W912HQ-18-R-0008_Amendment_0002.pdf

W912HQ18R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. General Instructions:

a. This section provides a general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested in this section and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The proposal must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement and Appendices thereto. Nonconformance with the instructions provided in this section may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

b. Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit proposals to the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity ATTN: CECT-HC (Ms. Heather Dinsmore) 7701 Telegraph Road Kingman Building, Room 1B01 Alexandria, VA 22315

c. The package exterior should contain the solicitation number W912HQ-18-R-0008. Electronic submissions will NOT be accepted. Failure to submit proposals by the closing time and date designated in Block 9 of the SF33 may result in the proposal being deemed “late” and not considered for evaluation. See FAR 52.215-1 for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals), but will be retained by the Government for official record purposes. NOTE: When hard-carrying proposals, offerors are advised that they must process through gate security and should account time for possible delays.

d. Inquiries. Offerors may submit inquiries, questions or comments relating to this solicitation via email to the Contract Specialist: heather.dinsmore@usace.army.mil within 14 calendar days from the solicitation issue date.

Email subject line shall read: “Solicitation Number W912HQ-18-R-0008 Questions.” The Government will consider all correspondence, but will not issue individual responses; instead, if appropriate, a solicitation amendment will be issued. No questions will be accepted via phone. Individual meetings with firms will not be scheduled.

Voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response. Questions received after 14 calendar days from the solicitation issue date will not be answered.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements: The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes and each Factor will be contained in a separate TAB, submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below:

Volume No. and Title Printed Copy Maximum Pages Digital Copy

Volume I – Factors I-V Original + 4 250 1 CD/DVD Volume II – Factor VI Original + 4 N/A 1 CD/DVD

a. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

b. Each volume shall be clearly marked and submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its title and a copy number (e.g. copy 1 of 5).

c. Printing should be singled spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial font is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

d. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created.

MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margin – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11 X 17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations only.

e. File packaging of electronic documents. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks (iOmega) are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format. All price breakout information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2010 or higher. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting .exe files are not acceptable. **If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern.

3. Proposal Content: The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of the Past Performance evaluations.

When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating the solicitation reference in parenthesis, (i.e. Sec C, para 4.0). Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments). The penalty for making false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. §1001. Offerors should submit their best proposal initially as the Government intends to make awards without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 (except clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if deemed necessary.

a. Volume I - Factors I - V: The Offeror shall demonstrate its capabilities and understanding of the technical requirements described in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall provide the following information in the order as presented below.

TAB A – Factor I – Technical Understanding and Approach

i. Offerors shall submit separate proposal responses to each of the sample Task Order Request for Proposals

(TORFP) (Attachments 4 and 5). The sample task order responses shall include the offeror’s proposed level of effort (NO ACTUAL PRICES ARE TO BE ENTERED ON THE SAMPLE TASK ORDER RESPONSE), evidence of the offeror’s understanding of the sample IWR requirements, the offeror’s plan to fulfill the task order requirements, and their ability to adhere to the task order schedules. The offeror shall also address how the offeror would solve both existing and near term (5 years) future technical problems and issues for the Corps of Engineers related to the two sample task orders, and provide a brief discussion on future applications that could be used to accomplish the stated objectives of each sample task.

ii. Offerors shall also submit a written narrative proposal which describes and demonstrates the offeror’s Technical Understanding and Approach to satisfy the full scope of the support needs of IWR as outlined in base MATOC PWS in Section C of this RFP

iii. The offeror shall submit documentation to demonstrate and detail the offeror’s Multi-Disciplinary Capability (staffing) such as:

a. Current teaming, partnering or subcontracting arrangements that supports its ability to provide personnel with a wide variety of technical qualifications and experiences.

b. The offerors methods for obtaining a qualified labor force with relevant experience for future task orders as they arise, including methods and plans for obtaining and retaining staff.

TAB B – Factor II – Personnel Experience

i. Offerors shall propose Key Personnel for this requirement and submit up to four (4) resumes per labor category designated as key in Attachment 2 - Labor Categories/Qualifications, demonstrating appropriate Education/experience and letters of commitment.

TAB C – Factor III – Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities of the Offeror

i. Offerors shall submit a Management Plan and an Organizational Chart along with an appropriate narrative of how the organizational structure is utilized to reduce performance risk, enhances responsiveness to changes, ensures timely performance, and delineates responsibilities by establishing a hierarchy that promotes efficiencies; and addresses proper distribution of responsibilities, establishes the point of contact for overall coordination between the Contractor and the Government, and how it is currently, or can be, tailored to the unique nature of the work outlined in the IWR PWS.

ii. Offerors shall submit evidence they currently have adequate technical and administrative facility and staff resources, or there is in place, an adequate plan for resources to perform future task orders, to include but not limited to; subcontracting, teaming arrangements, partnerships, or other business arrangements.

TAB D – Factor IV - Past Performance

i. Offerors shall submit PPI for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 contracts or subcontracts completed or ongoing within the last 3 years from the release date of this solicitation. Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation. Offers shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc. should be verified by the offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

Project Title Project Description Project Start & Ending Dates Offeror’s role in the Project Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email Statement of the relevancy of the project to this PWS Performance recognition documents received within the last three years on projects relevant to this

PWS such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition

ii. The Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire, included in Attachment 6, is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor IV – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a contract(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective contract(s). The offeror should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Heather Dinsmore via email at heather.dinsmore@usace.army.mil before the due date for proposal submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Request for Proposals (RFP). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

iii. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

iv. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete PPI rests with the offeror.

TAB E – Factor V - Small Business Participation

i. Small Business Participation Commitment (SBPC): All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) are required to submit a SBPC document that demonstrates how U.S small business concerns, as defined in FAR Part 19, will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance and will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined in Section M. The SBPC shall be incorporated into the resulting contract and shall contain all elements described below:

a. Small Business Participation Goals - Offerors shall use the following table format to provide the small business participation percentage for the contract in its entirety using $47,200,000 as the estimate for the total contract value The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation:

Business Category

Participation Percentage

Based on total contract value

Total dollars based on proposed participation percentage

Total Small Business (SB) % $

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) % $

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) % $

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) % $

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

Historically Black College or University /Minority Institution (HBCU/MI)

b. Subcontractor Table - Offerors are to identify the extent to which U.S. small business concerns would be utilized as first-tier subcontractors in the performance of the proposed contract. U.S.

small business concerns are defined in FAR 19.001. Small business concerns may include SBs, SDBs, HUBZone SBs, WOSBs, VOSBs, SDVOSBs and HBCU/MIs. Offerors shall provide the information required under each column header using the following table format to support the overall goals proposed in paragraph (a) immediately above:

Company Name

Cage Code

Type(s) and complexity of work to be performed (Cite PWS paragraph – if applicable)

Small Business Classification(s) as identified in System for Award

Management (SAM) (i.e., Other than US Small Business

Concern , SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, VOSB, HUBZone, HBCU/MI)

% of commitment/work

(based on total contract value)

Sample Company

(PRIME) ZZZZ

Design Build -industrial specialty

Other than US Small Business Concern 65%

Sample Sub1 YYYY

IT support PWS paragraph 5.3.1 SB, VOSB, SDVOSB 5%

c. Offerors shall provide information that identifies and supports the extent of commitment for use of proposed subcontractors that addresses enforceability and signed copies of teaming agreements with subcontractors listed in the Subcontractor Table in paragraph (b) above. All supporting documentation is excluded from the page count. Supporting documents will not be incorporated into any resulting contract.

d. Past Performance in Subcontracting Plans: Offerors which are both (1) other than U.S. small business concerns as defined by the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation and (2) have had prior contracts requiring the submission of a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219- 9 shall also provide documentation and information that illustrates compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 for the offeror’s last five completed subcontracting plans that is consistent with the submitted FINAL ISR for the subcontracting plan in the below table format:

Contract Number

Is Offeror Prime / Sub?

Total Contract

Value

Total

SB

SDB SDVOSB WOSB HUBZone HBCU/MI

Achieved Goal

Goal Achieved

Goal Goal

Achieved Goal

Goal Achieved

Goal Goal

Achieved Goal

Goal Achieved

Goal Goal

1. Signed copies of the Individual Subcontracting Report shall be submitted in support of data provided in the past performance compliance table. If the offeror is a member of a Joint Venture (JV), the offeror shall only submit five (5) ISR reports total

2. If the offeror has reported accomplishments against a Commercial or Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan or both, in lieu of or in addition to Individual or Master Plans, the Offeror shall submit a copy of the Plan to document the goals and the latest Summary Subcontract Report (SSR/SF 295) to document the goals and accomplishments.

3. If reports for a contract are not being submitted to eSRS, signed copies of the SF 294s can be submitted.

4. If the Offeror has not performed a contract within three years from the RFP release date months that contained FAR 52.219-9 or DFARS 252.219-7004, the Offeror shall so state.

5. If the Offeror is itself a U.S. small business concern under the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation (to include U.S. small business concerns who are proposing as part of a joint venture or teaming arrangement), the Government will consider the Offeror‘s own portion of the work to be performed as Small Business Participation for purposes of this evaluation

6. All supporting documentation is excluded from the page count.

ii. Subcontracting Plan: All other than U.S. small business concerns as defined by the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation must submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 utilizing the template included as Attachment 7. Subcontracting plans will be incorporated into any resultant contracts (See H001 Small Business Subcontracting Plan).

b. Volume II – Factor VI – Price. Volume II shall consist of the following items:

TAB A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33)

i. The Offeror shall complete Blocks 12 through 18, as appropriate, of the SF 33. If the Offeror is a Joint

Venture, Blocks 12 through 18 must be completed in the name of the Joint Venture. All members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 33 unless agreement by the Joint Venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal and will be evaluated in accordance with applicable regulations. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

TAB B - Acknowledgement of Amendments

i. The Offeror shall acknowledge all amendments either by signing and returning the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract (1st page only), or by acknowledging the amendments in Block 14 of the SF33.

TAB C - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements

i. The Offeror shall complete the Representations and Certifications in the System for Award Management

(SAM) electronically and provide a copy in this volume of the proposal. Joint ventures shall register in SAM under the legal corporate name of the Joint Venture.

TAB D – Financial Statement

i. In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “…contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only.”

To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104. FAR 9.104- 1(a) requires that a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, the Offeror must submit a current statement of financial condition, certified by a third party, for the past three years. This will help the Government assess a firm’s ability to pay its obligations.

TAB E – Corporate Charter, By-Laws, or Joint Venture or Partnership Agreement, if applicable

i. If two or more parties have formed a partnership or joint venture (See FAR Sub-part 9.6) for the purpose of submitting a proposal under this solicitation and if selected would perform the contract as a single entity, they must submit with the proposal the Corporate Charter, By-Laws, or Joint Venture or Partnership Agreement.

TAB F - Authorized Offeror Personnel

i. Provide the name, title, telephone number, and email address of personnel authorized to negotiate and sign contract documents with respect to your proposal.

TAB G – Labor Rates Pricing Schedule (Attachment 1)

i. The offeror shall complete the pricing schedule using the Microsoft Excel template provided in Attachment 1:

Labor Rates Pricing Schedule, which are binding labor rate ceilings. The Offeror shall fill in the rates columns for each of the base and option years. It is up to the Offeror to ensure all calculations are correct.

The hours per labor category are yearly estimates and should not be changed.

Tab H – Total Compensation Plan

i. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

ii. 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

For proposal preparation purposes, the approximate date for initiation of contract performance is 16 November 2018. This date may change, as it is only an estimate.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award(s) will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal(s) that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: 1-Technical Understanding and Approach, 2-Personnel Experience and Availability, 3- Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities of the Offeror, 4- Past Performance, 5- Small Business Participation, and 6-Price. The Technical Understanding and Approach factor (1) and the Personnel Experience factor (2) are of equal importance and are more important than factors 3, 4 and 5. The relative order of importance for these remaining non-price factors, in descending order, is the Organizational Management factor (3), Past Performance (4), and Small Business Participation (5). To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factors and the Small Business Participation factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICE FACTORS COMBINED ARE

SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

The Government intends to make awards without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. For this reason, the offeror’s proposal must be complete and contain their most favorable terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed in Section L of the Solicitation. The information will be used by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to evaluate and rate each proposal.

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).

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is most beneficial to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Technical Understanding. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s understanding of support needs, including 1) the methods and techniques required to perform research, systems analysis and analytical support services for the Corps of Engineers navigation and data related missions and programs, and 2) contemporary navigation issues and associated data management and analytical needs, as described in the base MATOC PWS in Section C of this RFP, as well as the 2 Sample Task Orders. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s evidence of its multi-disciplinary capability, demonstrating that staff is available for and capable of fulfilling multiple task orders simultaneously, without degradation in the performance level of any of the tasks being performed.

Technical Approach. The offeror shall be evaluated on their proposals submitted in response to the two Sample Task Orders in accordance with the Performance Work Statements (PWS) provided as part of the solicitation. The proposals shall include a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the requirement of each sample PWS, and provide a detailed description of the approach to addressing each PWS that demonstrates an understanding of the technical disciplines required to successfully perform the sample task orders. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how the offeror would solve both existing and near term (5 years) future technical problems and issues for the Corps of Engineers related to the two sample task orders and provide a brief discussion on future applications that could be used to accomplish the stated objectives of each sample task.

Factor 2: Personnel Experience and Availability

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates relevance of work experience of key personnel covering the three prime technical areas of navigation, data and decision support, and future directions, and the appropriateness of education/expertise of key personnel. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates availability of proposed key staff in accordance with Attachment 2 – Labor Categories/Qualifications

Factor 3: Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities of the Offeror

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate a feasible management plan and organizational structure for accomplishment of work and services of the magnitude involved in this contract. The offeror’s organizational structure chart must demonstrate a clear hierarchy, delineate responsibilities and establish overall coordination between the contractor and the Government. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the adequacy of the proposed work force required to respond to the fluctuating workloads and requirements in response to contract requirements. The offeror must demonstrate sufficient technical and administrative facilities and staff to accomplish and support contract requirements.

Factor 4: Past Performance

Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and the quality of performance on the past contracts. A past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on past performance of the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record in providing services that meet contract requirements within the three technical areas (navigation, data and decision support, and future directions) across the Corps of Engineers, other federal and state agencies and private sector firms. The offeror's past performance and experience in providing relevant technical and other study support for the Corps of Engineers, other Army Commands, other DOD or Federal agencies, state agencies, or private sector companies will also be considered. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance and management of sub-contractors. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet contract requirements.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the Solicitation. All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the contract. All offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they identify complex and varied work small firms are to perform. Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” and FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of small business participation as prime contractors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goal of 18% small business participation.

All apparently successful offerors that are considered other than small businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award.

Factor 6: Price

The resulting award(s) will be a multiple award FFP IDIQ contract. Price reasonableness and realism will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed-Price effort. The price factor will be evaluated using price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1(b), consisting of comparison of competitive offers received in response to the solicitation and to the IGE. The Government will also conduct price realism analysis. Prices found to be unreasonably high or low may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in an unfavorable rating. The Government will also evaluate the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 for realism to include salaries, fringe benefits and company policies and procedures to ensure it reflects the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. Proposed prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. For evaluation purposes only, the estimated quantity of labor hours will be used to determine the total evaluated price for the Labor CLINs.

The Government will evaluate price proposals based upon a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base year and all option years combined.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven methodologies and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete future Task Orders as required by the mission.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focuses on consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factors’ requirements. Factors 1, 2 and 3 will be rated using the following combined technical/risk adjectival ratings:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Description

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

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

Green Acceptable

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

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

The associated risk descriptions are as followed:

Risk Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2. The Past Performance factor will be used to make a determination of the level of performance risk associated with each offeror. Offerors should provide performance history and references to demonstrate satisfactory performance for at least three (3) prior or current contracts that are similar in size, scope and complexity to this requirement performed within the last three (3) years. References should also be provided for any anticipated subcontractor to be used. Offerors should provide the following:

Reference: Name, Address, POC and phone numbers Contract Number, Value and Dates Description of the Contract Effort Relevance to this Solicitation

a. Each Offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior efforts for similar services. The offerors may include an overall narrative explaining what aspects of the contract effort are deemed relevant to the proposal effort, as well as significant accomplishments and difficulties. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all information and the government does not assume the responsibility for conducting research as a result of incorrect reference information of any kind. The references should be provided in descending order, with the most relevant contracts appearing first.

b. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance within the last three (3) years to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

c. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty-five (25) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541618. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

d. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

e. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy and performance confidence assessment:

RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this acquisition, recency is defined as past performance references within the last three years as of the date of this solicitation release

RELEVANCY: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

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.

QUALITY: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Evaluators will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

3. Small Business Participation Factor: All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business Participation goal of 18% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or subcategory of small business). The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposals to determine which offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

Small Business Participation Commitments (from all offerors) will be evaluated on the basis of:

a. The extent to which such small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and FAR 52.219- 9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals. Goals for this procurement are:

Total Small Business (any type of small business) 18 % (MANDATORY) of the total contract value.

Sub-Category Small Business (not mandatory) Goal

Small Disadvantaged Business 5 % of the total contract value

Women Owned Small Business 2% of the total contract value

HUBZone Small 1% of the total contract value

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 1% of the total contract value

Veteran Owned Small Business 1% of the total contract value

HBCU/Minority Institutions >0 % of the total contract value

Note: For example, a participation plan that reflects 2% of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB.

When evaluating small business participation, the following ratings will be utilized:

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

All apparently successful offerors that are considered other than small businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award

4. The Price factor will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b) for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base and option years. A price realism analysis will also be conducted. Prices found to be unrealistically low or high or unbalanced may reflect a lack of understanding that may result in an unfavorable rating. Offerors Total Compensation Plan (TCP) will be evaluated for realism to include salaries, fringe benefits, and company policies and procedures to ensure that it reflects the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work.

(End of Summary of Changes)