experience

40 Page Limit TECHNICAL

2. Technical Approach

20 Page Limit TECHNICAL

II – Past Performance 3. Past or Current Performance

30 Page Limit PASTPERFORMANC E

III – Cost/Price 4. Contract Cost/Price

5 Page Limit COSTPRICE

IV - Contract/Administrative Volume Section I: Executive Summary Section II: Solicitation Documents Section III: Company POC's, DCMA POCs, CAGE, DUNS and TIN Section IV: Representations & Certifications Section V: Financial Documentation Section VI: Signed Teaming Agreements

No Limit ADMINISTRATIVE

5. Proposal Content

a) Volume I – Technical

Evaluation Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualification/Prior Experience Offeror shall submit their experience, knowledge, capabilities, and qualification of the proposed Key Personnel which shall demonstrate how the contractor will succeed in Tasks #3.2 - Soldier Experience Feedback across Acquisition Lifecycle, #3.3 - Advanced Concept Development, #3.4

– Field Assessments, #3.5 – Operational Feedback, #3.6 Transition and Delivery to Software Repositories, #3.7 Targeted Operational Maintenance, and all the sub-tasks listed under #3.8 Nett Warrior Support. The Offeror shall also provide the CVs and/or resumes and list proposed duties of key subcontractor personnel and consultants (if any) proposed for this effort.

Evaluation Factor 2: Technical Approach:

Offeror shall submit a complete, feasible, sound, and practical approach and plan for accomplishing the task/objectives of the PWS and how the approach will be successful to accomplish Tasks #3.2 - Soldier Experience Feedback across Acquisition Lifecycle, #3.3 - Advanced Concept Development, #3.4 – Field Assessments, #3.5 – Operational Feedback, #3.6 Transition and Delivery to Software Repositories, #3.7 Targeted Operational Maintenance, and all the sub-task listed under #3.8 Nett Warrior Support.

b) Volume II – Past Performance

The Offeror shall prepare and submit a Past Performance Volume. By submission of past or current performance data, the Offeror: 1) authorizes the Government to seek and use information from commercial sources to verify performance on past or current commercial contracts, if applicable;

and 2) constitutes consent from subcontractors/consultants, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners to release past or current performance information, including adverse information, to the Offeror in order for the Offeror to respond to such information, if required by the Government.

The Offeror shall submit with its proposal the applicable subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner letter(s) of consent allowing the Government to disclose the past or current performance, including adverse information, to the Offeror during negotiations. The Offeror shall provide all past or current performance information pertaining to all proposed subcontractors with whom the Offeror is teaming, as well as the Offeror.

The Offeror shall submit a narrative description of overall past or current performance (preceding three years only) for the same or similar Government contracts covering the breadth of the project, anticipated completion and actual completion, and how it relates to the current scope of work. If the Offeror has limited Government contracting experience, a description of similar contracts with commercial entities, local and/or state governments should be included, if relevant. Information furnished concerning these efforts shall be similar to that requested of Government contracts. Relevant contracts are also defined as those encompassing similar scope, cost, and complexity (i.e., in areas of advanced concepts for on-soldier and small unit network and electronics integration and soldier experience enhancements, dismounted leader software engineering, dismounted leader software coding, dismounted leader software configuration management, software testing, system engineering & integration, dismounted leader training, as well as targeted field support to ensure continuum of soldier experience and to obtain field feedback) as this contract requires. The Offeror shall submit the following:

Role as prime or subcontractor Place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS numbers Contracting activity, current address, telephone and FAX numbers, and email address Contracting Officer's name, current telephone and FAX numbers, and email address Technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR) name, current telephone and FAX numbers, and email address

Administrative Contracting Officer's (ACO) name, current telephone and FAX numbers, and email address

Contract Number Contract Type Awarded Cost/Price Final or projected final cost/price

Original delivery schedule Final or projected final, delivery schedule Business Size - Large or Small

For each of the contracts described above, the Offeror shall describe the objectives achieved detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements listed in the PWS. For any contracts which did not/do not meet the original requirements with regard to original cost, schedule, or technical performance, the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised, and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The Offeror shall also provide copies of Product Quality Deficiency Reports, warranty claims, product deficiency complaints, Cure Notices, or Show Cause letters received on each contract listed; and provide a description of the corrective action taken and the extent to which the customer was satisfied with the response. For any terminated contracts, the Offeror shall indicate the type and reasons for the termination.

Subcontracts: Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation shall be assigned for performance within the Contractor’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractor(s)/team members.

Offerors shall provide the above-required information for any proposed subcontractor that shall perform a significant portion of the effort.

“Significant” includes subcontractors whose work under the contract shall be on the major tasks of the development (i.e., Tasks #3.2 through 3.8.14.2 listed in the PWS). Offerors must specifically describe the work each subcontractor shall perform. This information must be consistent with the allocation of the work discussed in other volumes of the proposal.

The Government may choose to investigate contracts prior to the past three (3) years for the purpose of the evaluation. In addition, any and all contracts terminated for in whole or in part during the past five (5) years, to include those currently in the process of such termination are considered relevant and the Offeror shall provide past performance information for those contracts. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government reserves the right to use alternative resources to gather past or current performance information, to include, but not limited to CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, commercial contracts, contracting officer information and other sources.

Past Performance Questionnaire

The Offeror shall provide the Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire, Attachment 5, to the Customer Program Manager and the Contracts point of contact (POC) identified in the Past or Current Performance submission included in Volume II of the Offeror’s proposal. The Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire is to be completed by each of the Offeror’s Reference(s).

The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 from Attachment 5 prior to sending to the applicable POC for completion. The Offeror shall advise the reporting Government Agency or commercial entity that completed Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires are considered Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Under no circumstance shall completed Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires be returned to the Offeror by the respondent. Offerors shall ensure that completed questionnaires are submitted to the Government, and provide a copy of the questionnaires sent to POCs with Blocks 1-4 completed on the Attachment 5 along with their Past Performance Volume. Completed Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires will not count towards the page limit for Volume II as set forth in Proposal Preparation Instructions. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring Reference(s) Questionnaire submission(s) are received within the stated timeline.

c) Volume III – Cost/Price

The Offeror shall complete the following:

A. Offerors shall submit cost proposal pricing using the MS Excel sheet titled “Cost Proposal Spreadsheet”

B. The Offeror shall complete the "Estimated Cost" and "Fixed Fee" fields for each Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) in Section B of this Solicitation. The Offeror shall submit other than certified cost or pricing data using a cost proposal formatted IAW FAR Subpart

15.408. This data shall be provided in the “Cost Proposal

Spreadsheet” and shall be traceable to the estimated costs and fixed fees provided in Section B of this Solicitation. The Offeror shall agree to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals.

General Cost Proposal Requirements:

Cost Information Requirements:

IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data may be required to support cost reasonableness and cost realism. If required, information shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit certified Cost or Pricing Data.

Cost Reasonableness and Realism:

These instructions are to assist the Offeror with submitting information other than cost or pricing data required to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the offeror’s proposed cost/price.

Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the offeror’s proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic proposal.

Offers shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror. Include an index, appropriately referenced, of all data accompanying or identified in the Cost/Price Volume.

The Government will provide an estimated level of effort for each labor category to help describe the Government’s need (see Attachment 6) .

Estimating Techniques and Methods:

When responding to the Cost/Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated subcontractors may use any generally accepted estimating technique, including contemporary estimating methods (such as Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs), commercially available parametric cost models, in-house developed parametric cost models, etc.), to develop their estimates.

Non-Required Data:

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your Cost/Price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting System:

In accordance with FAR Part 30, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) do not apply to small business concerns. In accordance with FAR 16.306 (c), no CPFF contract may be awarded unless the CO complies with all limitations in FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i) and FAR 16.301-3. One of the limitations cited is that the contractor’s accounting system must be adequate for determining costs. The prime, affected subcontractors, team members, and consultants shall provide a summary statement addressing the adequacy of their accounting system. This statement should include the date when such determination was made. The offeror shall provide a current [within two (2) months prior to date of proposal submittal] audit report, finding, or letter from DCAA/ Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that the offeror’s accounting system has been approved and/or is adequate for Cost- Reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 9.105-1 -- Obtaining Information. If it has been over two (2) months since the accounting system was reviewed, the offeror shall provide a statement that the accounting system has not changed since being reviewed by DCMA. If the accounting system has changed, a certification from a corporate agency offical shall be provided indicating that the changes have not impacted the approval or adequacy of the accounting system.

In the event a system is not considered adequate, a summary statement shall be provided citing the circumstances. Any deviations to standard procedures in preparing this proposal shall also be identified. A description of any issues of noncompliance cited by a DCAA or DCMA shall be provided. In addition, any corrective actions currently ongoing must be described. Where cost estimates are based upon past experience, identify the past experience, explain how the past experience relates to the current requirements, including similarities and differences, and how cost data available from the past experiences was adapted to the current effort. This applies to all team members performing Cost-Reimbursement type efforts.

Explanation of Estimating Methods Used:

Explain the methodology used to estimate each cost element. As a minimum, provide the following information for each cost element listed in the “Cost Proposal Spreadsheet”. If a portion of the required information is not applicable for a particular cost element, so state.

Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA):

If the offeror has an FPRA with the cognizant ACO, the offeror shall provide the FPRA with the negotiated labor and indirect rates; otherwise, submit a letter stating that your Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRP) are currently under review by DCMA/DCAA. An FPRA shall be submitted for prime and other team members.

Proposed indirect expense rates shall be supported by one of the following by providing:

a) A copy of a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement;

b) A copy of a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation;

c) A copy of a DCAA audit or DCMA review of indirect rates incurred during a period within the past two years based on the RFP due date;

d) Provide a cost breakdown of indirect rate actuals for the past three fiscal years. If an offeror does not have three year indirect rate history, then the offeror must provide Current Year-To-Date rate actual history, along with the cost breakdown of pool and bases for each indirect rate proposed to show how they were derived.

In addition, if the offeror is proposing material/equipment/ODC, these proposed costs shall be supported by vendor/supplier quotes, catalog pricing, historical pricing documentation, or another readily verifiable basis of estimate (such as parametric estimates with supporting data).

Subcontract Costs:

In accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b) submit the prime contractor’s Cost evaluation on each subcontract whose estimated value will exceed 10 percent of the proposed cost proposal.

Describe the evaluation rationale that leads to the prime’s conclusion that the subcontract price is realistic and reasonable. Explain all adjustments made to the subcontract proposed cost.

Subcontractors with an estimated value exceeding 10 percent must submit cost proposals. They may submit them directly to the Contracting Officer if the cost information is considered proprietary. All required data must be received by the same date/time as the prime’s proposal.

In the event adequate competition does not emerge in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer may require certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4. A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost/Price and the Government Estimate will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the Government’s realism analysis. Offeror shall complete the checklist at DFARS provision 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist as part of Volume III, Cost/Price. The Government requests the certificate, if there is no competition, prior to award.

Submit a list to include the following:

(a) Proposed Subcontractors, team members, inter-divisional transfers, or suppliers

(b) Description of effort

(c) Type of contract

(d) Price and hours proposed by each

(e) Price and hours included in prime’s proposal to the Government

d) Volume IV – Contract/Administrative

Section I – Executive Summary

A letter shall include:

Master Index: A master index that identifies the location of all major topics provided in each volume.

Statement of Compliance: Each offer shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions.

Authorized Negotiators: Offerors shall provide a list of authorized negotiators with their position title and phone/email contact information.

Section II Solicitation Documents:

The Offeror shall complete the OFFER part of the Standard Form 33 format. An official having the authority to bind the firm contractually shall sign the SF33. If this individual is not an officer of the company, the proposal shall be accompanied by some form of written evidence of the individual's authority to bind the company, under contract, to a particular course of action. This might include such evidence as a written delegation of said authority, signed by an officer of the company.

Each Offeror shall complete blank lines and provide signatures for all contract sections without modification to the files. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the Standard Form 33, amendments and all certifications requiring original signature. An Adobe Acrobat file, “.pdf” shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

The originating RFP sections completed in their entirety. Offeror shall insert Key Personnel names and position titles in Section H - Special Contract Requirements; complete paragraph (g) of clause 52.219-28 POST-AWARD SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REREPRESENTATION (JULY 2013) in Section I - Contract Clauses; and complete Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors and Solicitation Provision 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2014).

Section III – DCMA POCs, CAGE, DUNS and TIN for Prime and Subcontractors

In this section, the offeror shall provide the Prime and subcontractor’s cognizant DCMA POC information for each of the respective offices.

Also, in offeror format, this section shall list the Prime and subcontractor’s CAGE, DUNS and TIN.

Section IV – Representations and Certifications

Using the System for Award Management (SAM), the Offeror shall enter the NAICS code for this effort and complete the Representations and Certifications information appropriately. Then print electronically the SAM documentation and insert as part of the volume submission.

Offerors must be registered in SAM under the applicable NAICS for this requirement to be determined responsive and responsible at time of proposal submission. Any Offeror that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation must be registered in SAM IAW FAR Clauses 52.204- 7, 52.232-33 and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Clause 252.204-7004 Alt A prior to contract award. Registration information can be found at www.sam.gov or https://www.acquisition.gov.

Section V – Financial Documentation

In order for the Government to determine Financial Responsibility, offerors will submit the Prime Contractor’s past fiscal year and current reporting period as of the date of the proposal financial statements to include a Balance Sheet; Income Statement; Cash Flow Statement; and Statement of Retained Earnings. Also, a certified copy of the Prime’s Line of Credit and its current status at the time of proposal submission shall be provided. Prior to submission, a company officer or CPA will certify the statements. Small businesses are not required to submit CPA audited or reviewed financials, but shall have their CFO sign off on their financials and insert as part of the volume submission.

Section VI – Signed Teaming Agreements

If applicable, the offeror shall provide a copy of all pages within signed teaming agreements with subcontractors. The agreement should outline the type of work, complexity and approximate percentage level of work assigned to the subcontractor. Also, it must identify which socio- economic categories the subcontractor qualifies for under the NAICS code as well as the subcontractor’s POC with the address, phone, email and CAGE for verification if necessary.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

A. (Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award)

The Government anticipates a single award as a result of responses to its Request for Proposal (RFP). Award will be made to the “responsible” Offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation represents the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. See FAR Subpart 9.104 for a description of the standards prospective contractors must meet to be determined “responsible”. Award will be based on the results of a complete and thorough Government evaluation of proposals in accordance with (IAW) and the evaluation criteria set forth herein. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions, therefore the initial offer should contain the best offer, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. The Government also reserves the right to not award any contract in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government.

For this procurement, it has been determined that all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration being given to the following four (4) Evaluation Factors: Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualifications/Prior Experience, Factor 2: Technical Approach, Factor 3: Past or Current Performance, and Factor 4: Contract Cost/Price.

In determining the best value to the Government, the relative importance of the non-cost factors are as such -- Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualifications/Prior Experience is more important than Factor 2: Technical Approach, and these two technical factors when combined are more important than Factor 3: Past or Current Performance. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposals offering the best value to the Government.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

The purpose of the technical volume is to assess the offeror’s personnel qualifications, prior experience, and proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned for the Technical Volume I, which will include consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The past performance volume will assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet the user’s needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the Past Performance Volume II, which will take into consideration the currency and relevance of the information, quality of the offeror’s past or current performance, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s past or current performance.

The Cost/Price Volume III will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer and/or Cost/Price Analyst IAW the evaluation criteria established in Factor 4 Contract Cost/Price. Elements of the Offeror’s proposed costs shall be evaluated to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed. The results of this cost realism analysis will be applied to the offerors' proposed costs to determine the most probable cost for each, and price analysis will be performed on the most probable cost plus fixed fee, rather than proposed cost plus fixed fee.

The Contract/Administrative Volume IV will be reviewed to assess the offeror’s ability to comply with the solicitation/contract requirements and will be used to determine responsiveness to the RFP.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal containing weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The judgement of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range and, thus, from contract award.

The criteria utilized for evaluating the Offeror’s proposal and evaluation factors are as defined below:

• Each proposal’s Technical Factors and Areas will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP, utilizing adjectival ratings as shown in the two tables below.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

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 un-awardable.

Table 3. Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

• Past or Current Performance Factor Ratings. The SSEB will use a common set of ratings to evaluate the relevancy of the offerors’ past or current performance and the overall performance confidence derived from consideration of the offerors’ past or current performance recency, relevancy, and quality, as discussed in Section II. The ratings to be used for each of these assessments are shown in the two tables below.

Table 4. Past or Current Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

Adjectival Rating

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

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully

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.

• Narrative Definitions. The following is an explanation of the terminology to be used in evaluators’ narratives justifying the rating given:

• 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.

• Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s 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 is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

• 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.

1. Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualifications/Prior Experience

The Offerors key personnel qualifications and prior experience will be evaluated for relevancy to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and assessed for relative risks associated with the Offerors likelihood of success in meeting the requirements stated in this solicitation and PWS. Specific areas of technical experience examined will include software development, software application verification, validation, and demonstration and software maintenance in the Nett Warrior (NW) and Tactical Assault Kit (TAK) application ecosystems. Key Personnel Qualifications and prior experience shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to design, develop, experiment, transition to program of record (POR) and maintain software specified in Tasks #3.2 through 3.8.14.2 listed in the PWS.

2. Factor 2: Technical Approach

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for adequacy of response and feasibility of technical approach with regard to the offeror’s technical capability to successfully achieve Tasks #3.2 through 3.8.14.2 listed in the

PWS.

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 IAW the proposal submission section of the RFP.

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.

Marginal levels of overall details in the technical approach with respect to tasks listed in the PWS could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for adequacy of response and feasibility of approach in regard to the Offeror's proposed: Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) and the PWS.

Factor 3: Past or Current Performance

The Offerors and subcontractors past or current performance with Government and industry will be evaluated to assess the relative risks associated with the Offerors likelihood of success in meeting the requirements stated in this solicitation. Specific areas of past or current performance examined will include demonstrated technical and schedule performance, cost control, general responsiveness to contract requirements, customer satisfaction, customer focus, and customer references, if applicable. Past or current performance information, which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements stated in this solicitation and PWS, to include software development, software application verification, validation, and demonstration and software maintenance in the Nett Warrior (NW) and Tactical Assault Kit (TAK) application ecosystems, will also be evaluated. Emphasis will be on recent and relevant performance. Additionally, any and all contracts terminated in whole or in part during the past five (5) years, to include those currently in the process of such termination should be identified.

There are three aspects to the past or current performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). These aspects are combined to establish one Performance Confidence Assessment rating for each offeror.

Recency Assessment: The first step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the recency of the offeror’s past or current performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past or current performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past or current performance information.

Relevancy Assessment: The second step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the relevancy of the offeror’s past or current performance. Relevancy, as it pertains to past or current performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past or current performance examples and the solicitation requirements. With respect to relevance, past or current performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past or current performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Quality Assessment: The next step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the overall quality of the offeror’s past or current performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant. The team will review all past or current performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, how well the contractor performed on the contracts, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment: With the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past or current performance considered, the final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus Performance Confidence Assessment for the offeror. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past or current contract performance or where past or current contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past or current performance. In this case, the offeror’s past or current performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

1. Factor 4: Contract Cost/Price

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal must clearly demonstrate and describe an effective and efficient approach for accomplishing the stated requirements in tasks #3.2 through 3.8.14.2 as listed in the PWS. The Offeror’s Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Subpart 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques in order to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices.

Elements of the Offeror’s proposed costs shall be evaluated to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed. The results of this cost realism analysis will be applied to the offerors' proposed costs to determine the most probable cost for each, and price analysis will be performed on the most probable cost plus fixed fee, rather than proposed cost plus fixed fee.

In awarding the basic contract, the Government has determined it is reasonably likely to exercise the option at FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, and therefore the contracting officer will evaluate the price of the option as part of the source selection. The solicitation will include the basis for evaluating the option price IAW FAR Subpart 17.203(b). Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Contract/Administrative Volume IV

The Contract/Administration Volume IV will be reviewed to assess the offeror’s ability to comply with the solicitation/contract requirements and will be used to determine responsiveness to the RFP.

(End of Summary of Changes)