A07.23_W912HZ-17-R-0001-0003.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

This amendment is to provide question and answ ers, revise Section L and M, revise the sample task order PWS, and extend the response date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Dec-2016

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 W912HZ-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Dec-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Dec-2016

CODE

ERDC CONTRACTING OFFICE

3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

W912HZ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HZ-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

The following questions and answers are provided for informational purposes only:

Question 1: Can the government sponsor the awardee a Top secret clearance?

Answer: No.

Question 2: Is this a new? Or current contract?

Answer: This is a new requirement.

Question 3: Is there a incumbent? If so who?

Answer: There is not an incumbent.

Question 4: “Is it acceptable we can use Key personnel experiences to fulfill past performance requirements as part of Relevant Past Performances? One of our Key Personnel has Tremendous High Performance Computing Modernization experience at very large commercial enterprises, Universities and National Govt. Labs. Please advise.”

Answer: Offerors may provide Past Performance information in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2)(iii). Therefore, the offeror’s proposal must provide adequate documentation to support the relevance and it must relate back to a specific contract in order to determine scope, complexity, and magnitude.

Question 5: We do not have Top Secret Facility Clearance. Can we still bid this opportunity?

Answer: Please see Section 5 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 12 of the solicitation.

Question 6: Would it be possible to extend the due date out to the end of January 2017.

Answer: No.

Question 7: Will the government consider waiving the TSFC requirement until the actual contract start date?

Answer: Please see Amendment 0002.

Question 8: Will the government consider extending the submission date to Jan 10th in order to take the holidays into consideration and ensure timely delivery of submission packages?

Answer: No.

Question 9: Can the government identify specific key positions minimally desired? Can the positon of Business Analyst also be considered a proposed Project or Program Manager (PM) or will we provide a dedicated PM as a Key person?

Answer: Please reference the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 6.4 and Section L

3.6.7. It is up to the offeror on how to propose.

Question 10: Please clarify if the request for legal document (Page 80 / Section 3.3 , Page 98 / Item 1.2) includes Teaming Agreements for our proposed team?

Answer: Yes.

Question 11: What is the specific period of performance for the sample task order?

Answer: Please see revised sample task order PWS, Attachment B.

Question 12: The sample task order forecasts travel requirements for 16 trips. Are these trips all for different sites, and do they involve generally the same tasks to be performed for each of the sites?

Answer: Please see revised Section L and M in Amendment 0003.

Question 13: Since the Key personnel section is limited to 5 pages, is it acceptable to also provide full resumes for Key personnel as an attachment in the appendix of the proposal response in order to provide the full range of expertise and professional experience for our proposed Key staff?

Answer: An attachment is acceptable.

Question 14: Will the government accept interim clearances for Key personnel at the start of work?

Answer: Yes.

Question 15: Both FedEx and UPS will be closed over the New Year's holiday weekend, with neither one resuming delivery until Tuesday, January 3rd. Will you consider pushing back the due date a single day, to January 5th, to allow time to accommodate for the adjusted holiday delivery schedule?

Answer: Please see Amendment 0003.

Question 16: Is our understanding correct that the government will only require the 1st page of the PPQ submitted in the proposal and only the first page with no additional related information: “The offeror shall complete and submit with his/her proposal the first page of each PPQ (Attachment C) requested, which will provide contact and client information for the respective project(s).” We are specifically asking if the first page of each PPQ submitted to the government is the only content expected in the Past Performance Volume??

Answer: The PPQs should be sent and completed by the client and submitted directly to Allison Hudson, per the solicitation. The Offeror shall complete and submit the first page of each PPQ requested (to be completed by the client) in Volume II, Past Performance. Please see Section 3.7, Volume II – Past Performance, of the solicitation. Volume II should contain more than just PPQs.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 04-Jan-2017 03:00 PM to 05-Jan-2017 03:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposals shall be mailed to: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Contracting Office, ATTN: CEERD-CT, Mrs. Allison Hudson, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 39180-6199, USA.

1.2 In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.1102, prospective contractors must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) prior to the award of a contract. You may register at the SAM website, https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

1.3 Offeror's Responsibility. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness and accuracy of his or her proposal. Corrections will not be made by the Government. Errors in the proposal will be considered, among other factors, as a reflection of the offeror's technical and management capability.

1.4 Policy on Requests by Prospective Offerors for Assistance in the Preparation of Proposals. It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to not provide any assistance to prospective offerors in the preparation of their proposals.

However, this is not meant to preclude offeror's requests for information or clarification. Information will be provided if it is available and releasable, while clarification will be provided in all cases.

1.5 Proposals must be submitted in strict accordance with the instructions set forth herein. The Government may consider any failure on the part of an offeror to comply with these instructions to be indicative of the type of conduct it can expect during contract performance. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to contact the contract specialist, Allison Hudson at Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil , in order to request any necessary clarifications or explanations of these instructions.

1.6 The proposal shall contain the solicitation number, narrative and other data sufficient to describe the associated element of the proposal. An offeror’s failure to furnish the necessary information may result in its proposal not being considered for award. A proposal received after the solicitation closing date shall be rejected.

1.7 The written proposal will be the primary basis on which the Government will determine the capability of the Offeror to perform this work. It shall be specific, detailed, complete, thorough, and clear. It must address each requirement stated in the Performance Work Statement for the Base Award and Sample Task Order 0001. The Government reserves the right to award Sample Task Order 0001 as the first task order under the resulting contract if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.8 The proposal shall not merely offer to comply with the Government's requirements by simply restating them, but shall specifically describe the means of accomplishment. The proposal in its entirety shall be specific, detailed, complete, through, and clear to demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements. Non-detailed statements such as “the Offeror understands, can or will comply with the requirement listed in the Performance Work Statement”, statements that paraphrase the Performance Work Statement, or ambiguous phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” may be considered unacceptable.

1.9 Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper or bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids (with the exception of technical drawings and figures) are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion. When necessary, the Offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within its proposal.

1.10 Please see clauses 52.203-2, Certification of Independent Price Determination and 52.203-5, Covenant Against Contingent Fees

2.0 Communications Concerning the Solicitation

All questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the Government via email to Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil. The Government will accept questions up to seven (7) calendar days of the proposal due date. Answers to questions will be provided via amendment to the solicitation document.

3.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions

3.1 Overall Arrangement of Proposal –The overall proposal shall consist of three (3) physically separated volumes (Vols. I, II, and III) individually titled as stated below. In addition, the Offeror shall submit one (1) copy of all proposal materials in electronic format on compact disc (CD). In case of conflict between the paper copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence. The proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) days and shall not contain classified data/information.

3.1.1. Proposal Volume and Titles

Volume I – Operational Proposal Volume II – Past Performance Proposal Volume III – Price Proposal

3.2 Original and Copy requirements.

Volume I – Original and three (3) copies Volume II – Original and three (3) copies Volume III – Original and two (2) copies

3.3 Page Limitation and Volumes:

Volume Number Page Limitation Volume I – Operational Proposal

Technical Approach 10 Management Approach 10 Staffing Plan 5 Key Personnel 5 Corporate Experience 10 Sample Task Order 10

Volume II – Past Performance As Required Volume III – Price

Fully Completed SF 1449 As Required Copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements if applicable

As Required

Fully Completed Attachment A Pricing Table

As Required

Price Proposal for Sample Task Order

As Required

3.4. Formatting and Page Limitations:

Volume I - Operational Proposal shall be typed in Times New Roman font type and font size 12 for text pages.

Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches for text pages, and a maximum of 11 x 17 inches for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings; font type and font size shall be appropriate for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings. Pages larger than 8.5 x 11 inches shall count as two pages for determining page limits. Page margins shall be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

3.5. Contents and Formatting

Each Offeror’s proposal shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, separate section, each section fully addressing the relevant requirements of the solicitation. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each major section shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A suggested outline follows:

3.6. Volume I – Operational Proposal

Offerors shall submit their Operational Proposal following the format below. Proposals not conforming to this format may not receive as high an evaluation as a properly formatted proposal would because the information is not as easily located, extracted and analyzed by the Government. This is the largest section and it shall be subdivided as appropriate. NO PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME I.

3.6.1. Cover

The cover shall indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Solicitation number Name and address of Offeror Identification of original signature copies Classified CAGE code

3.6.2. Table of Contents

The Table of Contents shall provide detail sufficient to allow the important elements to be located easily. The use of tabs and dividers is encouraged, but not necessary.

3.6.3. Introduction

The introduction shall briefly state the purpose and content of the proposal.

3.6.4. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

The Offeror shall fully describe the methods, processes, and tools used to provide its technical solution. The offeror shall demonstrate understanding of the requirements through its technical solution, and demonstrate how it aligns and fulfills the contract objectives as provided in the PWS, Section C of the Solicitation.

3.6.5 Subfactor 2: Management Approach

The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capability to provide an efficient and effective management approach. The proposal shall include a discussion that fully describes the procedures for planning, executing and administering the entire effort. The offeror shall propose an organizational structure that demonstrates an effective approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. The proposal shall discuss organizational business practices and management of any subcontractors that will be implemented to facilitate the successful execution of the Government’s requirement. The offeror shall submit copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements if applicable.

3.6.6 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan

The proposal shall demonstrate a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce and employ major subcontractors. The proposal shall demonstrate an approach to accommodate short-term and longer term requirements for unique skills and capabilities and reacting to new situations requiring timely execution. See FAR clause 52.222-49 Compensation Plan.

3.6.7 Subfactor 4: Key Personnel

The proposal shall discuss the qualifications of the key personnel, specifically addressing experience in efforts similar to this effort in terms of technical scope and contractual complexity and magnitude. The discussion shall include qualifications (education and experience) as it relates to the requirements of the PWS. The proposal, at a minimum, shall identify the proposed location and staffing support for key personnel and explain how the key personnel will interface/coordinate to manage operations and services.

The proposal, at a minimum, shall identify the following for key personnel:

Name Security Clearance and Date Granted Education (to include colleges attended, major, dates of attendance, and degree attained and/or hours completed Special Training Experience (In reverse chronological order, list the inclusive dates, employer, and brief description of the task performed, and job title) Planned percentage of time to this effort

3.6.8 Subfactor 5: Corporate Experience

The proposal shall identify up to seven (7) of its most relevant projects within the last three years. The proposal shall provide a comprehensive description of the offeror’s significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience performing projects similar to the PWS requirements. Relevant corporate experience is experience within the last three years that is of the same or similar technical scope to the work described in the Performance Work Statement, and is of the same or similar contractual complexity (contract type) and magnitude (performing services that, on an annual basis, are at least half the dollar value estimated to perform the Performance Work Statement’s requirements). Each description shall clearly identify the correlation between the identified capability and relevant corporate experience and the specific PWS functional area requirements(s) to which the capability/experience applies. Each description of relevant corporate experience shall clearly specify the following:

Contract/Task Order number (If a subcontract, also include the prime contract number) Title of Effort Total potential dollar value (If a subcontract, also include the amount of the prime contract) Performance Period Contractor role (prime or subcontractor) and percentage of work performed in that role Description of the effort

If the Offeror has limited experience within the past three years, but does have relevant experience beyond three years in the past, a full description of this past experience must be given along with a narrative describing why this past experience is still relevant and what steps have been taken over the intervening time span to retain the necessary technical expertise and capability to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

Note: Offerors are required to submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) on corporate experience identified in this section. The PPQ’s completed for Corporate Experience shall be submitted under Volume II – Past Performance. Please see Paragraph 3.7 of this section for more information on PPQs.

3.6.9 Subfactor 6: Sample Task Order Approach

The proposal shall include a technical approach and a Technical Management Plan (TMP) (reference PWS, Section C, Paragrpah 9.2.4) describing the technical approach, organizational resources, and management controls to be employed to meet the proposed price, performance, and schedule requirements throughout the sample task order PWS execution. The proposal shall include a staffing solution stated in terms of labor categories and level of effort (hours) only. The TMP for Sample Task Order 0001 shall contain NO contractual price information. Sample Task Order pricing shall be submitted in Volume III, Price proposal.

3.7. Volume II - Past Performance Proposal

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past three years that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation.

If the Offeror has limited experience within the past three years, but does have relevant experience beyond three years in the past, a full description of this past experience must be given along with a narrative describing why this past experience is still relevant and what steps have been taken over the intervening time span to retain the necessary technical expertise and capability to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) shall be submitted for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Volume II Past Performance Proposal AND any corporate experience identified in Volume I.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is included in the solicitation as Attachment C. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted directly to the ERDC Contracting Office to the Government’s Point of Contract, Allison Hudson via email at Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil .

The offeror shall complete and submit with his/her proposal the first page of each PPQ (Attachment C) requested, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

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/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 Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offerors may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

3.8. Volume III – Price Proposal

Offerors shall submit the Price proposal in the following format. Conformance with the requested format for a proposal demonstrates ability to follow directions and understand requirements.

A cover sheet shall be submitted with the offeror's name, the volume number, and the solicitation number. The second sheet shall be an index/table of contents.

Price proposals shall consist of the following basic components:

Fully completed SF 1449. The Government will complete section B at time of award.

Fully completed Attachment A Pricing Table. Labor Rates - Fully loaded labor rates must be provided for all FFP labor categories in Attachment A for the five year ordering period and the Option Period.

Other Direct Cost (ODC) Related Information - The offeror may propose a maximum percentage to be applied to other direct costs. The percentage may be negotiated to a lower rate for subsequent task orders, but may not exceed rate proposed for duration of the ordering period.

Price Proposal for Sample Task Order- Proposal must include:

Breakdown of labor skill/mix, rates and totals for performance requirements based on rates taken from

Attachment A.

Travel – A set amount of $24,000 will be allotted to travel costs for the sample task order and used for evaluation purposes. The Offeror shall include the set travel amount of $24,000 in their price proposal.

Any other direct costs associated with performance of the Sample Task Order

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.1 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) has been established to evaluate proposals submitted for this acquisition. Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M below. In accordance with FAR Part 15.306, it is the Government’s intent to award without discussions but does reserve the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Offerors shall submit their initial offers based upon terms and conditions, which they consider to be the most favorable to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, in consideration of all factors, including Operational, Past Performance, and Price, including all options (see clause 52.217-8). The basis for award will be an acceptable proposal, the price of which may not be the lowest. However, if the award is not based on the lowest price, the proposal must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced proposal so as to justify the payment for additional costs.

1.2 When the term “offeror” is used, it is defined as a single offeror, joint venture, or a team of offerors and major sub-contractors. Proposals submitted under a formal partnering agreement or joint-venture must be accompanied by a copy of the legal document establishing such. Documentation shall be provided as established in Section L.

1.3 It is the Government’s intent to award one indefinite delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract resulting from this solicitation with provisions for issuing firm- fixed-price (FFP) task orders and/or cost-reimbursable (Cost) for other direct costs.

1.4 Selection of a Contractor will be made by an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted and in light of the following criteria. The integrated assessment will involve a determination by the Government of the overall merit of each offeror's proposal, recognizing that subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators are implicit in the entire process. Award will be made to the offeror whom the Government determines able to accomplish the necessary work in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation of Technical and Past Performance will be accomplished without reference to price. A price analysis will be performed.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

All factors and significant sub-factors that will affect contract award are listed below:

2.1 Volume I – Operational Proposal

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the methods, processes, and tools used to provide its technical solution. The offeror will be evaluated on the understanding of the requirements through its technical solution, and be evaluated on how it aligns and fulfills the contract objectives as provided in the PWS, Section C of the Solicitation.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the capability to provide an efficient and effective management approach. The offeror will be evaluated on the procedures for planning, executing and administering the entire effort. The offeror will be evaluated on an organizational structure that demonstrates an effective approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on an organizational business practices and management of subcontractors that will be implemented to facilitate the successful execution of the Government’s requirement.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan

The offeror will be evaluated on a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce and employ any major subcontractors. The offeror will be evaluated on an approach to accommodate short-term and longer term requirements for unique skills and capabilities (surge) and reacting to new situations requiring execution. See FAR clause 52.222-49 Compensation Plan.

2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Key Personnel

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to identify key personnel that will contribute to overall performance and management of the effort to meet the requirements of the PWS. Proposals that provide adequate and clear information that establishes the key personnel possess adequate qualifications and experience to effectively perform and manage the requirements of the PWS will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to sufficiently discuss the qualifications and experience of the key personnel clearly describing in detail efforts similar in technical scope and contractual complexity. Proposals that substantiate the key personnel have the qualifications and experience required to successfully perform and manage this effort will be evaluated more favorably.

2.1.5 Subfactor 5: Corporate Experience

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to describe its significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in performing services similar to the PWS requirements. Proposals including significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in providing similar services will be rated more favorably.

2.1.6 Subfactor 6: Sample Task Order Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a sound technical approach that meets all of the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with an effective and efficient staffing solution based on the technical approach and Task Management Plan submitted that addresses technical approach, organizational resources, and management controls to be employed to meet the proposed price, performance, and schedule requirements throughout the sample task order PWS execution. Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deliver services to meet the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with a proposed staffing solution will be rated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on a Task Management Plan demonstrating the technical approach, organizational resources, and management controls.

2.2 Volume II - Past Performance Proposal

The government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality products and services in a timely and cost effective manner.

The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror's Past Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the Offeror's previous and current record of contractual performance. In this context, "Offeror" refers to the proposed prime contractor and major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as those intended to perform a critical contract function, and/or work efforts involving more than 4,000 man hours per annum.

The Government will consider the combined Offeror's and proposed subcontractor's experience and performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of our requirement during the last three (3) calendar years. The Government will assess the Offeror's Team to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate a satisfactory history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the Performance Work Statement.

The Government's assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions:

Relevance - similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Confidence- gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Aspects to be considered in the past performance evaluation include the Offeror’s record of: 1) conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 3) ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively; 4) business-like concern for the interest of its customers; 5) establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 6) quality of product delivered.

Any significant achievement, problem or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall high-risk rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. In the case of an offeror without any relevant past performance history, past performance will be evaluated as "neutral". If the past performance information is negative, the offeror may be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal if it has not previously had such an opportunity.

The Government will use data provided in the Offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2.3 Volume III - Price Proposal

Price Analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will encompass the following:

Labor Rates: The purpose of the price analysis will be to ensure fair and reasonable price associated with proposed labor rates.

ODC Cost Rate: The purpose of this cost analysis is to insure a fair and reasonable rate to be applied to other direct costs.

Price for Sample Task Order 0001: The purpose of this price analysis is to ensure that prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal for Sample Task Order 0001. An excessively high or low price proposal will be considered an indication of a limited understanding of the task or an inefficient organization and may be render the offeror as non-responsive.

Sample Task order 0001 price proposal will be evaluated based on:

Overall labor cost based on NTE total (estimated labor mix and hours proposed will be evaluated in

Technical Approach).

Travel – The offeror is to include a set amount of $24,000 for travel costs in their task order proposal.

Other direct costs associated with performance of Sample Task Order 0001 Total price proposed for the sample task order to include labor, travel, and any ODCs

3.0 Evaluation Weights and Adjective Ratings

An award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the non-price/cost factors.

The Operational factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor and Price factor. Within the Technical factor, all subfactors are of equal importance. Past Performance is more important than Price. All of the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. To be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined to be acceptable in all areas. A deficiency in any of the areas could constitute a basis for rejection of a proposal.

3.1 Operational Rating. The rating for overall Operational Rating includes Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, Subfactor 2 – Management Approach, Subfactor 3 – Staffing Plan, Subfactor 4 – Key Personnel, Subfactor 5 – Corporate Experience, and Subfactor 6 – Sample Task Order will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

3.2 Performance Rating Definitions. The Past Performance Risk ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Relevance: There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The below table will be used when determining relevancy

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.

Confidence: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The below table will be used when determining confidence:

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

3.3 Price Evaluation. The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness by price analysis. Each proposal will be reviewed with regard to adequate pricing to confirm that proposals have addressed all aspects of pricing as required in the solicitation, and that such information is presented in a clear and logical manner consistent with the instructions in the proposal. Price will not be rated. The total contract price will be considered as an independent element from the operational evaluation and past performance evaluation.

3.4 Key Evaluation Terms. The following terms are applicable to the evaluation process.

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

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

Significant Strength. 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 appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Communications. Communications between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals and before establishment of the competitive range are exchanges, leading to establishment of the competitive range (if required). Communications shall be limited to:

Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications will address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and

Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain.

Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise their proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g. perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes and information relating to relevant past performance).

Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Relative Order of Importance Terminology. The following terminology is provided to give offerors an understanding of the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors.

Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given far more consideration than another factor.

More Important. The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Comparatively Equal. The factor is nearly the same in value as another factor; any difference is very slight.

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible offeror whose proposals are responsive to the solicitation and determined to be the best value and most advantageous to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)