W91247-15-R-0007_Amendment_0005.pdf

MICHELLE WYNN

MICC-FB

FT BRAGG NC 28310

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 make revisions in section L and M of the solicitiation and add FAR Clause 52.216-22. See yellow highligted sections in the Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jan-2016

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 W91247-15-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2015

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

26-Jan-2016

CODE

MICC CENTER - FORT BRAGG

MICC - FORT BRAGG

2175 REILLY ROAD STOP A

FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000

W91247 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W91247

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91247-15-R-0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity OCT 1995

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L.1. PROPOSAL INFORMATION

A. General Instructions.

(1) The selection of Contractors for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria under Section M, “Factors to be evaluated.”

Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

(2) The submission of documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and the proposed contract type.

(3) It is the Government’s intention to award WITH discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best mission capability proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306, the Government reserves the right to not hold discussions. A competitive range may be determined and offerors notified if discussions will be held. The Government will establish a competitive range based on initial technical evaluations and proposed price. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition in accordance with FAR Part 15.306 (c).

(4) These instructions prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

(5) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.803 (Contents of Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

(6) If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale.

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

(7) All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

(8) It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a LABELED well-written proposal, with adequate detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation.

(9) Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range IAW FAR 15.503(a), if one is established, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

(10) The Government will consider the offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when evidence of a signed Teaming Arrangement or Letter of Intent is provided. This Request For Proposal (RFP) will refer to the offeror and all identified teaming subcontractors as a “team.” This RFP will refer to all identified teaming subcontractors as “team members” or “teaming partners.” The offeror shall identify any Team/Team Members in their Executive Summary and briefly describe how the Teaming Arrangement will support this requirement.

(11) Deleted.

(12) NOTE: Offers should be electronically submitted through the U.S Army Aviation and Missile Research

Development and Engineering Center (ARMDEC) SAFE ACCESS FILE EXCHANGE (SAFE):https://safe.amrdec.army.mil to michelle.j.wynn.civ@mail.mil and ronald.r.newlan.civ@mail.mil no later than 10:00 a.m., 28 January 2016

ARMDEC SAFE submission instructions. Offerors should select “Guest User” option and fill out all required information. Offerors shall input their legal business name for the “Personal Information” field, “Your Name.”

Description of file should identify the total number of files being submitted. Deletion date shall not be less than 14 days from submission date. “Recipient Information” shall include: michelle.j.wynn.civ@mail.mil and Ronald.r.newlan.civ@mail.mil . No other recipients should be specified under “Recipient Information.” Select email setting preferences to set desired security level of submission of “FOUO” and “SENSITIVE”. Files cannot be downloaded by recipients until sender verifies sender email address. Verification process is identified in email through ARMDEC SAFE and is the offeror’s responsibility to verify their email address, Zipfiles are not permitted.

L.2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Each offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as listed below and all information shall be confined to the appropriate volume to facilitate independent evaluation. Proposals which do not follow these guidelines or which do not include the requested minimum information will be eliminated from further consideration for award. The overall proposal shall consist of five (5) Volumes (Volumes I through V). Volume I - RFP Documents and General Information, Volume II -Technical Submission for Factors 1 through 2: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach, and Training Approach, Volume III - Technical Submission for Factor 3: Scenario responses for each of the three (3) Sample Task Orders (STO), Volume IV – Technical Submission for Factor 4: Past Performance, and Volume V Price Submission for Factor 5:

Table 2

VOLUME TITLE

I RFP Documents and General Information II Factors 1-2 Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach and

Training Approach III Factor 3- Responses to Sample Task Orders (STO) Scenarios IV Factor 4-Past Performance V Factor 5- Pricing

B. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any revisions, and modifications, so as to reach the

Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.

(1) Facsimile and regular mail proposals will not be accepted.

(2) The Contract Specialist is the main point of contact for this acquisition. Address all questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialist and courtesy copy the Contracting Officer at the email addresses provided above. All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email.

L.3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

A. Each volume of the proposal should be separately marked and labeled with the appropriate volume, i.e., Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV and Volume V. A cover sheet should accompany each volume marked with the following: Volume number, title, solicitation number and the offeror's name. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationary and logo’s are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12 point font, Times New Roman) cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections. The files are to be unlocked, while the file names shall be labeled “Company Name – Initial” Volume X – Document Title” for the first submission with X indicating the Volume number. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X – Volume X – Document Title’ with X indicating the number of the revision and Volume number. Page limitations are as follows:

Table 3

VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMITS

I RFP Documents and General

Information None

II

Factors 1 - 2 Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach and Training Approach

Not to exceed 50

III Factor 3 Responses to Sample Task Order Scenarios

Not to exceed 30 per STO

IV Factor 4Past Performance 20 V Factor 5 Pricing None

B. Proposal Limitation. The proposal shall not exceed the limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed from the proposal. The Government will not accept any changes to the Contractor’s proposal after the closing date and time specified in the solicitation (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late proposals). If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (EN). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters requesting ENs to the offerors.

(1) Page Limit Includes: All executive summaries, appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, pictures, drawings, etc.

(2) Page Limit does not include Teaming Agreements, Letter of Intents, covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

(3) A page shall be an 8 ½” X 11” sheet of paper. A page printed doubled-sided shall be counted as two pages.

Font size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. Fold-outs will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 ½” X 11” sheet of paper. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom, and 3/4 inch side margins. The Offeror shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event Offeror creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may clarify or exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

L.4. PROPOSAL CONTENT

A. Volume I – RFP Documents and General Information.

(1) Documents shall contain the signed copy of all documents requiring signature of the offeror. This includes the Standard Form (SF) 33. Offerors are cautioned that the SF 33 must contain a signature in Block 17 of the form.

Each offeror shall complete (fill-ins and signatures) and submit as stated below. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the offer and all certifications requiring signature. All proposals shall be valid for 120 calendar days.

(2) RFP documents shall include the following information:

-TAB A - Standard Form 33, Solicitation Offer and Award with signature. Acknowledgment of Amendments can be made on the face of the SF 33 or signed copies of the amendments can be included in this Section.

-TAB B - Executive Summary, the offeror shall provide an executive summary of the entire proposal, including proposal solutions, and highlight any key or unique features, excluding cost. The offeror shall include a list, including addresses, of all companies participating on the offeror’s team, including the prime Offeror, any partners, subcontractors, etc. Any material presented in this summary shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any other parts of the proposal.

-TAB C - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan - Each offeror shall provide an OCI mitigation plan, if applicable, to its proposal.

- TAB D - General Information - Identification of the proposal point of contact (POC), e-mail address, and phone number; a list of the proposal package contents.

- TAB E - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.

- TAB F- Signed Teaming Arrangements or Letter of Intent removed

B. Volume II - Factors 1 – 2 Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach and Training Approach.

(1) General. Volume II shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Responses will be evaluated against Factors 1 - 2 as defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used“, etc., will be deemed unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(2) Volume II shall be organized according to the following general outline:

-TAB A - Table of Contents

-TAB B - List of Table and Drawings and Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

-TAB C - Technical Submission. Include an Executive Summary specific to Volume II.

- Tab D- Signed Teaming Arrangements or Letter of Intent

(3) Content. The proposal information described in paragraphs L.4.B (3)(a) and L.4.B(3)(b) below relate to the overall ID/IQ contract.

(a) Factor 1: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach: The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to organize, so as to successfully manage and accomplish the primary tasks identified in Part 5, Specific Tasks, and the supplemental tasks identified in paragraph 1.6 in the PWS. The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to fully perform simultaneous tasks identified in multiple TOs in at least two (2) Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC).

Each offeror shall submit a Management Plan that demonstrates how the offeror intends to provide contract support to the contracting team in CONUS and OCONUS, to include communication and reporting with the Security Assistance Teams (SATs) managers while deployed. The offeror shall describe the ability to manage, schedule, and integrate teaming partners/subcontractors into their organization. The offeror shall describe the working relationship between the prime and its teaming partners/subcontractors at the corporate level and employee level; additionally, the offeror shall describe how it will ensure adequate oversight of teaming partners/subcontractors, where applicable, to include performance monitoring and timely resolution of any issues that may arise. Each offeror shall describe their staffing approach so as to demonstrate their ability to execute the PWS mission requirements utilizing Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix. The Offeror’s staffing approach shall demonstrate their recruiting and retaining plan as well as how they will replace qualified personnel to ensure the tasks identified in the PWS are successfully executed without mission delay. The offeror shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of, and the capacity to accomplish, export compliance, including International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR); the capacity to obtain visas, business licenses and exemptions for services and products to international customers; and the ability to obtain facility clearance (FCL) and security clearances for their personnel.

(b) Factor 2: Training Approach. The offeror shall demonstrate their training approach to the specific tasks in Section 5 of the PWS. The offeror shall specifically identify a broad range of training to foreign students that closely mirrors US military doctrine that the offeror has or shall be able to conduct to include philosophy and methodology in accordance with the PWS.

C. Volume III – Factor 3 Response to STOs.

Each response should include sufficient information to describe the offeror’s procedures, processes, controls mechanisms that are established at the Sample Task Order (STO) level. For each STO, the offeror shall specifically identify and explain their process to achieve full capability of performance as identify in section (i) through (iv). The offeror shall demonstrate how tasks will be scheduled and executed, and identify and explain their staffing approach, to include identifying necessary skill sets to complete each task. Labor categories shall be selected from the labor categories listed in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix - Attachment 1. For purposes of responding to these STO's, offerors may add additional detail to the labor categories they propose from Attachment 1, provided that the general baseline requirements from the Attachment 1 labor categories remain Volume III, shall be organized as follows:

(1) TAB A – Response to Scenario 1 (Peru)

(2) TAB B – Response to Scenario 2 (Philippines)

(3) TAB C – Response to Scenario 3 Removed

(i) Each TAB will include: Table of Contents, Executive Summary, detailed explanation of how the offeror will accomplish the STO.

(ii) For depicting staffing, offerors shall provide the following information:

a. A defined SAT composition with a detailed list of labor categories, number of personnel proposed for each labor category, and associated labor hours deemed necessary to perform the requirements. Clearly depict in a staffing chart the total number of productive man-hours and associated Full Time Equivalents (FTE's) for each proposed labor category. All cross utilization of the labor force shall be clearly explained and depicted. To the extent allowed by the terms of the STOs, offerors may propose any labor categories in Attachment 1 and associated hours.

b. Job qualifications associated with each labor category to demonstrate the skills necessary for each labor category proposed to meet or exceed the qualifications required in the STO. For each labor category in Attachment 1, the job qualifications should include at least the DOD grade equivalency, civilian education, military experience, and skill set noted in Table 1.

c. A complete manning schedule which depicts planned employee hiring, training and deployment timelines for SAT employees.

(iii) A detailed training plan and schedule that demonstrates support to all task areas and training as defined in Section 5 of the STO to include the method or plan for efficiently and effectively performing all tasks.

(iv) Each TAB of Volume III shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the STO. The response shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the Contractor’s technical capability and ability to comply with the task requirements specified in the STO. The offeror shall specifically address the methodology used for accomplishing the tasks.

D. Volume IV – Factor 4 Past Performance

(1) General: The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort of the SATMO Education and Training Services IDIQ requirement and/or the STOs. Recent and relevant past performance shall be discussed for the prime contractor and/or any ‘team members” or “teaming partners” proposed to support this contract. The offeror is provided an opportunity to submit a list of no more than three (3) of the Offeror’s most recent and relevant past performance information on projects: similar in size, scope, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation, performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance data from other sources than those identified by the Offeror in evaluating past performance. This includes, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers,; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate the Offerors past performance. The KO may also evaluate Past Performance based on direct knowledge of the Contractor’s performance on current or recent contracts. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors. All past performance received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(2) Content. Past Performance Submission Requirements. The Offeror shall submit Past Performance information within the past three (3) years that is both recent and relevent, if applicable.

E. Volume V – Factor 5 Price

(1) Format. The format for the price proposal shall be as follows:

TAB A – Executive Summary TAB B – Section B TAB C – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix Tab D - Sample Task Order Price Proposals

(a) Tab A – Executive Summary – The executive summary shall describe the offeror’s rationale/methodology for its pricing approach. The offeror shall identify any pricing assumptions made and the overhead, G&A, subcontractor overhead, profit rates used to develop the Price Matrix. No information from subcontractors is required as the prime is expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in evaluating the reasonableness of the subcontractor rates before developing its final rate matrix. Should a contract be awarded to the offeror, the proposed labor rates provided on the Price Matrix shall become the maximum rate allowable (CAP) for that labor category. If electronic files are compressed, they must be self-extracting archives (no software required to decompress). If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions.

Additionally, spreadsheets must be easily traceable. None of the files submitted shall have any read/write/password protection. Include all formulas in your spreadsheets and please include any notes deemed necessary to add clarity to the spreadsheets. In the event additional labor categories are required during contract performance, such rates shall be negotiated post contract award.

(b) TAB B, SF 33, Section B –The CLINs will be the program ceiling. (Contractor leave blank)

(c) Tab C - CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix - Attachment 1 The offeror’s price proposal will consist of information to support the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix as provided. The Contractor shall clearly explain the basis of the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix (Attachment 1). The proposed rates in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix shall be Capacity (CAP) rates that reflect the maximum rates that will be paid for such labor category and be fully burdened to include profit. To be clear, offerors will propose one CAP labor rate for each labor category listed on Attachment 1; and that labor rate will be the maximum rate that the offeror, if awarded a MATOC contract, may propose for that labor category in any task order competition during the entire duration of the MATOC. Notional Labor hours are based on internal government estimates of the number of hours per category a MATOC holder might expend over a 5 year POP, may not be relied upon to correlate with actual performance during contract performance and are for evaluation purposes only.

(d) Tab D - Sample Task Order Price Proposals – Attachment 5.

(i) For evaluation purposes only, the price proposal shall clearly depict how the Task Order prices were derived by using the applicable labor categories and fully burdened hourly CAP rates proposed in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix - Attachment 1 times the number of hours proposed for each labor category of the STOs.

The proposed hours shall coincide with the staffing, labor hours and mix, proposed in the Technical volume. Shown below are some suggested labor categories based on the information provided in the STOs. Although these labor categories are suggested, the Offeror is responsible for developing the skill sets and labor mix to meet the full requirements of the STO. Only labor categories listed in Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix can be proposed by the offeror. The labor categories and rates proposed in the STOs must be clearly traceable and to the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix."

Suggested Labor Categories

(ii) The offeror shall apply the corresponding CAP rates from the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix –

Attachment 1. For evaluation purposes, no discounts to the rates in the Pricing Matrix – Attachment 1 shall be applied to the Task Order Pricing and while precise labor category descriptions proposed for the STOs may vary slightly by offeror, the job qualifications should include at least the DoD grade equivalency, civilian education, military experience, and skill sets noted in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix.

(iii) Although the Sample TOs may depict travel and other direct costs (ODCs) requirements, for purposes of proposal evaluations offerors shall NOT propose any travel costs or ODCs in its price proposal.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

A. Basis for Award.

(1) This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will award the contract to a contractor whose proposal represents the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal after evaluation and in accordance with the solicitation. The Government intends to award up to five

(5) contracts utilizing Full and Open Competition; with up to three (3) of those contracts reserved for small businesses. Upon award of the three (3) contracts to small businesses, the Government will award up to two (2) contracts to either small or large businesses provided they are determined technically acceptable and have the lowest evaluated price. However, in the event the Government does not receive five (5) acceptable offers, the Government reserves the right to award less than five (5) contracts. If the Government does not receive any acceptable small business offers, the Government reserves the right to dissolve the small business reserve and award to LPTA offerors under Full and Open Competition. Only those proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable will be eligible for award. For a proposal to be determined “Technically Acceptable” and receive consideration for award, the proposal must receive a rating of “Acceptable” for all non-price Factors listed in Section M. Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(2) The Government will evaluate each price proposal using price analysis techniques delineated in FAR 15.404-1. Accordingly, the analytical techniques prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 may be used singly or in combination to ensure the price is fair and reasonable. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated considering the responses to the sample task orders and the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix provided. The CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix shall include a fully loaded CAP rate (maximum rate that will be charged per labor category for the life of the IDIQ) which shall consider performance through the duration of the MATOC.

STO 1 - Peru STO 2- Philippines

SME 3 SME 3/Team Chief/Site Lead 3 Technician 1/Team Chief/ Site lead 1/ Higher Salary Skill 1 Technician 1/Team Chief/Site lead 2

Assistant 1/ Higher Salary Skill 1 Technician 2/Team Chief/Site Lead 2

Assistant 2

(3) Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award with discussions. The offeror’s initial proposal should contain its best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may request clarifications.

The Government reserves the right not to hold discussions if the KO later determines them not to be in the Governments best interest. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 and final offers will be evaluated. The Government may establish a competitive range based on initial technical evaluations and proposed price. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

B. Award

(1) The Government anticipates awarding up to five (5) IDIQ to satisfy the SATMO Education and Training requirement; the Government has reserved up to three (3) of the contracts for small businesses. If one

(1) to three (3) acceptable proposal are not received from small businesses in response to this solicitation, the Government reserves the right to award to acceptable large business offerors.

(2) All proposals will be subject to an initial screening by the KO to determine whether proposals are complete before being evaluated as detailed herein. Proposals that are considered incomplete after initial screening may be rejected and offerors will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

(3) Proposals received that do not address all factors and requirements of Section L – Proposal Preparation will be considered non-compliant and may be ineligible for award.

(4) Evaluation Criteria: The following represents the criteria for award using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable method of source selection. In addition to any specific evaluation criteria stated below, evaluation will consider the completeness of the offeror’s responses, and the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed approach.

(i) The proposals will be evaluated under five (5) evaluation factors, which are listed below.

Factor 1: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach Factor 2: Training Approach Factor 3: Responses to Sample Task Order (STO) Scenarios Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Price

(ii) The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals, Factors 1-4, on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-1 Rating Descriptions. An offeror must be considered acceptable under all non-price Factors to be deemed Technically Acceptable. Therefore, a proposal rated Unacceptable for any one non-price Factor will not be considered for award.

(a) Factor 1: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach: To be acceptable, the offeror clearly demonstrated their management approach to successfully manage, staff and team with subcontractors to accomplish both the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the PWS. The offeror demonstrated the ability to fully perform simultaneous tasks identified in multiple TOs in at least two (2) Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC). The offeror’s Management Plan adequately demonstrated how the offeror intends to provide contract support to the contracting team in CONUS and OCONUS, to include communication and reporting with the Security Assistance Teams (SATs) mangers while deployed. The offeror adequately demonstrated their ability to manage, schedule, and integrate (transparency of operations) teaming partners and/or subcontractors into the prime contractor’s organization. The offeror must demonstrate adequate oversight of teaming partners/subcontractors during performance to include performance monitoring and timely resolution of issues. The staffing approach must adequately demonstrate their ability to execute the PWS mission requirements utilizing labor categories provided in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix. The

Offeror’s staffing approach adequately demonstrated their recruiting and retaining plan as well as how they will replace qualified personnel to ensure the tasks identified in the PWS are successfully executed without mission delay. All SATMO training to foreign partner countries requires contractors to follow ITAR/export control regulations. The offeror described in their proposal if they already abide by ITAR or at least have the ability to do that in the future. The offeror demonstrated a thorough understanding of, and the capacity to accomplish, export compliance, including International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR); the capacity to obtain visas, business licenses and exemptions for services and products to international customers; and the ability to obtain facility clearance (FCL) and security clearances for their personnel.

(b) Factor 2: Training Approach. The offeror demonstrated their training approach to the specific tasks in Section 5 of the PWS. To be acceptable the offeror demonstrated the capability to adequately conduct a broad range of training to foreign students that closely mirrors US military doctrine training to include the training philosophy and methodology in accordance with the PWS.

(c) Factor 3 Response to Sample Task Order Scenarios. To be acceptable, the offeror demonstrated their ability to achieve full capability of performance, adequately staffed in sufficient quantities to include identifying necessary skill sets utilizing labor cagetories drawn appropriately from the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix to complete each task, and proposed a technical approach that demonstrated adequately scheduling and execution. The offeror’s proposed individual labor classifications, labor hours, and Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for performing the service requirements and will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror proposed a sufficient number of personnel and an appropriate labor mix to successfully accomplish the mission.

i) The offeror includes a table of contents, executive summary, and a detailed explanation of how the offeror will accomplish the mission.

ii) Staffing:

a) Offeror provided a detailed staffing chart that depicted the total number of productive man-hours and FTE’s required for each labor category, and explained the use of all labor force.

b) The Offeror provided job qualifications that demonstrated the required skills necessary for each labor category that met or exceeded the qualifications in the STO’s

c) The Offeror provided a complete manning schedule that demonstrated the hiring, training and deployment timelines for employees.

iii) The Offeror provided a detailed training plan and schedule that demonstrated their ability to effectively support the task areas and training defined in the STO’s

iv) The Offer provided a Volume III with Tabs that are consistent with the STO’s requirements, and demonstrated their ability to comply with the task requirements of the STO’s by addressing their methodology used.

Assigning Ratings. Factors 1-3 will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below.

Table 4 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

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

(d) Factor 4 - Past Performance. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The offeror is not required to submit any documentation for this factor. However, offerors are provided an opportunity to identify past or current contracts for consideration in evaluating past performance. The Government will evaluate past performance using data provided in the offeror’s proposal which is optional and data obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Offeror Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) or similar systems, State Department Watch Lists, and current and former Government officials, etc in its assessment of past performance.

Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

Recent Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevant Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in size, scope, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation (IDIQ requirement and/or the STOs). A determination as to the relevancy of the offeror’s (including subcontractor) past performance will be made, and only relevant past performance will be considered in this evaluation. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below. An offeror whose proposal demonstrates no relevant past performance will be rated “Unknown.” An award will not be made to any offeror who receives an Unacceptable past performance rating.

In the event of an unacceptable past performance evaluation rating for an otherwise technically acceptable low priced small business offeror, the KO will forward the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency determination in accordance with procedures in FAR 15.101-2(b)(1). In the event an offeror receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in both the Technical Acceptability Factor and the Past Performance Factor, a COC will not be requested as the offeror would remain “Unacceptable” based on its technical evaluation. If the KO finds an otherwise technically acceptable small business to be non-responsible the KO will forward the matter to the SBA and must follow the procedures in FAR 19.602-1(a)(2).

Table 5

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

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

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

(e) Factor 5: Price.

(i) Total Evaluated Price:

Total Evaluated Price: The total overall evaluated price (TOEP) for award purposes will be the total price (sum of notional hours multiplied by corresponding CAP rates) of Sample Task Orders Price Proposal – Attachment 5 plus the total price of the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix – Attachment 1. The techniques and procedures described under FAR Part 15.404-1 will be the primary means of assessing price to determine the proposed price to be reasonable, balanced, and complete. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether an Acceptable Offeror’s overall price is reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404. The TOEP will not be assigned an adjectival rating or scored. In addition, the rates contained in the pricing worksheets (Attachment 1 and 5) will be reviewed to ensure they are complete. To be complete, all hourly rates identified in the Pricing Worksheets (Attachments 1 and 5) shall be fully burdened rates.

(ii) Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced Pricing will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high or low prices and ensure balanced pricing between labor categories.

(iii) Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. In accordance with FAR

15.305 and 15.404-1, adequate price competition is anticipated to determine price reasonableness.

(iv) Complete: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.

(1) Format:

1(a) Offeror provided an executive summary that identified pricing assumptions, overhead and G&A, subcontractor overhead, and profit rates used to develop the price matrix. Offerors proposal was not password protected or required software to access or decompress. If clarification is needed for spreadsheets it must be included as a note

1(b) Section B

1(c) CAP Labor Rates Price Martix- Attachement 1

1(d) Tab D STO’s

(i) Proposal shall clearly depict how the STO prices were derived by using the applicable labor categories and fully burdened hourly CAP rates proposed in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix - Attachment 1 times the number of hours proposed for each labor category of the STOs. The proposed hours shall coincide with the staffing, labor hours and mix, proposed in the Technical volume. The proposal shall adequately explain how the TO prices were developed in conjunction with the suggested labor categories, skill sets and labor mix to meet the requirements within the STO's.

(ii) Offeror shall apply the corresponding CAP rates from the CAP Labor Rates Price matrix; No discounts shall be applied for purposes of STO price evaluation.

(iii) The labor categories and rates proposed in the STOs were shall be clearly traceable and to the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix."

(End of Summary of Changes)

(End of Summary of Changes)