W912HQ17R0004-0002_Summary_of_Changes.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

See continuation of SF30 Description of Amendment

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 83

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jul-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 W912HQ-17-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jul-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

26-Jul-2017

CODE

USACE HUMPHREYS ENGR CTR SPT ACTIVITY

ATTN: CECT-HC,

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3860

W912HQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HQ-17-R-0004

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:

SF30 DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

This amendment clarifies/amends the following:

-Performance Work Statement, IDIQ SATOC, Paragraph 2.4, has been amended -Performance Work Statement, IDIQ SATOC, Paragraph 6.3, has been amended -Appendix C -- Performance Work Statement, SEED Task Order, Paragraph 2.4, has been amended -Appendix C -- Performance Work Statement, SEED Task Order, Paragraph 6.3, has been amended -52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items - Paragraphy 2.1.1 and 2.3.1, have been amended -FBO.gov Post, Attachment 2: Appendix D - IDIQ SATOC PRICE MODEL, has been amended -FBO.gov Post, Attachment 2: Appendix D - SEED TASK ORDER PRICE MODEL, has been amended -FBO.gov Post, Pre-Proposal Conference Attendee List, has been added -FBO.gov Post, Questions Submitted and Answers, has been added -FBO.gov Post, Government Furnished Property List, has been added

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 -- EVALUATION

FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERICAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See Addendum Below.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD – ADDENDUM

1.0 Evaluation Process

1.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB, which is comprised of a technical evaluation team and a price team, will utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The number and identities of Offerors will not be revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

1.2 The evaluation process consists of four parts:

(1) Proposal compliance review;

(2) Volumes I-III, Technical proposal evaluations;

(3) Volume IV Price analysis; and

(4) Technical-price tradeoff analysis.

1.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is a review by the Contracting Office to ensure that all required Volumes, forms, certifications, etc., are complete and all administrative requirements are met in accordance with the Request for Proposal

(RFP).

1.2.2 Technical Evaluations: Without knowledge of price, the SSEB Technical Evaluation Team, will evaluate the technical proposals received from the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The technical evaluation consists of an evaluation and adjective rating of all source selection factors. The rating systems and definitions used for the technical evaluations are in this Section.

1.2.3 Price Evaluation. Price will be analyzed using price analysis and realism. Price is not rated with an adjective rating, and will not be revealed to the Technical Evaluation Team until they have completed evaluation and rating of the technical proposals.

1.2.4 Performance/Technical-Price Tradeoff Analysis: Upon completion of the evaluations, the SSEB will consider and compare the proposed prices in connection with the technical evaluations to make recommendations to the SSA regarding advantage to the Government. The tradeoff analysis will be conducted after evaluations of initial offers if discussions are not necessary or, upon completion of the technical and price evaluations of the final proposal revisions, if discussions are necessary.

2.0 Evaluation Criteria

2.1 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 – Seed Task Order Project Technical Approach The Offeror shall be evaluated on its demonstrated technical approach to respond to the Seed Task Order. The Offeror must submit a narrative to describe its technical approach for the Seed Task Order described in the solicitation.

2.1.1 Address each of the following items, in a narrative format:

Offeror shall be evaluated on its ability to support the full system development life cycle.

Offeror shall be evaluated on their knowledge of the Agile Development Process and the ability to utilize agile development methodologies. The Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of Oracle Database Administration, UNIX and System Administration, Electronic Signature Software, Configuration Management, Cybersecurity, and the ability to migrate CEFMS to new system architecture using Oracle Products such as:

Multitenant Databases, Real Application Clusters, Oracle Golden Gate, Oracle Advance Security, Oracle Advance Compression, Oracle Access Manager and Oracle DataGuard. The Offeror shall be evaluated on its demonstrated knowledge of Oracle Business Intelligence Migration, Development and Maintenance based on Knowledge of DoD and Civil Works financial management laws, regulations, policies and generally accepted accounting standards.

Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policies and Federal financial management systems requirements. Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of U.S. Treasury USSGL pro-forma logic and rules for both proprietary and budgetary general ledgers. Offeror must demonstrate understanding of Oracle products and the ability to draw upon additional resources and maintain a “reach-back” knowledge base capability that can be utilized as needed. Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of Federal financial accounting transactions to include proprietary and budgetary general ledgers, as well as knowledge of DoD End-to End (E2E) Integration framework and business processes. The Offeror shall also be evaluated on the experience and qualifications of the key personnel as required in accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Government will evaluate the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach. The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed seed project technical approach adequately describes their procedures, methods, and delivery of services that meet or exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements.

2.1.2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. For Factors 1 and 3, when Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weakness, deficiencies, and risk of a proposal. The factor will receive one of the following combined technical/risk ratings described below.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 – Experience/Past Performance

2.2.1 In Factor 2, there are two aspects of experience/past performance information of the Prime Contractor/Offeror:

(a) Relevant Company Effort

(b) Quality of Past Performance.

The past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the signed Standard Form 1449 submitted in Volume II, will be evaluated in combination with all the other required information submitted in Factor 2.

2.2.2. The Government will evaluate and rate Factor 2 – Experience/Past Performance Information, using a two rating scheme process, as described below.

2.2.2.1 Evaluation of Past Performance Information. This is a three-step evaluation process. The SSEB Technical Team will first review all past performance

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

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

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Red 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.

information submitted in the proposal for compliance with the submission criteria found in solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph 2.2. A compliant project is a recent project that has both (a) the “Relevant Company Effort” and (b) the required PPIRS or PPQ record of quality. Only RFP compliant projects will be included in step two, Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The SSEB will compare each compliant effort to the effort to be acquired, reach a consensus, and assign a relevancy rating.

The SSEB will also evaluate the quality of the effort accomplished. The SSEB determines relevancy and, in making this determination, the following definitions for relevancy will apply:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

2.2.2.2 When the recent/relevant performance record indicates performance quality problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). An Offeror shall be given the opportunity to address any problems that they have not previously had an opportunity.

2.2.2.3 Based on the Past Performance Relevancy assessment phase of the evaluation, the SSEB will conduct the third step in the evaluation process which is the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating is an overall rating which takes into consideration the level of relevancy of each recent, rated project, the quality ratings of those rated projects, and the general trend of the recent, rated efforts have to the effort required by this RFP. The more relevant the recent projects are, the stronger predictor of successful performance. If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the SSEB will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy rating and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV, as previously stated in 2.2.1(b).

Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the SSEB will evaluate and assess:

(1) The JV’s “Past Performance Information” and/or

(2) Each JV partners’ “Past Performance Information” and any past performance information that is recent/relevant to the JV or relevant to each partner of the JV

The overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. One of the following ratings will be assigned.

TABLE 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror shall 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 shall 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 shall successfully perform the required effort.

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

2.2.2.4 If the Offeror has little or no record of recent/relevant past performance information, or the record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably established, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the SSEB shall treat the Offeror neither favorably nor unfavorably. Such an Offeror shall be rated “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

2.3 Factor 3 – Management Approach, Key Personnel, and Transition Plan

In Factor 3, the Offeror must submit a Management Approach, Key Personnel, and Transition Plan narrative to explain its company’s capabilities to execute the work contemplated under this solicitation.

2.3.1 TAB A - Management Plan. Address each of the following items in a narrative format:

• Management plan that demonstrates the ability to reduce performance risk, ensure responsiveness to changes, provides excellent customer service and provide for timely performance

• Management plan that clearly establishes a hierarchy, delineates responsibilities, and provides a staffing plan that demonstrates its staff is available for, and capable of, fulfilling multiple task order requirements simultaneously, without degradation in the performance level of any of the tasks being performed under the contract.

2.3.2 TAB B – Personnel – Offerors shall propose the Key Personnel identified by the Government for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating the appropriate education and experience. Resumes should include proposed job title, education, certifications held, special qualifications, and experience (listing the job title, specific duties, responsibilities and the respective dates). The Offeror shall submit letters of commitment for all key personnel. The Offeror shall also be evaluated on the experience and qualifications of the key personnel as required in accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2.3.3 TAB C – Transition Plan. Describe the process, details, and schedule for providing an orderly transition during the transition period, as well as addressing steps to overcome barriers to transition, minimize impact on the continuity of operations, and maintaining effective communication throughout the transition period

2.4 Price Factor

2.4.1 Price will be evaluated using price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b), based on a comparison of competitive prices received in response to the solicitation and a comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). The Government will also conduct price realism pertaining the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, pursuant to FAR 52.222-46. The Government will evaluate prices to ensure that unbalanced pricing between Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) or Option Periods is not occurring. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan for purposes of realism. The proposed compensation levels should reflect a clear understanding of the requirement and the ability to obtain and retain qualified personnel.

The Government will evaluate the total evaluated price of the Seed Task Order of a base year and four (4) 12-month options, to include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government will use 50% of Option Year Four prices of the Seed Task Order to evaluate the Option to Extend Services. The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low prices. Offerors found to be unrealistically low may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

2.4.2 Offerors shall include with its price proposal a total compensation plan setting forth the salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Compensation Plan shall be compliant with FAR Clause 52.222-46.

The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor Contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees.

3.0 Need For Discussions

3.1 In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for price and non-priced technical submission with their initial offers. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest.

3.2 If discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated with a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive discussions and major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those having competitive offers.

3.2 Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit their final revised proposal.

4.0 Basis For Award

4.1 The Government will award a Firm-Fixed-Price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conformed to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most beneficial to the Government based on the four evaluation factors in descending order of importance, Seed Task Order Project Technical Approach, Experience Past/Performance, Management Approach/Transition Plan and Price. The technical factors are significantly more important than the price factor. As the differences in technical ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in prices between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in prices become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. To receive considerations for award, an offeror must receive a rating of no less than acceptable for all factors.

4.2 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

DEFINITIONS

Clarification - Means limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. An Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information/ adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision. Clarifications do not require discussions or submission of additional proposal information.

Communications - Exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c) Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposal, Competitive Range.

Discussions - Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Refer to FAR 15.001. A deficiency will preclude award action to that Offeror.

Evaluation Notice (EN) - The PCO's written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment - An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government's confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements. The evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency - Pertaining to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy - Pertaining to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents - All aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to Offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Risk - Pertaining to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Source Selection Authority (SSA) - The official designated to make the source selection decision.

Significant Weakness - The proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15. 001.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) - The document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) - A group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) - A plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciable advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror (See FAR 15.001).

Subjective Trade-off – A source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror but is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements.

PWS - IDIQ SATOC

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery Single Award Task Order Contract

CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM (CEFMS) MAINTENANCE

for

USACE Finance Center (UFC)

20 June 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Scope

1.3 Purpose

2.0 General Requirements

2.1 Contract Management

2.2 Contract Administration

2.3 Non-Personal Services

2.4 Hours of Operation

2.5 Non-Standard Operations

2.6 Travel

2.7 Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

2.8 Key Personnel

2.9 Quality Control

2.10 Quality Assurance

2.11 Government Furnished Equipment

2.12 Data Rights

2.13 Copyright

3.0 Special Qualifications

4.0 Specific Tasks

4.1 CEFMS Maintenance, Development and Support Services

4.2 Agile Development Process

4.3 Application Maintenance, Development and Support

4.3.1 Overview

4.3.2 CEFMS Modules

4.3.3 Requirements and Analysis

4.3.4 Code Modifications and Development

4.3.5 Error Corrections – Scripts

4.3.6 Testing

4.3.7 Releases

4.3.8 Yearend Support

4.3.9 Other Management Support

4.3.10 Audit Support

4.4 Oracle Database and Application Design and Administration

4.5 UNIX and System Administration

4.6 Electronic Signature Software – CAC/PKI

4.7 Interface Support

4.8 Configuration Management

4.9 Cybersecurity

4.10 Documentation

4.10.1 System Design Documentation

4.10.2 Database Architectural Documentation

4.10.3 User Documentation

4.10.4 Cybersecurity/Information Assurance (IA) Documentation

4.10.5 Source Code

4.11 OBIEE Migration

4.12 New Application Modules

4.13 Conversion Support

4.14 Mobile Applications

5.0 Applicable Regulations/Publications

6.0 Performance

6.1 Post-Award/Kickoff Meetings:

6.2 Period of Performance (POP):

6.3 Primary Place of Performance

6.4 Phase-In and Phase-Out Responsibilities and Requirements

6.4.1 Contractor Phase-In Requirements

6.4.2 Phase-Out Requirements

7.0 Security and Privacy

7.1 Antiterrorism (AT) Level I Training

7.2 Access and General Protection/Security Policy and Procedures

7.3 Common Access Card (CAC)

7.4 iWATCH Training

7.5 Access to Government Information Systems

7.6 Operations Security (OPSEC) Training

7.7 Information Assurance (IA)/Information Technology (IT) Training

7.8 Information Assurance (IA)/Information Technology (IT) Training Certification

7.9 Access to Classified/Sensitive Materials and/or Areas

7.10 Specific Security Investigation Requirements

7.11 Physical Security

8.0 Invoicing and Payments

9.0 Deliverables

ATTACHMENT - ACRONYMS/DEFINITIONS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center has a requirement to support and maintain the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) which is an enterprise financial management system supporting the business processes and mission of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) worldwide. CEFMS provides integrated, end-to-end automated financial management services enabling full transparency of funds execution for USACE projects. CEFMS provides functionality for receipt and end-to-end execution of appropriated Civil Works and Military direct funding and reimbursable funding. CEFMS provides automated pro-forma transactions and general ledger updates in compliance with U.S. Treasury Standard General Ledger (USSGL) policies. CEFMS enables USACE to produce auditable financial statements and sustain audit readiness. CEFMS is critical to the day-to-day operations and carrying out the overall missions of USACE. The CEFMS system requires continuous availability to prevent USACE mission failure.

1.2 Scope

CEFMS is the premier financial management system in the Department of Defense and the enterprise system for executing all financial management business processes and transactions within USACE. CEFMS has over 70 areas of functionality and consists of approximately 62 Field Operating Activity (FOA) production databases and 15 development/testing databases. Each database has approximately 1350 tables and 200 views each. CEFMS has a production and development Corporate Reporting database consisting of approximately 700 tables and 100 views. CEFMS has one Data Manager Database.

The CEFMS proprietary application software to be supported includes:

Approximately 2500 data entry, view, and report selection screens (Oracle Forms).

300+ database views 800+ SQR reporting programs 400+ Oracle Report programs 10,000+ database procedures/functions and 600+ database table triggers

CEFMS system architecture currently consists of the following:

Operating System: Solaris 10 and Solaris 11 Oracle Database 12c (12.1.0.2.0) Oracle WebLogic Server 11g (10.3.6) Oracle Forms 11g (11.1.2.1.0)

Oracle Reports 11g (11.1.2.1.0) Oracle Hyperion SQR Production Reporting 11.1.2.4 Oracle Application Development Framework (ADF) 10.3.6 DBSign 4.0.8.1 Oracle SPARC T5 Servers The production environment is located at Datacenters located in Vicksburg, MS and

Portland, OR.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this contract is to provide for CEFMS system operations and maintenance to meet the requirements of public laws, regulations, standards, stakeholders, and best business practices. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the CEFMS system to ensure continuous system availability. Services may include research, analysis, design, development, testing, and implementation of enhancements. Requirements may entail migrating selected CEFMS functionality and Oracle forms to an HTML web application development framework using current technology and products; providing enhanced reporting capabilities; and modifying CEFMS architecture and application software to operate in USACE Cloud Environment.

2.0 General Requirements

2.1 Contract Management

The Contractor shall establish clear organizational lines of authority and responsibility to ensure effective management of the resources assigned to the requirement. The Contractor must maintain continuity between the support operations at UFC and the Contractor's corporate offices.

2.2 Contract Administration

The Contractor shall provide all necessary personnel and supervision to deliver technical services in response to the CEFMS maintenance support requirements. The Contractor shall establish processes and assign appropriate resources to effectively administer the Contract. The Contractor shall have a single point of contact between the Government and Contractor personnel assigned to support contract administration.

2.3 Non-Personal Services

The Government shall neither supervise Contractor employees nor control the method by which the Contractor performs the required tasks. Under no circumstances shall the Government assign tasks to, or prepare work schedules for, individual Contractor employees. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to manage its employees and to guard against any actions that are of the nature of personal services. If the Contractor believes that any actions constitute, or are perceived to constitute personal services, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) immediately.

2.4 Hours of Operation

UFC Business Hours are from 0630 to 1800. Work performed at a Federal facility shall be include UFC core operating hours from 0900 to 1500 Monday through Friday, except U.S. Federal Holidays. The Contractor shall provide on-site CEFMS maintenance support during core hours. The Contractor shall provide non-core hours support as described in Section 2.5.

2.5 Non-Standard Operations

2.5.1 Upon determination by the Government that an emergency exists, or quick response is necessary to meet mission requirements, the Contractor shall be notified of the need for priority response by the most appropriate method including, but not limited to, telephone or “in person" (if possible). Notification shall be followed up with an email.

2.5.2 The Contractor shall maintain an on-call service capable of responding to system failures within a one hour period after normal business hours and on weekends.

2.5.3 The Contractor shall be available to work extended hours on an ad hoc basis to develop software solutions necessary to satisfy emergent needs due to changes in public law, policy, or data requirements.

2.5.4 Recognized Holidays: The Contractor is not required to perform services on the holidays listed below unless there is an extenuating circumstance as described in section 3.5 above:

Recognized Holidays New Year’s Day Labor Day Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday Columbus Day President’s Day Veteran's Day Memorial Day Thanksgiving Day Independence Day Christmas Day

2.6 Travel

2.6.1 Infrequent Travel may be required. All travel will be within the Continental United States (CONUS) in accordance with the Joint-Travel Regulations (JTR).

2.6.2 The Contractor shall ensure that all travel is in accordance with (IAW) the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), FAR 31.205-46. All travel must be approved by the Contracting

Officer (KO) or designated Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in writing prior to departing on travel. All invoices for travel shall be accompanied by supporting receipts.

2.6.3 The Contractor shall submit a Trip Report to the COR and the Government’s Project Manager within five (5) business days after completion of travel IAW DI-MISC- 80508B, Data Item No. C001. If a trip extends more than two weeks, the Contractor shall submit interim reports every two weeks throughout the duration of the trip. Trip reports shall identify the Government Official authorizing the trip, the reason for the trip, the results of the trip, any action items, and any other relevant information about the trip.

2.7 Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

The COR will be identified by separate letter with copy to the Contractor. The COR monitors all technical aspects of the contract and assists in contract administration. The letter of designation issued to the COR states the responsibilities and limitations of the COR regarding this contract. The COR is not authorized to change any of the terms and conditions of the resulting contract. A warranted Contracting Officer is the only entity with authorization to negotiate and make changes to this contract.

2.8 Key Personnel

The key personnel positions are considered to be critical to the successful performance of this contract and are identified in Table 1 below. These key personnel must be assigned for the duration of the Contract. The Contractor shall maintain a list of all Key Personnel at all times. The Project Manager shall be responsible for managing the performance of the work. The identity of the Project Manager, and an alternate Project Manager shall be designated in writing to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for designated key personnel. In the event of such substitution, the key personnel proposed to fill the specified role must have equivalent qualifications to the original individual.

The Project Manager (or the alternate) shall have the authority to act for the Contractor on all matters relating to the daily operation under this contract.

Table 1 – Key Personnel

Labor Category Responsibilities Qualifications

Project Manager

Provides day-to-day management of all project activities under the task order. Manages and reports project schedule and performance.

Manages personnel staffing and other administrative functions to meet established performance objectives.

Years of Relevant Experience: 10+

Education: Master’s or Bachelor's Degree

Certifications: No minimum required. Certification in project management (e.g., PMP) desired.

Skills/Experience: Project Management experience managing day-to-day operations across the project lifecycle.

Senior Oracle DBA

Responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of production and non-production databases in compliance with application specifications and applicable policies, standards and procedures. Designs and maintains access and security administration. Designs, implements and maintains backup and recovery strategies Troubleshoots alerts and performance issues.

Supports multiple services and multiple databases of high complexity with multiple concurrent users, ensuring control, integrity and accessibility of data.

Years of Relevant Experience: 10+

Education: Bachelor's Degree

Certifications: CISSP, Security+, or similar certification

Skills/Experience: Experience as an Oracle DBA managing large Oracle databases and depth knowledge of Oracle performance and tuning.

System Engineer/ Architect

Defines and develops systems architecture from customer requirements. Possesses understanding of system requirements and Federal and DoD architecture standards. Capable of analyzing moderate to complex solutions and interpreting requirements into architectural artifacts.

Years of Relevant Experience: 10+

Education: Bachelor's Degree

Certifications: No minimum required.

Skills/Experience: Experience leading design and systems architecture development using Federal/DoD architecture standards.

Senior Forms Developer

Maintains and compiles Oracle Forms, Libraries, and Menus in UNIX environment. Interprets software design specifications and translates them into Oracle Forms. Develops and unit tests Oracle Forms. Develops and maintains Oracle queries, stored procedures, functions, and packages using SQL Developer. Integrates modules with other modules and external systems. Mentors and transfers technical knowledge to employee staff as necessary.

Years of Relevant Experience: 7+

Education: Bachelor's Degree

Certifications: No minimum

Skills/Experience: Experience with developing Oracle forms using Oracle SQL language skills in the current version of Oracle (11g or 12c).

Senior Java Developer

Design, develop, implement and maintain user-facing interfaces code and internet applications. Integrates applications by designing database architecture and server scripting; studying and establishing connectivity with network systems, search engines, and information servers. Determine design methodologies and tools sets. Drive best practices, quality and consistency within design and development phases and coordinates efforts with fellow teammates.

Identify production and non-production application features, limitations and issues. Identify opportunities to fine-tune and optimize applications of java developed projects. Provide technical support and consultation for java application and infrastructure questions. Establish, refine and integrate development and test environment tools and software as needed. Supports continuous improvement by investigating alternatives and new technologies and presenting these for architectural review. Develop and execute unit test plans to ensure compliance with specifications. Support formal testing and resolve test defects.

Years of Relevant Experience: 5+

Education: Bachelor's Degree

Certifications: No minimum

Skills/Experience: Proven working experience with Java development (HTML, CCS and Javascripting) and a strong understanding of Java and Java web applications.

Working knowledge of JDBC, SQL and database-stored procedures. Familiar with Oracle Application Development Framework (ADF).

2.9 Quality Control

The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and execute an approved Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure services are satisfactorily performed under this contract. The QCP plan shall define the processes to monitor Contractor performance and ensure compliance with the requirements of this contract and applicable regulations. The Contractor’s QCP shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. The Contractor shall electronically submit a comprehensive, written QCP to the COR and the Contracting Officer within 30 calendar days of contract award. The QCP shall be reviewed by the Government before acceptance. After review of the quality control plan, the KO will provide the Contractor with written acceptance or rejection of the QCP along with any proposed changes.

2.10 Quality Assurance

The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance under this contract in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The QASP is the method by which the Government will measure Contractor performance in accordance with the performance standards. It defines how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable defect rate(s).

2.11 Government Furnished Equipment

The Government will provide equipment, as necessary and workspace, as required, to Contractor personnel assigned to this requirement. The Government will provide workspace for Contractor personnel when working on-site at the Government’s facility.

2.12 Data Rights

The Government has unlimited rights to all documents/material produced under this contract. All documents and materials, to include the source code of any software, produced under this contract shall be Government owned and are the property of the Government with all rights and privileges of ownership/copyright belonging exclusively to the Government. These documents and materials may not be used, sold, or published by the Contractor without written permission from the Contracting Officer. All materials supplied to the Government shall be the sole property of the Government and may not be used for any other purpose. This right does not abrogate any other Government rights. The Government has unlimited rights in accordance with FAR Clause 52.227.14.

2.13 Copyright

The CEFMS source code, technical data, and user manuals are copyrighted materials owned by the Government. Any information provided under this contract pertaining to the CEFMS application is restricted to Government use only and not available for redistribution. The Contractor agrees to assign all copyrights to the Government for any new materials or modifications to existing materials that are produced by the Contractor during the term and in the scope of this contract.

3.0 Special Qualifications

The Contractor is responsible for ensuring employees have the following qualifications.

3.1 The Contractor personnel assigned to the project shall be:

Knowledgeable of DoD and Civil Works financial management laws, regulations, policies and generally accepted accounting standards.

Familiar with pertinent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policies and federal financial management systems requirements.

Knowledgeable of US Treasury USSGL pro-forma logic and rules for both proprietary and budgetary general ledgers.

3.2 To ensure effective management of the project, the Contractor shall have the following:

Expert knowledge/understanding of Oracle products and the ability to draw upon additional resources and maintain a “reach-back” knowledge base capability that can be utilized as needed.

Expert knowledge of Federal financial accounting transactions to include proprietary and budgetary general ledgers.

Expert knowledge of DoD End-to End (E2E) Integration framework and business processes including, but not limited to, procure-to-pay, acquire-to-retire, order-to-cash, budget-to-report, plant-to-stock, environmental liability, service-to satisfaction, proposal to reward, and cost management.

4.0 Specific Tasks

4.1 CEFMS Maintenance, Development and Support Services

4.1.1 The Contractor shall provide Iterative Customer Driven Software Management and Development, IT Oracle Database Administration, Design, and System Engineering Services for the CEFMS application. These services will be made available to the Government personnel of the HQUSACE Finance Center in Millington, Tennessee and HQUSACE Finance Center in Huntsville, Alabama. This work is variable in nature. It can be completed on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis depending upon changes in business processes and regulatory requirements. Work frequently entails aggressive deadlines, a high degree of complexity, and a high degree of uniqueness.

4.1.2 The Contractor shall possess experience and knowledge of the best business processes as described in Section 3.0.

4.1.3 The Contractor shall respond to and complete work requests. All specific work assignments associated with the contract tasks will be managed by work requests utilizing the CEFMS Problem reporting system and will serve as the delivery tool for these tasks.

Work requests will be categorized by the government using the following categories:

1 Stops user from performing functions in system as currently deployed

2 Corrections of update/recon/report (code and/or scripts)

3 Modifications required due to regulatory changes or at direction of UFC or higher headquarters

4 System performance issues to include tuning, referenced procedures, database integrity, and redesign of existing procedures

5 Maintaining and developing user documentation

6 Minor screen changes and screen modifications not critical to operation

7 Approved CCB system enhancements and reports

8 Unapproved system enhancements and new reports as requested by field user or developer

9 Data Calls

Work classification codes consist of the following and shall be assigned by the Contractor:

AC Application Correction AE Application Enhancement/New Functionality (may require ECP) DC Data Correction Script Development SYS…