W9128A-15-R-0008_Am-0002.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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Project Management Automated Information System (P2) Operations & Maintenance

(see continued pages)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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 W9128A-15-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Sep-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 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 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

CODE

CECT - CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, HONOLULU DISTRICT

BLDG 252 (CECT-POH)

FT. SHAFTER HI 96858-5440

W9128A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

29 Oct 2015

1 16

Am-0002 j3ct9jfk Typewritten Text Joan Kaimikaua

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CHANGES TO SOLICITATION. Attached hereto are revised and new pages to the solicitation. The revision mark “Am-0002” is shown on each revised and new page. Revisions are indicated in bold print.

a. REVISED SECTION/PAGES:

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Factors Paragraph A, 2.0

2. The proposal due date has been extended to 30 October 2015, 12:00 pm, Hawaiian Standard Time.

Am-0002

W9128A-15-R-0008

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

AND

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1.0 The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically to

W9128A-15-R-0008@usace.army.mil . The subject line in the email should state “PROPOSAL for Solicitation No. W9128A-15-R-0008, Project Management Automated Information System

(P2) Operations Maintenance.”

2.0 The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, in one email with attached pdf files labeled Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and PRICE. Each file name shall contain the

Offeror’s name. The PRICE file shall consist of factor 5 and Solicitation, Offer and Award

Documents and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

The offeror's proposal shall be submitted electronically in one email with attached pdf files labeled Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and PRICE. Each file name shall contain the Offeror's name. The PRICE file shall consist of factor 5 and Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Email size limitation of the email address stated above, is 15 MB (not to be confused with file size). Since some of the material (especially the signed documents that have been scanned) may cause the proposal to exceed the Email size limitation, offerors should compress files, so that the proposal submittal is within the 15 MB Email size limit. Compressed files shall still contain the .pdf extension.

3.0 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 capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

4.0 Proposal Submission Requirements.

4.1 Any changes (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be highlighted in a different color, or captured as “track changes” and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the left margin of the page. The revision pages shall be dated.

4.2 Documents shall be formatted as single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at mailto:W9128A-15-R-0008@usace.army.mil least one blank line. Text shall be 12-point minimum font size. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. Other required formatting is as follow

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right = 1”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

The following is a summary of the page limitation for each factor:

(Note: Page and submission limits shall be strictly adhered to. Any information exceeding limits will not be evaluated or considered)

Title

Maximum Pages

Factor 1 (Technical Approach)

Ten (10) pages

Factor 2 (Key Personnel and Staffing)

One (1) page for the list of key personnel

One (1) page for each key personnel’s letter of commitment

One (1) page for each resume for key personnel

Four (4) pages total for the organization chart, staffing plan and narrative.

Factor 3 (Company Experience)

One (1) page per recent relevant contract and/or task order; eight (8) maximum recent relevant contract and/or task order

Factor 4 (Past Performance)

N/A

Factor 5 (Price)

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/ Representations

4.3 Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/ Representations. Each Offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449), Solicitation / Contract / Order for Commercial Items

Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offeror’s Section

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

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 following evaluation factors:

Proposal Location

Evaluation Factor Number

Description Relative Importance

Volume I, Tab A

Factor 1 Technical Approach 1st Most Important

Volume I, Tab B

Factor 2 Key Personnel and Staffing

2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1 but more important than Factor 3)

Volume I, Tab C

Factor 3 Company Experience

3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 2 but more important than Factor 4)

Volume I, Tab D

Factor 4 Past Performance 4th Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 3)

Volume II, Tab A

Factor 5 Price The non price factors, when combined are significantly more important than price.

Offeror’s will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NON-PRICE FACTORS (FACTORS 1-4) ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT

THAN PRICE.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

1.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

1.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 All documents pertaining to this factor shall be submitted electronically as a pdf document labeled “FACTOR 1, Offeror’s name”. The Offeror’s submission for this factor shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

1.2.2 The Offeror shall submit its execution plan depicting its technical approach and processes that will be used in the following four areas:

1) Operation of the Primavera enterprise software and its interfaces in particular with the

Corps of Engineers Financial Management System;

2) Management of the Operation and Maintenance team in support of geographically dispersed P2 users;

3) Routine, Preventive and Emergency maintenance; and

4) Resolution of customer issues and complaints

1.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1.2.1 The Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the

Offeror’s technical approach, in the following four areas, will lead to success in meeting the requirements of the PWS:

1) Operation of the Primavera enterprise software and its interfaces in particular with the

Corps of Engineers Financial Management System;

2) Management of the Operation and Maintenance team in support of geographically dispersed P2 users;

3) Routine, Preventive and Emergency maintenance; and

4) Resolution of customer issues and complaints

2.1 FACTOR 2 – KEY PERSONNEL AND STAFFING

2.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Submission requirements

2.1.1 All documents pertaining to this factor shall be submitted electronically in PDF format, in a file labeled “FACTOR 2, Offeror’s name”.

2.1.2 Offeror’s shall identify five (5) specific individuals proposed as Key Personnel. Key personnel identified may have a different title than the following, however, key personnel proposed, must be those that will be responsible for the functions typically associated with these positions:

Technical Project Manager Senior Systems DBA (data base administrator)

Senior Java Programmer;

Senior Interface Developer Senior Primavera Architect

Key personnel proposed should provide evidence of the following experience and qualifications based on the criteria in paragraph 2.2.

For each of the five key personnel proposed, provide a resume which shall include at a minimum the quality, extend and length of experience, qualifications and training, in Oracle Software Development, Primavera and/or Java, and other systems as identified in the solicitation. Resumes shall not exceed (1) page each.

Technical Project Manager – Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Management Information Systems, or equivalent discipline plus ten or more years of relevant experience; or Master's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Management Information Systems or relevant discipline plus five or more years of relevant experience.

Experience in software development and/or IT service delivery and leading O&M activities for enterprise software applications. Experience with implementations and upgrades of COTS tools (specifically Oracle Primavera). Experience developing project schedules, managing team resources, creating work breakdown structures, estimating size and effort for new development projects, as well as develop detailed requirements for these projects.

Software architecture experience, and experience in software development life cycle.

Senior Systems DBA- Masters degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Physics, or Math.

15+ years experience with Oracle database upgrades, cloning, installing, patching, performance tuning, and backup/recovery. Experience implementing/upgrading Primavera Project Portfolio Management P6 version 8 or higher, P6 WebAccess version 8 or higher, Integration API, Web Services, and setup and configuration of P6 Job Services version 8 or higher. Experience with installation, upgrade and configuration of WebLogic Server 11g, Oracle Fusion Middleware 11g, Oracle Internet Directory 11g, Oracle Unified Directory 11g, Oracle Identity Manager 11g, Oracle Access Manager 11g, Oracle Single Sign On (OSSO) and Microsoft Active Directory (AD). Advanced architectural knowledge of Oracle Portal, Oracle Primavera (P6), P6 Analytics, OBIEE, BI Publisher, Oracle Hyperion, and IBM DataStage. Must have experience with Unix OS. Installed Oracle Enterprise Performance System (EPM) 11.1.2.4 and Configured Oracle Hyperion Planning 11.1.2.4.

Senior Java Programmer - Masters degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Physics, or Math. 15+ years experience with Java programming. Expert on object-oriented design principles, J2EE technologies (specifically JDBC, Web Services, Web Logic and Maven).

Experience with Oracle Application Developer Framework (ADF), Spring Framework, Eclipse and Wicket. Oracle certification preferred.

Senior Interface Developer - BA/BS from accredited four year college or university with major course work in information management systems, engineering, computer science, math, or related field. 15+ years experience with designing Oracle for batch processing and online transactions, and apply tuning techniques including Indexing, partitioning, and query optimization; and creating materialized views, tables, packages, stored procedures, functions, and triggers, and Unix scripts. Experience with integration and developing interfaces between Oracle products. Experience with IBM Datastage, SAP Business Objects Universe Designer tools.

Senior Primavera Architect - BA/BS or Masters from accredited four year college or university with major course work in information management systems, engineering, computer science, or related field. 10+ years experience with Primavera 8.2 implementation/upgrades, Java Primavera Integration APIs and Web Services. Experience with OBIEE, BI Publisher, and P6 Analytics. In depth experience with Oracle Primavera data structures, setup/configuration, and administration. Must have experience with Unix OS.

Experience with Primavera Client in a Citrix environment desired.

2.1.3 Offeror’s shall provide a list of the five individuals, showing their position title (as shown on the organization chart and staffing plan) and indicating the roles and responsibilities they will have for the P2 O&M requirement. This listing with names, position titles, and roles and responsibilities, shall not exceed one (1) page.

2.1.4 Offeror shall submit signed Letters of Commitment from each individual proposed as one of the key personnel. The Letters of Commitment shall not exceed one (1) page each.

2.1.5 The Offeror shall submit its company organizational chart and staffing plan for their P2 O&M team, and submit a list of the every full time position and the associated number of employees, that will be performing under the contract (not limited to the key personnel). Any part time positions shall be listed as well, clearly indicating the distinction, and explanation for it. In a narrative, identify the roles and responsibilities associated with the position s, and how they will interact. The organization chart shall depict lines of authority.

The organizational chart, staffing plan and narrative shall not exceed a total four (4) pages.

2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

2.2.1 Resumes of key personnel will be evaluated to determine the extent to which key personnel have relevant experience and qualifications to succeed in the roles for which they are proposed.

2.2.2 Relevant experience is defined as experience similar to the subject Performance Work

Statement that demonstrates the ability to manage and support large Enterprise Oracle Primavera installations for DoD with experience in Interface Development, Database support, Java Primavera/API Development that has relevant vendor software certifications.

2.2.3 Signed Letters of Commitment shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which personnel are committed to work for the Offeror under this contract.

2.2.4 Key personnel shall be evaluated:

a. Against the stated standard stated in paragraph 2.1.2 for key personnel.

b. To determine the extent to which key personnel have relevant experience that will allow them to succeed in the role they are proposed for.

c. Key personnel that present relevant experience involving USACE systems such as P2, CEFMS, RMS CAPCES/ACES and FUDSMIS will be considered a significant strength.

d. Key personnel with a greater amount of relevant experience and qualifications may be given more consideration as it demonstrates a lower risk to the Government.

2.2.5 The proposed staffing plan shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which the number of personnel and their roles and responsibilities, are sufficient to carry out the technical approach described in Factor 1. In addition, the organization chart shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed structure, will allow the Offeror to be successful with its proposed approach.

3.1 FACTOR 3 – COMPANY EXPERIENCE

3.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 All documents pertaining to this factor shall be submitted electronically as a PDF file labeled “FACTOR 3, Offeror’s name”.

3.2.2 The Offeror shall submit corporate experience consisting of no more than eight (8) contracts and/or task orders indicating whether the Offeror was the prime or the subcontractor. The information submitted for each contract/task order submitted shall not exceed (1) page (maximum eight (8) pages in total). Information that exceeds the limits noted will not be considered. Each contract/task order submittal shall include the following information:

(a) Short title of the experience (indicating that the experience was as a prime or subcontractor)

(b) Start date and completion date of the contract/task order

(c) Annual dollar value, and the total value, if multiple years were involved

(d) The client, and the specific sub-level organization for which the service was provided, and the size of that organization in terms of number of employees.

(e) Description of the services provided. Include the various aspects of the service that was provided.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.2.1 Contract(s) and/or task order(s) submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror has recent and relevant experience.

3.2.2 Recent is defined as completed within the last five (5) years prior to the issue date of the RFP.

3.2.3 Relevant contracts and/or task orders are defined as contracts and/or task orders similar in magnitude and complexity to the subject Performance Work Statement and that demonstrate the Offerer’s ability to conduct Operations and Maintenance of large enterprise Oracle-based Project Management software.

3.2.4 A greater amount of recent, relevant experience will be given more consideration as it demonstrates a lower risk to the Government. Recent, relevant experience with DoD will be considered strength. Recent, relevant experience with USACE systems will be considered a significant strength.

4.0 RATINGS FOR FACTORS 1 THROUGH 3

4.1 Factors 1-3 will be assigned a rating based on significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

4.1.1 Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

4.1.2 Strength. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criteria, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

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

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

4.1.5 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.

4.2 Factors 1-3 will be assigned a rating from the following table based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

5.1 FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2.1 All documents pertaining to this factor shall be submitted in a separate 3-ring binder under tab D and clearly marked “FACTOR 4, Offeror’s name”.

5.2.2 Past performance refers to the quality of performance on recent, relevant (as defined in paragraphs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3) contracts and/or task order(s) from the customer/client perspective.

5.2.3 The Offeror shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form for each relevant contract and/or task order submitted under Evaluation Factor 3. Refer to Appendix A for PPQ form. The Offeror shall complete blocks 1-4 and forward to the customer/client to complete. The customer/client completes the PPQ form and submits it directly back to the Offeror. The Offeror will submit the completed questionnaire to USACE with their proposal. Customers/Clients are highly encouraged to submit PPQ’s directly to the Offeror. However, PPQ’s may be submitted directly to USACE. The government reserves the right to verify any and all information submitted.

5.2.4 The Offeror is encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on identified contracts and/or task orders and the corrective action taken.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine a relevancy rating and confidence assessment.

5.2.2 The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine if the Offeror’s past performance is recent and relevant (as defined in paragraph 3.2.2 and 3.2.3). The following criteria will be used to establish level of relevancy:

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.

5.2.3 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5.2.4 Absent any relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

5.2.5 In evaluating Factor 4, the Government will only evaluate past performance that is considered recent as defined in paragraph 3.2.2.

5.2.6 In addition to the information provided in 5.1.3, the Government may contact and interview the Client, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed owners or owners representative listed as a reference, if the listed reference is not available.

Also in addition to the information provided in 5.1.3, the Government may obtain and evaluate additional past performance information about the offeror, from the following sources, the offeror's clients on other recent, relevant projects, Government personnel's personal knowledge regarding the offeror's performance, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if it is within 3 years of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS).

6.1 FACTOR 5 – PRICE

6.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2.1 All documents pertaining to this factor shall be submitted electronically, as a PDF file labeled “PRICE, Offeror’s name”.

6.2.2 This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request other than cost and pricing data prior to award. There are no page limitations for this volume.

6.2.3 Each Offeror shall submit its price proposal by completing the solicitation “Price Schedule”.

6.2.4 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.

6.2.5 Offeror’s are reminded of the requirements of Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act (41 U.S.C. 435), as amended, which limits allowable costs for senior executive personnel compensation to $693,951 per year.

6.2.6 For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate Month for initiation of contract performance is December 2015

6.2.7 The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price Commercial Service contract.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 The offeror's “total evaluated price” will be evaluated using price analysis, to make a selection, and to determine the price to be fair and reasonable. “Total evaluated price,” for the purpose of this evaluation is defined in paragraph 6.2.3. The Contract Line Items (CLINs) will be evaluated to ensure that unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring.

6.2.2 If the Government determines a price realism analysis is necessary, the Government will require other than certified and pricing data to determine whether an Offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of the requirements to be fulfilled under this PWS and whether any of the prices are unrealistically low.

6.2.3 “Total evaluated price” is defined as the sum of the price of Contract Line Items (CLINs) 0001 - 0010 plus one-half the price of Option Year 4. As FAR Clause 52.217-8 "Option to Extend Services" provides the potential for a 6 month extension at rates specified in the contract, the Government will evaluate the price of the potential 6 month extension under FAR Clause 52.217-8, by adding one-half of the Offeror's Option Year 4 (Line Item Nos. 0009 and 0010) price to the Offeror's Contract Line Items (CLINs) 0001 - 0010.

Offerors are required only to price the Base and Option Years 1-4 consistent with the information requested on the Proposal Schedule. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential one-half year extension of services period.

6.2.4 Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low, this will be considered a performance risk.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 Each proposal will be rated against the evaluation criteria stated above by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). After each proposal has been evaluated, the ratings and advantages and disadvantages of each proposal will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

1.3 The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the Offeror with the best overall (best value) proposal.

2.1 DISCUSSION (If Necessary)

2.2 Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offeror’s are required. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

2.3 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

2.4 Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offeror’s still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.