Amendment W9124J-21-R-0021-02.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 (1) provide Attachment 5-1 - Additional Technical Questions & Answ ers w ith associated changes to the Solicitation and Attachments (2) updated Attachment 1 - PWS, and (3) to provide Attachment 6 - Consent Form for release of Past Performance. No further extension to the proposal due date and time is granted.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Y 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Sep-2021

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 W9124J21R0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Aug-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Sep-2021

CODE

MICC - FSH

ATTN: MICC - FSH

2205 INFANTRY POST RD

210-466-2145

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-1361

W9124J 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9124J21R0021

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2, EVALUATION-COMMERICAL ITEM

a. Basis for Award

1. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing Best Value Subjective Trade off source selection in accordance with FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” in conjunction with procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3, “Source Selection” as authorized in FAR 12.203 and supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government intends to make a single award as a result of the solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Item and is judged the best value to the Government using a subjective trade-off process. Award will be based upon an integrated assessment of all non- Cost (Technical Capability and Past Performance) and Cost/Price Factors. As part of this assessment, the Government will determine whether exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

2. This process permits subjective trade-offs among cost/price and non-cost/price factors, and allows the

Government to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to obtain objective performance (versus threshold), lower risk, or innovative and technologically superior solutions.

However, the degree of importance of cost/price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-cost/price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost/price factors, the more important cost/price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government.

3. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using cost and price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

4. Unrealistically low costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirement.

5. The Government is looking for the offeror that demonstrates superior technical expertise and offers the best possible qualified personnel in order to mitigate the risk inherent in the performance of this requirement. A proposal that demonstrates superior processes, plans, and ability to provide better qualified personnel may be worth more to the Government than a proposal that just meets the minimum needs.

b. Award for All of the Work: The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price contract as a result of this Request for Proposal. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in Attachment 02_CLIN Schedule will be considered ineligible for award.

c. Discussions/Competitive Range Information. As set forth in FAR 52.212-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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 among the most highly rated proposals.

d. Evaluation Criteria:

1. Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) factors and three (3) subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability:

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan/Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience Subfactor 3: Management Controls/Quality Control Plan (QCP)

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2. Relative Importance of Factors/Subfactors: The importance of the Non-Price Evaluation Factors is in the following descending order with the most important factor listed first: Factor 1 - Technical Capability and Factor 2- Past Performance. All sub-factors are determined to be critical. An unacceptable rating in any sub-factor will automatically carry forward to the factor rating. In evaluating the three sub-factors within the Technical Capability factor, all subfactors are considered equal (1 – Technical Approach; 2 - Staffing Plan/Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience; 3 - Management Controls/Quality Control Plan (QCP). In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.

3. Factor 1 – Technical Capability. The proposal will be evaluated on the clarity and reasonableness of the technical approach to accomplish the complexity and magnitude of the Government’s requirement. The offeror shall demonstrate a technical approach that successfully accomplishes the PWS requirements.

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform and satisfy all contractual requirements of this solicitation. The proposal must demonstrate a high level of understanding of the tasks outlined in the PWS. The Government will evaluate:

i. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding of development and establishment of common operating procedures, business rules and organizational processes, specifically for public affairs and communication programs IAW PWS 5.2

ii. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding of development and execution of strategies, specifically for operations research, analysis and analytical expertise required for analytical communication and assessment IAW PWS 5.3

iii. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding of the integration and coordination methods used in Communication Planning, specifically for public affairs and communication programs IAW PWS 5.4

iv. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding to develop and produce the communication products, specifically in support of communication strategies and plans

IAW PWS 5.5.

v. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding to support Army Outreach Support and Think Tank Support IAW PWS 5.6.

vi. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding to plan and conduct professional development and training IAW PWS 5.7.

vii. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding to manage the exhibits, and to manage the requested updates to the existing exhibits IAW PWS 5.8.

viii. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their understanding to provide executive communication support IAW PWS 5.9

b. Subfactor 2 - Staffing Plan/Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the necessary qualifications required of personnel to adequately execute the requirements of the PWS 1.6.13. The Government will evaluate:

i. The completeness in submitting three (3) resumes for the following personnel, Program Manager (PM), Alternate Program Manager (AltPM) and Senior Researcher/ Research & Assessment task lead. The resumes for the PM, AltPM and Senior Researcher/ Research & Assessment task lead will be evaluated for necessary background, skills, capabilities, education requirements and technical experience that meet the standards outlined in the PWS paragraph 1.6.13

ii. Completeness in providing Staffing Plan and estimated hours of the proposed personnel to adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of the

PWS.

iii. Practicality of the staffing approach that can be implemented and demonstrates the Offeror's ability to be fully staffed within 30-day phase-in period.

iv. Completeness in providing the Contractor to Sub-Contractor arrangement (if one exists) proposed to accomplish the tasks in the PWS. If there is no Sub-Contractor, the proposal will be evaluated for stating so. Additionally, the proposal will be evaluated for certification that at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the Small Business in accordance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

c. Subfactor 3: Personal Management Controls/Quality Control Plan (QCP). The proposal must outline the Offeror’s Quality Control Approach. Quality control is observation techniques and activities the Offeror expects to execute to fulfill requirements for quality. To be considered acceptable, the offer shall include:

i. a narrative explaining in detail the Offeror’s quality control approach and processes that clearly demonstrate their understanding of the requirements and how they plan to ensure an effective and appropriate quality control program for timely and continuous delivery of products and services outlined in the PWS Technical Exhibit 1, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) and Technical Exhibit 2, Deliverables Schedule

d. Rating Schemes: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will receive a combined technical/risk rating that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk rating listed in Table 1. Each factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives a marginal or unacceptable rating will result in an overall marginal or unacceptable rating for the factor and are not eligible for award.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

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

4. Factor 2 - Past Performance. Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. The evaluation will focus on the past performance of the offeror (to include that of any joint venture partner or subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement), how the proposal describes that past performance so to demonstrate the depth and breadth necessary to satisfactorily perform the requirement, and how the overall experience proposed by the offeror mitigates risk and enhances the likelihood of successful performance. Performance risk 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. In each case, the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the offeror’s Past Performance Rating. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data obtained from other sources. Past Performance areas of evaluation (not all inclusive):

Quality of Service Level of complexity of Services Schedule Cost Control Business Relations Customer Satisfaction

a. Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two s.paulouskaya Highlight aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

b. Recency 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 five

(5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

c. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

(1) There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

(2) A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor 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 as stated in Table 2. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

d. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

e. Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

f. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description 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.

g. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine 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. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

h. Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description 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 factor 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 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, realistic, complete and balanced. The offeror’s total proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, completeness and balance.

a. 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. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.402(a) may be required from the offeror to support the proposed price. Unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

b. Realism: Price realism analysis will be performed on the base labor rates and fringe benefit rates for each labor category proposed to ensure the offeror is able to hire and retain qualified individuals for the work to be performed. Price realism will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(3). Price Realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposal to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. Results of the analysis will be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. The offered prices will not be adjusted as a result of the analysis. Unrealistically low prices, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

c. Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.

d. Balanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including all option years) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

e. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Total Evaluated Price should be the total price of the base year CLINs, total price of Option Year 1 CLINs, and total price of Option Year 2 CLINs.

(END OF ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2)

(End of Summary of Changes)