17-R-0100_Amendment_0001.pdf

0010839467

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

Address of questions by vendors.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 56

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Mar-2017

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 W912CL-17-R-0100

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Feb-2017

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

06-Mar-2017

CODE

410TH CONTRACTING SUPPORT BRIGADE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER AMERICAS

4075 GORGAS CIRCLE

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-2726

W912CL 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912CL‐17‐R‐01000001STATEMENT (PWS)

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

VENDOR QUESTIONS

HAP IDIQ

Solicitation #W912CL‐17‐R‐0100

Questions & Answers

1. Task Area # 3 – Logistics; the requirement as written appears to be pretty broad and mostly designed to support military type of operations or operations in support of major disaster relief missions like what was needed in Haiti and in Honduras previously.

Does the Government truly anticipate using the IDIQ to acquire some or all of the services identified in Para 5.4 simultaneously in multiple AO’s?

A: If necessary, and required during a major disaster relief/response operation, and if no other government entity is able to provide the type of support mentioned on Para 5.4, then the government may ask its IDIQ vendors to provide the services.

2. Regarding pricing, it appears that the Government is only evaluating the pricing proposed for each of the seed task orders. Does then the Government not expect the bidder to also propose/provide a price list for all of the potential labor categories that might/could be used in support of the requirements identified as Basic Services under Task Area 1, 2 and 3 for the base period plus options years with annual escalation?

A: The Government does not expect the bidder to also propose or provide a price list for all of the potential labor categories that might/could be used in support of the future requirements. Each awardee will be provided fair opportunity for consideration on all task orders above the micro‐purchase threshold. Part of that fair opportunity will be a technical and price evaluation prior to award of each task order.

3. Will the Government correct/update the letter provided on Attachment 4? The date written in the letter states – January 20, 2017. This date does not coincide with the date published in the PWS, Page 11 of 22 March 2017.

A: Date corrected on the PPQ cover letter.

4. Paragraph 8, b. on Page 125 of 134 of the RFP:

Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance requirements will be addressed at the individual task order level. Although the SEED TORFPs are clearly labor‐intensive, it is not clear if such applicable DBA costs need to be quoted and included in the costing and pricing of the two SEED Project Proposals, in Peru and El Salvador, respectively, as part of the rate, or as an ODC?

A: As it is not addressed in the TORFPs, the DBA insurance is not required for the Seed Task Orders.

5. Regarding instructions Table 1, page 5. Specifically, regarding VOL II. The Government states that the page limit is 100. However, when adding the 25 pages for the non‐seed component of the project (Sub‐factors 1 and 2) plus the 25 pages for each one of the seed project the page count only adds up to 75. Does the Government mean that the bidder has a page limit of 25 pages for Sub‐factor 1 and 25 pages for Sub‐factor 2 and 25 pages for each seed project?

A: Correct total is 75.

6. REF: Paragraph C., 2 Proposal Format, (b) on page 5 of 134 of the RFP, including Table 1: A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification (W912CL‐17‐R‐0100) and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder.

...Company stationary and logos are acceptable) *IMPORTANT – Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volumes I and II), with the exception of the cover pages. Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor or price references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volume IV), with the exception of the cover page.

REF: Ibid, Paragraph 3, Pages 6 and 7 of 134, of the RFP:

TAB A, Signed Documents … including completed SF1449…and all Reps and Certs… TAB B, Executive Summary – Provide an executive summary that introduces the contractor team and proposal submission, to include a list of team members and subcontractors and the task areas they are designed to provide support.

REF: Paragraph (3) Step 3, (a) Page 131 of 134 of RFP:

‐‐ Redacted Copy ‐ The Technical Proposal shall have all Contractor references completely redacted. The Price/Cost Proposal shall have all Contractor and pricing information (not quantities) redacted.

Per the instructions in the several references above, please confirm that Volumes I, II, and IV, in their entirety (including the binder spine) must be fully redacted to remove any possibility of readability of Contractor Names, both Prime and all SUBS, for all copies EXCEPT the Original, but redaction does NOT include the digital versions of each as contained on the CD‐ROMs.

A: Correct. There is no need for redaction of digital versions.

Additional reminder Volume IV is also price redacted per instructions.

7. REF: Section C, 3. (c) Volume III Past Performance, sub Para (3) page 9‐10 of 134, of RFP, as regards to Past Performance Questionnaires (per Attachment 4): It is not clear if the pre‐ completion/pre‐signature copies of each PPQ is ALSO to be submitted as a part of the Hard Copy/CD‐ROM Proposal, and if so, do these PPQ’s count in the overall Technical and Vol III Page Count?

A: PPQs are not required to be part of the digital or any other part of the proposals. PPQs should be forwarded to this office directly from past customers.

8. REF: RFP Paragraph 1.6.10. Page 28/29: Key Personnel: The following personnel are considered key personnel by the Government:

Contract Manager, Alternate Contract Manager, and Training Instructors

REF: Page 9, Sub‐Factor 3 (Seed Projects) iii. Key Personnel ‐ the offeror’s list of specialized personnel with resumes assigned to each seed project;

REF: Page 38, 2.1.13 Key Personnel. The Contractor shall identify personnel who shall be evaluated in a Source Selection Process and who shall be required to be used in the performance of a contract.

When Key Personnel are used as an evaluation factor in a best value procurement, an offer can be rejected if it does not have a firm commitment from the persons who are listed in the proposal as Key Personnel.

Please clarify (1) if resumes for Key Personnel (PM, Alt PM, Trainers) are required or not as part of the (IDIQ) Proposal Response under Sub‐Factor 1/Management or Sub‐Factor 2/Staffing Plan (for the IDIQ Contract), and if so (2) HOW MANY TRAINERS are considered KEY, and (3) are the resume pages included in the overall Sub‐Factor Page Count?

A:

(1) Resumes are not required for IDIQ proposal under Subfactors 1 and 2.

(2) Any and all trainers the contractor deems necessary to conduct the required training for each task order.

(3) Resume pages do not count against the overall subfactor page count.

9. Please confirm that resumes ARE required as part of each of the two each SEED Proposals, and that signed Letters of commitment ARE required from any such key individuals therein listed, and that said resumes and Letters DO count as part of the 25‐page limit for each SEED Proposal.

A: Resumes are required for each task order proposal. There is no requirement for committal letters as the contractor is responsible for the final product not the individual employees. Resume pages do not count against the overall subfactor page count.

10. RFP: Table 1 on page 5 of 134 indicates that for Volume II the maximum number of pages is 100. Yet, the addition only totals 75 pages: 25 for non‐project seed sub‐factors and 25 each for each of two seed projects.

Please clarify.

A: Corrected to total of 75 pages.

11. Form 1449 Block 15 advises to deliver to SOUTHCOM in Doral, Florida;

whereas page 3.A. of the RFP advises to submit proposals to RCC at Fort Sam Houston, TX. Which is correct?

A: The correct address for proposal submission is found on page 3 in paragraph A. Block 15 is the address of the customer SOUTHCOM. This references deliver of the product or services. However, each task order will have a different, more specific address for the conduct of the task order in the appropriate partner country.

12. No DD254 included ‐ is it only TO specific?

A: If necessary, and required during a major disaster relief/response operation, and if no other government entity is able to provide the type of support mentioned on Para 5.4, then the government may ask its IDIQ vendors to provide the services.

13. Attachment 0003 ‐ dates on letter to customer have already passed

‐ will the government be providing an updated Attachment that we can send out to the customers?

A: There are no dates associated with Attachment 3. However, Attachment 4 has corrected dates.

14. Under PWS 5.3 Task Area 2 – Training, 5.3.10 Training, Subtask 9

– Can the Government provide information on the current software current used for evaluation?

A: Paragraph 5.3.10 Training, Subtask 9: reads; Develop, maintain, recommend, and update training and evaluation software;

software to be created and tested, or off‐the‐shelf software within established timeframes and costs. Vendors will not be asked to create software Under the IDIQ, vendors may be ask to procure off‐the‐shelf software such as the software for the Commercial Off‐The‐Shelf web based Inventory Control Data Management System software.

15. In this solicitation the government provided two TORFP, how many

TORFPs does the Government intend to issue over the life of the contract and or can the government indicated how many per year will be issued?

A: The government do not have an exact amount of TORFPs to be issued during the life of the contract. The government estimates at least eight (8) to ten (10) TORFPs per year.

16. It appears filenames beginning with 5.x are referencing Peru specific information, and 6.x would be El Salvador, but 6.e and 6.f include Peru information. Would the government please repost revised 6.e and 6.f documents?

A: Corrected 6e and 6f provided.

17. The solicitation references five years for past performance and yet the PPQ document references three years. Would the government please confirm that it should be five (5) years?

A: Corrected to five.

18. 1.6.10 of the solicitation indicates Contract Manager, Alternate

Contract Manager and Training Instructors as key personnel, although 1.6.10 of the TORFPs indicates Task Order Manager, Alternate Task Manager and Training Instructors. Would the government authorize dual‐hatting some of those positions?

A: Dual hatting is allowed except for the TO Manager and Alt TO

Manager for the same task order. For example: Mr. John Smith cannot be both the manager and alternate manager for the San Vicinte task order.

19. RFP Paragraph 1.6.7.4 Personnel Security Clearance Requirements reads, in part, “(As Determined by AT/OPSEC Review at the time of each task order requirement development): Contractor personnel performing work under this contract must have an active personnel security clearance at the [Insert the level of security clearance required, the highest level required, if applicable] level in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) at time of the proposal submission, and must maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract.” Please define what terminology should have replaced the words in italics.

A: The language that could be inserted is “Top Secret”, “Secret” or “Confidential”. Most task orders will not require any security clearance level. The Government reserves the right to upgrade the clearance level on any task order request for proposal and will give the IDIQ contractors adequate time to adjust to submit the requirement proposal. For clarification purposes, the term “contract” is changed to “task order” as the language of this paragraph is an example of possible task order requirments.

20. RFP Paragraph 1.6.7.4.1 reads, in part, “(As Determined by

AT/OPSEC Review at the time of each task order requirement development): The Contractor shall follow local USSOUTHCOM policies regarding drug testing…. The drug testing shall be at the Contractor’s expense.” Please provide copies of the current local USSOUTHCOM drug testing policies so we can estimate the costs of compliance with these.

A: 1.6.7.4.1 Reads: (As Determined by AT/OPSEC Review at the time of each task order requirement development): The Contractor shall follow DOD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.223‐7004, Drug‐free Work Force; and local USSOUTHCOM policies regarding drug testing. The Contractor shall conduct drug tests, ensuring all top secret cleared Contractor employees (HAP task orders are unclassified, therefore top secret is not necessary), are tested at least once per year, each year of the contract, as well as when there is a reasonable suspicion that an employee uses illegal drugs.

(Contractor shall conduct drug testing when there is a reasonable suspicion that an employee uses illegal drugs). The drug testing shall be at the Contractor’s expense. Positive drug test results shall be made available to both the KO and COR within 24 hours of known test results. Records of drug testing shall be made available to the COR.

21. RFP Paragraph 1.6.7.5 Background Checks reads, in part, “(As

Determined by AT/OPSEC Review at the time of each task order requirement development): The Contractor shall ensure Contractor employees and subcontractor employees performing services under this contract have passed a security check conducted by the Partner Nation Police Department of their residence or the State Police Department of their U.S. residence. Security checks that have been completed as part of a personnel security clearance background investigation, or a previous background check that was a condition of employment, meet this requirement.”

Also, both the Ancash and San Vicente TORFP PWS paragraphs

1.6.7.5 Background Checks read, in part, “At the time of award of the task order or when hiring new task order workers, the Contractor shall ensure contractor employees and subcontractor employees performing services under this task order have passed a security check done by the Host Nation Police Department of their residence or the State Police Department of their U.S. residence.

Security checks that have been completed as part of a security clearance background investigation, or a previous background check that was a condition of employment, meet this requirement.”

In the case of employees with previous US government security clearance background checks, how recent must such background checks be in order to comply with this requirement?

A: Companies usually conduct background investigation of potential employees prior to offer new employment, therefore background checks shall be up‐to‐date.

22. RFP Paragraphs 1.6.7.6 Uncleared Contractor Common Access Card (CAC) Credentialing and Access Procedures and 1.6.7.6.1 Contractor Common Access Card (CAC) Eligible Requirements show paragraph number and title only. What text was supposed to be included in these paragraphs?

A: CAC issuance is highly unlikely, however conditional language is added in case the requirement is deemed necessary by the Government

23. Both the Ancash and San Vicente TORFP PWS paragraphs 5.3.8 EOC

Training Materials and 5.4.1 (no title) mention training on web‐ based emergency management software, however no such software is required on the accompanying equipment list.

Is the contractor required to provide such software?

A: No the contractor is not required to provide such software.

If not, does the partner nation government have such a system in place that the contractor must use for this training?

A: This information can be found while conducting the political presentation, and facilities assessments.

If so, what system is the partner nation using?

A: This information can be found while conducting the political presentation, and facilities assessments.

24. Both the Ancash and San Vicente TORFP PWS paragraphs 5.4.2 mentions a requirement to train partner nation personnel in the DRW in the packing of HAZMAT. What type of HAZMAT is currently stored in the facility or planned to be stored in the facility?

A: It is unknown if there are some type of HAZMAT at these facilities. Partner Nation DRW personnel must me trained on HAZMAT packing, and ready to react if asked to move any items or chemicals which are considered hazardous, or need to be transported, or moved during a disaster response operation,

25. Both attachments 5f (apparently associated with Ancash, Peru) and

6f (apparently associated with San Vicente, El Salvador) bear the titling data “HAP#28196 Huaraz (Ancash), Peru DRW/EOC Equipment Training” and have identical equipment items. Please confirm if these two projects do, in fact, have identical equipment lists and if merely the titling data needs to be updated or if San Vicente has a different equipment list.

A: Corrected 6e and 6f provided.

26. The following questions are based upon the working assumption that both EOC/DRWs have the same equipment list. If this list applies only to Ancash we may have additional questions upon receiving the equipment list for San Vicente.) Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC equipment list item number 13 specifies a “Wireless Access Transmitter, 1 EA.” Does the government want a Wireless Access Point to extend the range of a router, a cellular transmitter (that requires service to establish a 3G wireless signal), or some other type of transmitter?

A: A wireless Access Transmitter is required to extend the range of a router.

27. Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC Equipment List, item 14, indicates a requirement for a “Satellite Cable Receiver & Antenna Kit for TV reception, internet, 1 EA.” Which organization is responsible for providing the service for this equipment; the Honduran (sic) government, the US government or the contractor?

A: The partner nation is responsible for providing the service once equipment is installed, Vendor job is to provide the equipment.

It is the PN responsibility to pay for the services.

28. Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC equipment list item number 16 indicates a requirement for a “Digital two‐way HF radio communications Package includes:(1 x 50 watt repeater, 6x 5 watt digital handheld radios, 6x heavy duty speakers mics, 1x fiberglass antenna, 1 antenna mounting kit, and cable.

Frequencies will be obtained during assessment, and political presentation.….”

HF systems are normally so large and heavy as to not be hand‐held. Was this intended to say “UHF” or “VHF” radio system?

A: Correct, it should read UHF or VHF

Where is the repeater planned to be located?

A: this information is usually obtained during facilities assessment

Is there an existing rack/mount?

A: this information will be obtained during facilities assessment

29. Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC Equipment List item number 19 specifies speakers with mixer/stand/mic/cables. What is the desired size/capacity for the speakers?

A: speakers with mixer/stand/mic/cables medium size, between 50 and 100 Watts

30. Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC Equipment List item number 22 specifies a projector system. Does the government want a fixed or portable system?

A: Portable system is preferred, but is recommended to obtain this information during facilities assessment.

31. Both the Ancash and San Vicente EOC Equipment List item number 23 specifies a 3G router.(wi‐fi access point, usb, serial and 4‐port ethernet switch, with multiple serial ports (Asyinc or Sync).

Capable of providing connectivity to mobile devices in remote and mobile applications.

Is the 3G router going to be integrated into an existing network or is it a stand‐alone connection for local service within or near the EOC?

A: the 3G router is a stand‐alone connection for local service within the EOC and DRW

If it will be integrated into an existing network, into which network will it be integrated and what are the relevant technical specifications for that network?

A: the 3G router is a stand‐alone connection for local service within the EOC and DRW

32. For both Ancash and San Vicente, what is the networking requirements for the EOC, will the computers and server need to be integrated into an existing network or do we need to establish a

LAN?

A: Hopefully the computers and server will be integrated into the HN existing network if available, this information can be obtained during the facilities assessment.

33. For both Ancash and San Vicente, what network (Internet) connection exists at each of the work locations?

A: this information will be obtained during facilities assessment

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

1. Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on this SF1449 to the following address:

410th CONTRACTING SUPPORT BRIGADE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER

ATTN: JAN’NEL GRAY

4075 GORGAS CIRCLE

FORT SAM HOUSTON, TX 78234-2662

2. Electronic submissions via email or facsimile will not be accepted. Offers shall be mailed through a commercial carrier or hand carried.

3. The point of contact responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer (KO) via the Contract Specialist (KS). Address all questions or concerns that you may have to the Contract Specialist, Jan’nel Gray, and Contracting Officer, Mark Chase. All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email to: jannel.k.gray.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.chase.civ@mail.mil.

4. Site Visit. The Government will not hold a site visit for this requirement.

B. General Instructions. Offerors are hereby notified that NOT all offerors are expected to be selected for award. The Performance Work Statement establishes the types and kinds of services to be provided under this acquisition. Proposed award under solicitation W912CL-17-R-0100 will consist of three task areas (Assessment, Logistics, and Training). All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a Government team.

1. In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, offerors should ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate and complete.

Failure to provide the information requested in this RFP may render the offeror’s proposal incomplete and ineligible for further considerations for award.

2. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria “Evaluation Factors for Award” found at FAR Clause 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Items. Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

3. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and contract type.

4. Disclosure of Proposal. Information contained in the offeror’s technical, past performance or price proposal must be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) upon request from the public except to the extent it contains trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. Unsuccessful proposals will not be released pursuant to a FOIA request.

5. The offeror should apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1(e) and FAR 3.104-4.

6. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission as it is the Government’s intention to award without discussions.

However, in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. Should this occur, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

7. Instructions outlined in Section C, 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.

8. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain any error, ambiguity, or omission, or are otherwise seemingly unsound; the offeror shall immediately notify the KO 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.

9. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

10. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at https://www.fbo.gov/. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. It is the responsibility of each potential offeror to monitor these websites for any changes or amendments to solicitations prior to award.

11. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors who were not selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.506.

C. Proposal Preparation Instructions

1. Offerer’s proposal shall consist of four (4) volumes:

Volume I RFP Documents Volume II Technical Proposal Volume III Past Performance Volume IV Price Proposal

2. Proposal Format

(a) Offerors shall submit an original proposal and the number of copies listed in Table 1 below.

(b) Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification (W912CL-17-R-0100) and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. 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 logos are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing.)

Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections.

In addition to submitting hard copies of the proposals, digital copies shall be provided on CD- ROM disk in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel as outlined in Table 1. The file name shall be “(Company Name) – Initial” for the first submission. The file name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “(Company Name) – Revision (X)’ with X indicating the number of the revision. Page limitations are as follows:

Table 1

VOLUME

TITLE

NO. HARD

COPIES

NO. OF

DIGITAL

COPIES

(CD ROM)

PAGE LIMITS

I RFP Documents Original + Four* (4) One (1) N/A

II Technical Proposal Original + Four* (4) One (1) One Hundred (75)=Twenty-five

(25) for non-Seed Project sub-factors + Twenty-five (25) for each of two (2) Seed Project

III Past Performance Original + Four (4) One (1) Five (5) per reference

IV Price Proposal Original + Four* (4) One (1) N/A

*IMPORTANT – Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volumes I and II), with the exception of the cover pages. Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor or price references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volume IV), with the exception of the cover page.

(c) 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 and destroyed by Government contracting personnel. The Government will not accept any changes to the contractor’s proposal after the closing date of 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 (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

(d) Page Limit includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

(e) Page Limit does not include 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. Pages 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.

(f) A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Letter 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. Margins shall be at least 1 inch on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch on the side. Vendors shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event a contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

(g) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

3. Proposal Content

(a) Volume I – RFP Documents. Volume I should be clearly marked “VOLUME I

– RFP Documents (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. Failure to follow the contract Proposal Preparation

Instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government. The General Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

TAB A, Signed Documents - Offerors are required to submit all documents requiring signature of the Offeror. These shall be original signed copies to include a completed SF 1449 – Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items (Block 30); Amendment SF 30s (Block 15);

and all Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only.

TAB B, Executive Summary – Provide an executive summary that introduces the contractor team and proposal submission, to include a list of team members and subcontractors and the task areas they are designed to provide support.

TAB C, Exceptions/Assumptions (if required) - Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

TAB D, General Information –Identification of the proposal point of contact (POC) and phone number as well as a list of the proposal package contents.

(b) Volume II – Technical Proposal

(1) Volume II should be clearly marked “VOLUME II – Technical Proposal (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. The Technical Proposal Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical factors defined in the “Evaluation Factors for Award” found at FAR Clause 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Items. The proposal shall 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 Performance Work Statement (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 considered 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 not desired.

(2) The Technical Proposal Volume, at a minimum, shall be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in the “Evaluation Factors for Award”. The section 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 competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWSs for Sub-factor 4 – “Seed Task Orders.” The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks. The volume should be organized according to the following general outline:

-Table of Contents -List of any Tables or Drawings -Technical

-Sub-factor 1: Management Approach -Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan -Sub-factor 3: Seed Task Orders Technical Proposals*

Peru – Ancach/Huarez El Salvador – San Vicente

* Seed Task Order Technical Proposals –Offerors shall submit separate task order proposals both of the two Seed Task Orders. Task order proposals for Seed Task Orders will be used for evaluation purposes to determine successful Offerors for the IDIQ awards, as well as the individual Seed Task Orders. Offerors shall submit proposals for each of the Seed Projects;

failure to do so will result in automatic elimination from consideration for award.

a. Subfactor 1 – Management Approach: The offeror shall submit a Management Approach covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The Management Approach shall include a description of the following management activities:

i. The offeror’s processes to plan, direct, and control contract performance within the organizational structure (team structure as well as corporate structures), which shall include, at a minimum, an organizational chart with the lines of authority, supervision and coordination in providing oversight, scheduling and control of work;

ii. The offeror’s processes to support multiple, geographically-dispersed, complex projects simultaneously; and

iii. The offeror’s processes to acquire, manage, and control non-labor resources to include, but not limited to, property, inventory, travel and funding.

b. Subfactor 2 - Staffing Plan: The offeror shall submit a staffing plan covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The staffing plan shall include a description of the following staffing activities:

i. The offeror’s processes to recruit, hire, manage, and retain personnel with the background knowledge, skills, experience, and training to execute the tasks on the overall ID/IQ contract; and

ii. The offeror’s processes to create a labor pool of quality employees for the multiple, geographically-dispersed locations to execute the tasks of the overall ID/IQ contract.

c. Sub-factor 3 - Seed Task Order Technical Proposals: The Government will provide two Seed Task Order Requests for Proposal (TORFPs) that are representative of the task orders that may be executed under the resultant ID/IQ contracts. The Seed TORFPs are actual task orders that may be awarded under one or more of the new HAP ALT contracts. Offerors must submit proposals for each of the Seed Projects; failure to do so will result in automatic elimination from consideration for award.

The offeror shall submit proposals for both seed task order projects covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The proposals shall include, at a minimum, the following;

i. The offeror’s approach to execute the specific tasks found at paragraph 5 of each seed project PWS;

ii. Milestone Plan - a chart/table displaying the offeror’s proposed timeline for all major actions and deliverables associated with the each seed project PWS;

iii. Key Personnel - the offeror’s list of specialized personnel with resumes assigned to each seed project; and

iv. Labor Categories and Hours of Personnel - a list of the type of labor categories and labor hours associated with each seed project.

Note: The proposals shall 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.

(c) Volume III - Volume III should be clearly marked “VOLUME III – Past Performance (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. 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 this effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined in the “Evaluation Factors for Award”.

Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 20% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

(1) The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than five (5) years for the submitted data.

(2) In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals not containing the information requested by this paragraph risk either rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments 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.”

(3) Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

Table of Contents Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment 3.

Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 2.

Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

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

Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment 3 and are limited to five (5) pages per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to Jan’nel Gray and Mark Chase at jannel.k.gray.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.chase.civ@mail.mil or fax (210) 808-9473 not later than 22 March 2017. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the KO will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. New entities that have no past customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided.

(d) Volume IV- Price Proposal – Volume IV should be clearly marked “VOLUME IV – Price Proposal (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. The Offeror’s price proposal will consist of information in response to the Seed Task Order Request for Proposals (TORFPs). The price for each TORFP will be evaluated separately for award of seed task orders. The Offeror shall clearly explain the basis of price of each Seed Task Order, to include the discounts proposed, methodology for application of the discounts, pricing of non-labor resources, and pricing of travel.

The format for the price proposal shall be as follows:

-Tab A - Seed Task Order Price Proposals

Peru – Ancach/Huarez El Salvador – San Vicente

-Tab B – Assumptions (if required)

Tab A – Seed Task Order Price Proposals – Offerors shall prepare pricing information on all of the Seed Task Orders. Offerors shall submit separate pricing proposals for each of the Seed Task Orders. Pricing for Seed Task Orders will be used for evaluation purposes to determine successful offerors for the IDIQ awards. Additionally, pricing for each Seed Task Order will be used to determine the awardee of the individual Task Orders using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures.

(1) A summary total of all pricing proposals, to include loaded pricing from each Seed Task Order shall be submitted reflecting the final proposed price for all of the Seed Task Orders.

This summary, as a minimum, shall be presented in Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) format found in the table of each TORFP.

--Attachment 5a TORFP Peru – Ancach/Huarez EOC-DRW Training --Attachment 6a TORFP El Salvador – San Vicente EOC-DRW Training

(2) A spreadsheet shall also be provided to accurately reflect the details that resulted in the pricing found on each CLIN. Spreadsheets should 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 spreadsheet.

(3) The same level of detail required for prime proposals is required of subcontract proposals. The prime contractor shall include evaluations conducted on subcontract proposals relative to all components of the subcontract proposals. Examples of the type of detail required are reasonableness of rates, labor mix, terms and conditions, exceptions or additions, etc.

Subcontractor data may be submitted directly to the Government by subcontractors that do not wish to disclose the data to the prime contractors. The prime contractor shall alert the Government when subcontractors elect to submit information separately.

Tab B – Assumptions (if required) - Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief and Disaster Preparedness (HAP) Assessment, Logistic, and Training (ALT) Services

Part 1

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. GENERAL: This is a non-personal services Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract under which the personnel rendering the services are not subject, either by the contract’s terms or by the nature of its administration, to the supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the Government and its employees.