A07_Amendment_0002.pdf

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 0002 is issued to revise section M 1. Factor 4. Contract Cost/Price to revise par 2 statement from “The results of this cost realism analysis w ill be applied to the offerors' proposed costs to determine the most probable cost for each, and price analysis w ill be performed on the most probable cost plus fixed fee, rather than proposed cost plus fixed fee” to “The results of this cost realism analysis w ill be applied to the offerors' proposed costs to determine the most probable cost for each, and price analysis w ill be performed on the proposed cost plus fixed fee.” The due date for f inal questions submission is June 15, 2018 by 3pm EST. After this date additional questions may be addressed before the proposals are received. Solicitation due date remains for June 25, 2018 at 5pm EST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-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

12-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:

W911QY-18-R-0023

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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 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)