W911S023RMCTU Amend 4 - AVLE MOD.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 add Attachment 8, Questions and Answ ers from Industry. This amendment also updates the proposal due date to 23 August 2023 at 12PM. The question period is hereby closed.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Aug-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 W911S023RMCTU

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jun-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 X is extended, 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

10-Aug-2023

CODE

MICC - FORT EUSTIS

705 WASHINGTON BLVD

FORT EUSTIS VA 23604

W911S0 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911S023RMCTU

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Aug-2023 12:00 PM to 23-Aug-2023 12:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the Instruction to Offerors of the solicitation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exception to the RFP’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award.

All questions related to the RFP were due back on 7 July 2023 at 12PM ET. Questions will be sent to the following individuals:

Mr. Jayson Dillard, Contract Specialist (CS), jayson.l.dillard.civ@army.mil and Mr.

William Jaeger, Contracting Officer (KO), william.m.jaeger.civ@army.mil.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Electronic submissions via email are the only acceptable submission method.

Facsimile and/or paper submissions will not be accepted. Offerors are encouraged to add Delivery and Read receipts to emails, and/or follow up with the individuals below to ensure the Government’s receipt of proposals. The Government will not automatically respond confirming receipt and confirmation shall be responsibility of the Offeror. For purposes of time stamps, the Government email system time stamp serves as the official receipt time.

Subject line of emailed proposals shall include the solicitation number and company name. Proposals may be submitted in more than one email but shall be titled appropriately (e.g., Email 1 of 2, Email 2 of 2, etc.). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure submissions are received in a timely manner. Attachments included in emails should not contain a period (.) in its title as the document may be stripped during transmittal. The maximum size of any email shall not exceed 20 megabytes. The Government will not accept proposals via Zip file format. Offerors shall perform a virus check prior to proposal submitted to ensure Offerors’ submittals shall be free of viruses, Trojans, spyware, and other malicious code for which appropriate detection and removal/ quarantine software exists.

Submissions shall be sent to the points of contacts listed below. The points of contact responsible for receiving proposal submissions, supplying additional information and answering all inquiries are the CS and KO. Submit your proposal and address questions or concerns regarding this solicitation, including the attachments to: Jason Dillard, jayson.l.dillard.civ@army.mil (CS) and William Jaeger, william.m.jaeger.civ@army.mil

(KO).

Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies

Maximum Pages

I Technical Approach- Scenario Based Knowledge Assessment

1 50 (PDF)

II Management and Staffing Approach 1 25 (PDF)

III Past Performance 1 30 (PDF)

IV Price 1 No page limit (PDF and/or Excel)

V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

1 No page limit (PDF)

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 or MS Office 365.

Each file shall be labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name.

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. All price information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Volume and/or Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations Volume.

References may be addressed in other volumes only as appropriate for justification purposes. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

(i) VOLUME I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach – Knowledge Based Scenarios.

Factor 1 of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents and the Narrative Discussion. The Table of Contents breaks down Factor 1 into sections and includes the list of key terms with their definitions, a list of acronyms and abbreviations, and a list of tables and drawings used in the proposal.

The Narrative Discussion shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation of each answer to the stated questions in each scenario. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated with regards to Factor 1 as defined in the Evaluation section of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or the capability to perform. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS and phrases such as, “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their technical capabilities and past experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Table of Contents Narrative Scenario 1 o Answer to Question 1 o Answer to Question 2 o Answer to Question 3 o Answer to Question 4 Scenario 2 o Answer to Question 1 o Answer to Question 2 o Answer to Question 3

See Attachment 2 for the Scenarios. The offeror shall thoroughly describe understanding of each scenario and the associated questions.

(ii) VOLUME II: Factor 2 – Management and Staffing Approach. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Management Approach. The offeror shall provide their proposed management approach to monitor and manage a workforce capable of accomplishing all requirements set forth in the SAIDIQ PWS efficiently and effectively to ensure timely quality work. The approach shall include:

a. An organizational structure delineating lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability for the management and oversight of the SAIDIQ. The structure shall include subcontractors and/or teaming partners, if applicable.

b. The offeror’s approach to managing multiple task orders requirements covering a wide variety of tasking areas, utilizing multiple skill sets, in multiple locations simultaneously.

c. The offerors Quality Control Approach as to how they will manage contract/ task order performance and ensure quality services are provided; including services provided by teaming partners.

(2) Staffing Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention Plans demonstrating the offeror’s ability to maintain an efficient staff, recruit, and retain qualified/trained personnel throughout the course of the ordering period to provide services. The plan shall include the following:

a. Approach in hiring, training, and replacement of personnel during performance of the base contract and all task orders, and demonstrate a logical ability to ramp up (surge) staffing to meet scheduled delivery dates and quality of the finished products.

b. Resumes for the Key Personnel (Prime and Subcontractor, a list of other positions the offeror considers key, the rationale for that designation and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). See PWS section 1.18.

c. The offeror shall provide Letters of Commitment (signed within 60 days of proposal submission) and resumes for key personnel. Resumes and Letters of Commitment are not included in the page count. Résumés must conform to the following format:

Resume Contents Name Education (Degree/discipline/year attained, accredited educational institution) Certifications (certification member ID; expiration date) Clearance (List clearance(s) currently held) Proposed Labor Category Experience Present Position:

Company and title of position Dates of employment (month/year to month/year or to “present”) Brief description of duties and responsibilities, including supervisory experience Number and type of personnel supervised

(iii) VOLUME III: Factor 3 – Past Performance.

The offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall contain the following and be within the specified page constraints.

SECTION PAGE LIMIT

(Total of 30 Pages)

EXCLUSIONS FROM PAGE

LIMITATION

Contract Descriptions No page limit None

Performance Summary Page:

Describe the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or affiliate.

Five (5) pages None

Organizational Structure Change History Three (3) pages Pre-published items such as brochures, flyers, reference articles, etc. are excluded.

Partner Consent / Client Authorization Letters No page limit Excluded from page limit.

Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets Five (5) pages each None

List of Questionnaire Recipients No page limit Excluded from page limit.

Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners and/or affiliates that provide a meaningful participation in the performance of this requirement. Offerors shall define the relationship of the company whose past performance they submit for evaluation to the offeror’s response in Block 12 - Relevancy Rationale of Attachment 4 - Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet. The Government will not consider experience of subcontractors and/or subordinate or affiliated offices of the offeror, unless the offeror clearly demonstrates the proposed involvement of the subcontractors and/or the offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or affiliates, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror, so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 5), authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than three (3) years for the submitted data from the date in Block 6 of the SF1449. The past performance data shall document a successful history of past contract performance.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

a. Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and Unique Entity Identification (UEI) Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

b. Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring KO’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

c. Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

d. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

e. Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

f. Final or projected final price of the work performed by the offeror.

g. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance Summary Page. Offerors shall describe the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or affiliates for each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description. A specific narrative explanation of each, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP will be provided in the Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet (see (5) below).

(3) Section 3 - Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

(4) Section 4 – Partner Consent / Client Authorization Letters. Partner Consent Letters will be executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or affiliates authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample partner consent letter is included as Attachment 6, Section J of this Solicitation.

Client Authorization Letters (Attachment 5) will be submitted for each identified effort of a customer, authorizing release of requested information on the offeror’s performance to the Government.

(5) Section 5 – Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet. Sheets shall be IAW the format provided in Attachment 4 and are limited to five (5) pages per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature of work, size, scope, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation.

The submittal shall include, in Block 12, rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, scope and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This rational shall also demonstrate the relationship between the offeror and of the company whose past performance has been submitted for consideration; specifically, how said company will provide meaningful performance on this requirement. The offeror shall submit a minimum of five (5) but no more than a total of eight (8) Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial. Limits on Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets are as follows:

-Three (3) sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for the prime, team, and/or joint venture.

-Two (2) sheets from each subcontractor who will be completing 20% or more of the technical work.

New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(6) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a PPQ (Attachment 7) must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the PPQ and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government Contracting Activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to william.m.jaeger.civ@army.mil. The offeror shall e-mail to the KO / CS a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E- Mail to POC.

Any questionnaires not returned directly to the CS will not be reviewed and evaluated.

The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. If any negative past performance information is received on the PPQs, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. New entities that have no past customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous clients and that questionnaires cannot be provided. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the CS has received all PPQs prior to that date/time.

(7) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(iv) VOLUME IV: Factor 4 – Pricing.

(1) Electronic Copy. Electronic links are not permissible. The Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3) shall be submitted in excel format. The offeror shall not include pivot tables in Excel spreadsheets. In addition to the Pricing Matrix, the offeror shall provide a completed SF1449 Supplies or Services and Prices section.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for Price information may result in an adverse assessment of an offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, the offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF1449 and continuation sheets.

(3) General Instructions. A request for Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not anticipated for the award of this contract since adequate competition is expected;

however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.4 - Contract Pricing. Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data is required to determine the proposed price fair, reasonable, balanced, and in compliance with established Labor Category rates. Therefore, the offeror shall complete and submit the Pricing Matrix. Additionally, if adequate competition is not obtained, the KO may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to Price will be disregarded.

(4) Pricing Volume Content: The format of the Price Volume shall be as follows:

a. Pricing Narrative. The offeror shall identify any information necessary to facilitate the Government’s evaluation of its Pricing submission.

b. Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3). The offeror shall input their fixed price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the base year and each option year. A complete Pricing Matrix is required for the entire performance period (supported by rationale) to include all cell formulas. PDF or flat files will not be considered acceptable. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of your proposal.

Provide a complete description and electronic spreadsheets for all prices proposed for the performance of all work. Formulas used to calculate all prices must be reflected in the electronic spreadsheets. Excel workbooks shall not contain hidden spreadsheets or hidden cells, and no links should exist to files not included with the submission.

(v) VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Offerors are required to submit a completed SF1449 (Solicitation, Contract, Order for Commercial Items) including acknowledgment of all Amendments, CLIN Structure, Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, and Contract Clauses.

All final monetary extensions by CLIN shall be in whole dollars only. Unit prices can be rounded to the nearest cent. The Volume V shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

Signature by the offeror constitutes an offer the Government may accept. The Volume shall also include the acceptance period of no less than 180 days after the date specified for receipt of offers during which the Government may accept the offer to create a binding contract. Offerors providing less than 180 days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

The offeror shall provide the company/division's street address, county and facility code;

CAGE code; UEI; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation, if applicable. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s).

Solicitation, Contract, Order for Commercial Items - The SF1449 shall be submitted fully completed. The offeror is cautioned that the SF1449 must contain an original signature in Block 30a. of the form. The offeror shall acknowledge any amendments to the RFP IAW the instructions on the SF1449 and FAR 52.212-1. The offeror shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division POC regarding decisions made with respect to the offeror’s proposal and who can obligate the offeror’s company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

The Pricing of the CLINs on the SF1449 shall be submitted fully completed and error free. Offerors shall propose a FFP for each CLIN. The offeror shall ensure that the prices are consistent with and supported by the Pricing Matrix. As part of its proposal, the offeror will provide the price (if any) incurred to comply with the enterprise Service Contract Reporting (SCR) requirement. Offeror will determine whether to price or not-separately-price the SCR requirement. The SCR CLIN shall be the line items under which the contractor shall bill for the price of the SCR requirement. The offeror shall price the SCR CLIN as a FFP CLIN.

Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors – The offeror shall ensure that this section of the SF1449 is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely.

Contract Clauses – The offeror shall ensure that all applicable clauses/provisions in the SF1449 that require the offeror to complete fill-in information are submitted and thoroughly completed with all blocks filled in with accurate and complete information.

Exceptions/Assumptions (if required): Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Offerors are advised that taking exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation may result in the proposal being found unacceptable without clarification. Clarification of any requirements or notice of any contractor exceptions or assumptions should be handled by submitting a question/recommended change prior to question submittal due date and proposal submittal. All assumptions/clarifications must be finalized prior to Final Proposal Revisions, if discussions are conducted. If the offeror still finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate each exception in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements (SF1449, all attachments, and supporting rationale) shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume using the format and content below. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation.

SOLICITATION

DOCUMENT

PAGE /

PARAGRAPH

REQUIREMENT /

PORTION

RATIONALE & IMPACT

PWS, SF1449,

etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken.

Describe the rationale and the impact of the exception. Describe why the requirement can/will not be met.

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER

AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION

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 given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical Approach—Scenario Based Knowledge Assessment (Factor 1); Management and Staffing Approach (Factor 2);

Past Performance (Factor 3); and Price (Factor 4). Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factors 2 and 3 combined. Factor 2 is equal to Factor 3. Factors 1 through 3 (all non- price factors) combined are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non- priced factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price Factor in the event that the Technical, Management and Staffing, and Past Performance, results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Approach – Scenario Based Knowledge- Assessment Factor 2: Management and Staffing Approach Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4. Price

Price becomes more important as proposals approach technical equality.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

(1) The evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

(2) Factor 1: Technical Approach – Scenario Based Knowledge- Assessment:

The evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s methodology to satisfy the Government’s requirements. This will be evaluated with individual questions from the scenarios that gauge the offeror’s knowledge of virtual learning systems for the basic year and all option years. (See Attachment 2).

Marginal answers could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on:

a. Courseware Creation

(i) The processes to guide application design and deployment models within an LMS (Learning Management System) or another appropriate Army- owned environment.

(ii) The tools used to create and validate the courseware product.

(iii) The tools used to deploy the courseware product.

(iv) The processes to guide creation of courseware in the IMI Level 3-4 range.

b. Courseware Modification

(i) The processes to migrate a course from one LMS to another.

(ii) The processes to migrate a course to a different set of courseware programming standards and specifications for computer- managed instruction.

(iii) Describe the processes you would use to create or modify the programming of a courseware product.

IAW the Defense FAR (DFARS) PGI 215.3 and Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, Section 3.1.2.1 , the Army methodology for evaluating Factor 1 and Factor 2 and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

(3) Factor 2: Management and Staffing Approach. The Government will evaluate the management and staffing approach for accomplishing all the tasks in the PWS.

Evaluation will ensure the proposed Key Personnel possess sufficient experience and capabilities to successfully execute their assigned duties and responsibilities. The evaluation of the offeror’s staffing plan will determine whether the offeror demonstrates the ability to manage team members, workforce, and workload with regards to the requirements of the PWS.

The evaluation will also see if the offeror demonstrates how it will recruit, hire, retain (to reduce employee turnover), and manage personnel with the required knowledge, skills, education, experience, and applicable position descriptions, certifications, training (to include refresher training), and licenses required to support specific positions (including unique and emerging technology used in specialty areas) identified in the base line staffing data.

(4) Factor 3: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D and supplied as Attachments.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 20% percent or more of the proposed effort. 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 three

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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 a “neutral 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 as compared to the

NAICS 541511.

b. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three

(3) 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.

c. 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 aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects will be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which the past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing and have completed at least one (1) year of performance, or must have been performed during a minimum of the previous six (6) months or maximum of three (3) years from closing date of the solicitation. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet- to-be performed work and experience prior to the last three (3) years will not be considered.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those projects relate to this acquisition. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed and the meaningful participation in performance of this requirement will be assessed. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, and performance period. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance of companies providing meaningful participation in performance of this requirement is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including subcontractor(s), joint venture partner(s), and affiliate(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, or degree of meaningful participation in the performance of this requirement being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, subcontractor, and/or affiliates whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the definitions in Table 2 when assessing relevant contracts. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming/affiliate meaningful participation in the performance of this requirement.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

d. Performance Confidence Assessment: This assessment determines how well offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts;

rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume, PPQs (Attachment 7), and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Managers, KOs, Fee Determining Officials, and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. The SSEB will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. More recent and relevant performance of contractors that will have meaningful participation in this requirement will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort.

Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating.”

“Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

Table 3 - 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(5) Factor 4: Price. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals.

The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) for award in Schedule B and the Pricing Matrix. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

a. Cost Reimbursable Evaluation: There are no anticipated cost reimbursable CLINs for this Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (SAIDIQ).

b. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

c. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(i) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Instruction to Offers section, (iv) VOLUME IV – Pricing.

(ii) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

(iii) Errors: Errors: The offeror’s Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the KO.

(iv) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP shall be used for evaluation of price reasonableness and for determining best value for award. The TEP will be the sum of all CLINs in the Base Year and each OY. The TEP shall be calculated as follows:

The sum of all CLINs contained in the SF1449 of the solicitation.

One-half of the Offeror's price for the last OY to evaluate the Governments option to extend services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8. The offeror will not propose a price for the six-month period. The extension of services clause will be exercised only if necessary, utilizing the negotiated rates of the preceding period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism assessment.

DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a SAIDIQ contract without…