Attachment_1_Solicitation_(W9133L-17-R-0003)_Amendment_01.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

1. The purpose of this amendment is to issue responses to offeror submitted questions. These questions and responses are hereby incorporated into this solicitation as attachment 4.

2. The list of attachments at section J is revised to reflect new attachments.

3. See addtional pages and Q&A for sections of the Solicitation that have changed.

4. Attachments J-2 and J-3 have been revised to reflect changes in the Q&A.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 54

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jan-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9133L-17-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jan-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

27-Jan-2017

CODE

NGB-AQ - W9133L

111 SOUTH GEORGE MASON DR

BLDG. 2, 4TH FLOOR

ARLINGTON VA 22204-1373

W9133L 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9133L-17-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price.

M.1.2 Contractors are advised that award will be made to that contractor whose proposal provides the combination of features that offers the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as proposals become more equal based on other factors.

M.1.3 The Contracting Officer will use the Tradeoff Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

M.1.4 The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the PWS. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the PWS. The Contractor shall submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the criteria below.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA:

M.2.1. Relative Order of Importance Terminology. An evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria set forth below. Evaluation criteria consist of four factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the Government, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance.

The following terminology is used:

M.2.1.1 Significantly More Important: The factor or sub-factor is substantially more important than another factor or sub-factor. The factor or sub-factor is given far more consideration than another factor or sub-factor.

M.2.1.2 More Important: The factor or sub-factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor or sub-factor. The factor or sub-factor is given more consideration than another factor or sub-factor.

M.2.1.3 Equal: The factor or sub-factor is the same in value as another factor or sub-factor.

Importance of Evaluation factors and elements are listed below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1: Technical Knowledgeability Sub-factor 2: Key Personnel

Factor 2: Management/Staffing Approach Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

M.2.1.4 The relative importance of the evaluation factors and elements are as follows:

1. Evaluation Criteria are listed in order of priority. Technical Capability will be significantly more important than Management Approach, which is considered more important than Past Performance.

2. Technical Capability, Management Approach, and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than Price.

3. Where the selection official reasonably regards proposals being essentially equal with respect to the Technical Capability, Management Approach and Past Performance factors, Price can become the determining factor in making the selection as to the “Best Value Offeror”.

4. To receive consideration for selection, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for Technical Capability. A rating of Unacceptable for any individual sub-factor/sub-element will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

M.3.2. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

M.3.2.1. 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 Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation. 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.

M.3.2.2. 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 devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.4 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

M.4.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

When evaluating Technical Capability; the Government will determine if an offeror understands the complexity of the tasks listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors must also provide details of how their technical capabilities set them apart of other offerors.

M.4.1.1 Sub-factor 1: Technical Knowledgeability

M.4.1.1.1. The Government will evaluate how the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the PWS as it relates to the mission and role of JCCSE, NGB and supported activities. Further, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of their role, as potential awardee, in support of this requirement.

M.4.1.1.2. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach in terms of how well the methodology proposed will accomplish the requirements of the PWS and how effectively the proposal describes, in detail, how the offeror intends to meet the requirements therein. Proposals that provide a clear and thorough explanation regarding how the offeror will provide a quality solution to the requirements outlined in the PWS will be rated more favorably than offers that provide limited detail (including merely restating the requirements in the

PWS).

M.4.1.1.3. The Government will evaluate the offeror's unique processes and/or approaches to overcome performance risks in performance of the required task.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s detailed explanation of how their process and/or approach will deliver timely and effective services. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s process to how they will manage changing customer needs and requirements.

M.4.1.1.4. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed plan to provide staffing to ensure appropriate labor resources (qualifications, labor categories, etc.) are commensurate to the tasks outlined in the PWS.

M.4.1.2 Sub-factor 2: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s proposed key personnel listed below:

M.4.1.2.1 Program Manager: Responsible for the contract deliverable requirements and the performance of the contract duties to the Government PM.

Must clearly show proficiency in technical area of the contract. Provides guidance and plans operations of the contract staff to accomplish the mission. Responsible for administrative, financial reporting, and technical requirements; works directly with customer. Must be able to make customer requirements translate to technical direction.

M.4.1.2.1.1 Education and experience requirements: B.A or B.S degree. Four years of directly relevant experience may be substituted for degree. Ten (10) years of IT experience; including four (4) years directing a project in similar scope.

M.4.1.2.1.2 Qualifications for all proposed key personnel shall be demonstrated by providing resumes for candidates being offered for consideration.

The Contractor shall provide resumes for all Key Personnel

Additional Consideration

M.4.1.2.2 A SECRET security clearance from the Defense Security Service is required for all Contractor employees. Personnel working in the functional area of Cybersecurity and Risk Management Framework (RMF) should have a TOP SECRET clearance from the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office and be Secret Compartmentalized Information (SCI) eligible. All work is to be performed in accordance with the attached DD254 and the onsite specifications. This also requires the ability to qualify for a Common Access Card and SIPRNET token for use on a Government computer network.

M.4.2 Factor 2 – Management/Staffing Approach

M.4.2.1 Management approach will determine the capability of the organization to manage the fulfillment of the objectives of the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the knowledge, capability, and experience regarding the RFP requirements, as well as the offeror’s corporate viability. Offerors’ management approach must also describe how they will communicate with the government, handle corrective actions, and implement improvement methods as demonstrated through understanding of the requirement. Lastly, offerors’ must propose how they will assemble and retain the qualified and, in some cases, certified staff.

M.4.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

M.4.3.1 The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. In accordance with the solicitation, each contractor is instructed to provide no more than five (5) past performance surveys from customers for whom the contractor has performed similar (size, scope and complexity) contracts within the past three (3) years. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality ((including general trends in contractor performance and source of information), relevancy (including context of data), and recentness of the offeror's past performance.

M.4.3.2 When assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on past performance of the offeror and its proposed subcontractors under existing and prior contracts over the past three years as it relates to all solicitation requirements. Offerors that would be eliminated from the competitive range solely based on negative findings in past performance shall be given an opportunity to address such findings.

(A) Recency Assessment. 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 the purpose of this solicitation, recency is performance occurring within the last three (3) years.

(B) Relevancy Assessment. The offeror’s past performance must be assessed to determine the relevancy of an effort accomplished by the offeror to the effort to be acquired through the source selection with regard to price, recency and similarity of scope. 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.

(1) A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a “Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

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.

(C) Quality Assessment. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted 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. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team 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.

(D) Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts evaluated. The role of the contractor in the performance of a given effort, as well as that contractor's proposed role in the performance of this requirement may be considered in the formulation of the performance confidence assessment. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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

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

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.

M.4.3.3 A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process.

Adverse Past Performance 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 a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M.4.3.4 Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving good past performance rests with the offerors.

M.4.3.5 Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

M.4.4 NON-PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

M.4.4.1 The NG-J6/CIO will evaluate each non-price offer to identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies for the

Technical and Management factors and sub factors. These terms are defined as follows:

M.4.4.1.1 A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the offer 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.

M.4.4.1.2 A strength is defined as an aspect of the offer that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

M.4.4.1.3 A weakness is defined as a flaw in the offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

M.4.4.1.4 A significant weakness is defined as a flaw in the offer that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

M.4.4.1.5 A deficiency is a material failure of an offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

M.4.4.1.6 A clarification is limited exchange between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated

M.4.5 TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT FACTOR EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

M.4.5.1 The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

M.4.5.2 This evaluation methodology will be used on the Technical and Management factors to include all sub factors of these factors. Offerors will receive an adjectival rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” for each sub factor under these factors (Technical and Management).

M.4.5.3 Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1. Each Technical Capability and Management Element (to include sub factors) will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. The factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

M.5 Factor 4: Price

M.5.1 The price factor will be evaluated, but not scored or objectively rated. The degree of importance of the price factor will increase as the technical and past performance differences in the proposal decreases. Price will be examined to determine reasonableness of cost elements as identified in Section L of the solicitation. Price proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness and pricing balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

M.5.2 Price reasonableness will be evaluated in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(a) and (b). Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

M.5.3 As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Offerors are required only to price the M.5.4 base and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

M.5.5 In case of discrepancy between a unit price and an extended price listed in the SF1449 Schedule of Supplies/Services the unit price will be presumed to be correct subject to correction to the same extent and in the same manner as any other mistake.

The Price Schedule will be presumed correct if there is any discrepancy in any part of the proposal when compared to the Price Schedule/Staffing Worksheet. See FAR 52.212-4(s) Order of precedence for further guidance.

M.5.6 The evaluation process described in subsections above will include the aggregate firm-fixed price (FFP) for the basic requirement (to include phase-in) and all options.

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

M.6 AWARD

M.6.1 It is the government's intention to award a single contract without discussions.

However, the government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the best interests of the government to do so. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Government does enter into discussions, they may be only held with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Accordingly, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a quality and price standpoint M.6.1.2 The Government reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. If a minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process.

M.6.1.3. Should discussions be held, a final proposal revision shall be requested; at which time the remaining qualified offerors may submit revisions to their proposals by an established cut-off date. Final proposal revisions will be evaluated against the same criteria and factors as were the initial offers.

M.6.1.4. Enforceability of Proposal: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, plans, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

M.6.1.5. Until a formal notice of award is issued, no communication by the Government, either written or oral, shall be interpreted as a promise that an award will be made. No cost chargeable to the prospective contract shall be incurred before receipt of a fully executed contract or other specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

L.1.1 These instructions are a guide for preparing a proposal. These instructions describe the type and extent of information required, and emphasize the significant areas to be addressed in the proposal. Review the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in this Request for Proposal (RFP) for further insight into the areas that must be addressed within the proposal. Include detailed information sufficient to enable the Government evaluators to conduct a meaningful review and make a determination relative to the Offeror's understanding of the requirements in each of the evaluated areas. It is the Government's intent to award one Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract with some non-fee bearing cost elements (e.g. Travel) which are ancillary to the services provided.

L.1.1.1. In accordance with FAR Subpart 19.1405, this solicitation is set-aside 100% for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns. All offerors must meet the requirements outline in FAR 19.1403 in order to be eligible to submit an offer under this solicitation.

L.1.1.2. The primary NAICS codes for this solicitation is 541519 –Other Computer Related Services. The size standard for this NAICS code is $27.5M.

L.1.2. The offeror’s proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for evaluation and substantiation of the validity of stated claims. The Government may consider the offeror’s assertions or merely restating or paraphrasing the Governments requirements without further explanation, clarification, or context to be weaknesses or deficiencies. Therefore, the offeror should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but shall provide a rationale or explanation to convince the Government that the offeror’s approach will meet the Government requirements.

Likewise, the Government will not consider assertions or representations without substantiation and context to be convincing or explanatory.

L.1.3 In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency, consisting of only those proposals that have a reasonable chance of award without a major rewrite.

Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors are cautioned to examine this RFP in its entirety, inclusive of clauses and provisions incorporated by reference, and to ensure that proposals contain all necessary information, provide all required documentation, and are complete in all respects. The Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information nor does the Government assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. During the evaluation process, the Government may request clarifications as needed. Clarifications do not constitute discussions and an Offeror is not permitted to change its proposal in response to a request for clarification.

L.1.4. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the company's capability and experience. The basis of the Government’s evaluation is the information offerors present in their proposals.

L.1.5. A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror's best efforts in response to this RFP. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and the price shall be explained in the proposal.

L.1.6. The proposal shall be valid for 180 days from the required submission date.

L.1.7 Offers, modifications, revisions, or withdrawals of Offers received after the date established in this RFP for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1. Offerors are advised that they must notify the contracting officer immediately if there is any change to their proposal after submission (e.g. a proposed employee departs the company or is no longer available).

L.2. FORMAL COMMUNICATION, OFFEROR EXPLANATIONS

L.2.1. The Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Any explanation desired by an offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the solicitation, for proposals, Performance Work Statement (PWS), etc., must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach offerors before the submission of their offer. A cut-off date for receiving questions concerning the RFP has been established as 4:00 pm, EST, January 23rd, 2017. Responses will be posted not later than a week prior to closing. Because of the tight time constraints involved in this requirement, questions will not be addressed after that date. After January 23rd, 2017, sufficient time will not be available to answer questions and give ample time for the interested offerors to make changes or respond. At this time, the Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date.

L.2.1.1. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to address questions received after the cutoff date with those offers deemed responsive and/or in the competitive range (if established) after closing. OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS EARLY IN THIS PROCESS. Any interpretations made will be in the form of an amendment of the solicitation and will be furnished to all prospective offerors via posting to www.fedbizopps.gov. Explanations or instructions given in a form other than an amendment to the solicitation shall not be binding. Questions (on a non-attribution basis) and answers shall be furnished to all prospective offerors via the web site.

L.2.2. Submit proposal questions by email to the contracting office at the addresses shown below:

National Guard Bureau

Subject Line: Questions W9133L-17-R-0003 Email: cole.p.cook.civ@mail.mil and cc: cicely.d.simmons-carroll.civ@mail.mil

L.2.3. AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS: The right is reserved, as the interest of the Government may require, to revise or amend the solicitation prior to and/or after the date set for receipt of proposals as necessary. Such amendments, if any, will be announced by an amendment or amendments to this Request for Proposal. All information relating to this RFP, including pertinent changes/amendments and information prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, will be posted on www.fedbizopps.gov. Though every effort will be made to provide email notification when a change is posted, such notification is NOT guaranteed and should not be expected. Offerors are strongly cautioned to check this site frequently and to “refresh” their web page to ensure they have the latest information.

L.3. SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

L.3.1. The proposal shall be prepared in a clear and legible manner. In addition, the Offeror shall write the proposal in English and the proposal must be specific and complete as described in these instructions. Offerors shall not specifically prepare samples or descriptive literature for submission with the proposal. Adherence to the prescribed format is required. An official authorized to bind the firm shall sign the Standard Form (SF) 1449, all signed amendment coversheets, SF30, and all certifications requiring original signature. Electronic signatures are acceptable.

L.3.2. All information pertaining to a particular volume shall be confined to that volume.

For example, no Price information shall be included in any volume other than the Price Proposal volume. The Government is not required to and will not search other volumes for a missing file.

L.3.3. Offerors shall not include CLASSIFIED material in the proposal. Proprietary data contained in the offer must be clearly marked as such by the offeror, and shall be handled in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013.

L.3.4 Offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS) and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code.

L.3.5. Each offeror must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the offer in order to be considered for award. When evaluating an offer, the Government will consider how well the offeror complied with both the letter and spirit of these instructions. The government will consider any failure on the part of an offeror to comply with both the letter and spirit of these instructions to be an indication of the type of conduct it can expect during contract performance. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to contact the Contract Specialist by e-mail in order to request an explanation of any aspect of these instructions.

L.3.6. There are three acceptable methods to deliver the proposal. Offerors shall mail, hand-deliver, submit their proposals digitally via email. Offerors shall submit proposals in a sealed package and shall clearly mark the outer portion of the sealed package with the address specified below:

NGB-AQ

ATTN: Cole Cook (4TS-112) 111 S George Mason Dr.

Arlington, VA 22204

L.3.6.1. Should the Government want to print the volumes of the proposal, 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 sequentially numbered from 1 to 'x', with 'x' being the final page of the volume, inclusive of all appendices and attachments. Proposal shall conform to the following characteristics:

Margins - Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1" Gutter - 0" From Edge - Header, Footer 0.5" Page Size, Width - 8.5" Page Size, Height - 11" Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 12 pt for text. (8-12 pt for charts, tables and illustrations).

Font Size for Charts, Illustrations and Tables: No less than 8 pt Format: Adobe PDF (Except for Price Model).

L.3.7. Offers must be received at the below address no later than:

12 Noon ET, Friday, February 10th, 2017.

L.4. OFFER FORMAT

L.4.1. The Offeror shall submit one (1) softcopy and/or four (4) copies of proposal Volumes I, II and III. Volume I shall contain the auxiliary supporting price data Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The Government considers all proposals as “For Official Use Only" and to contain "Source Selection Information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104.

L.4.2. The offer shall meet the following format requirements:

L.4.2.1. Fold-out pages shall be counted as two pages for page limitation purposes.

Offerors shall number pages sequentially by volume or plan. Offerors shall number pages printed on both sides, if both sides contain information.

L.4.2.2. The offeror’s hardcopy version of the proposals shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Text shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font shall be Times New Roman, the font size shall be no less than 12 point; print pages shall have at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 1 inch side margins. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, any readable font is acceptable, but the font size shall be no smaller than 8 point.

L.4.2.3. The offeror may use legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures wherever practical to depict systems, implementation schedules, and plans. These displays shall be legible and easy to follow and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and each foldout shall count as two pages. The offeror may only use foldout pages for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for pages of text.

L.4.2.4. The offeror shall deliver proposal softcopies via email, and softcopies shall comprise all data submitted in the hard copy (e.g. all proposal volumes and the auxiliary supporting data Microsoft Excel spreadsheets). Softcopies shall be in Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat compatible formats only. Offeror shall ensure that data contained in digital form is virus-free. Offeror shall label each attachment with the volume title, solicitation number, company name, and date.

L.4.2.4.1. Digital Microsoft (MS) Word files and MS Excel files shall be compatible with MS Office 2013.

L.4.2.4.1.(a) Please Note: Do not lock or password protect any file (e.g. *.doc, *.pps, *.xls, *.txt,*.msg).

L.4.2.5. In the event hardcopy and softcopy content conflict, the hardcopy version will take precedence over softcopy version.

L.4.2.6. Each hardcopy proposal volume shall be in its own three-ring loose-leaf binder, which shall permit the pages to lie flat when open.

L.4.3. Offerors should use cross-references within their offer and provide a clear, consistent reference system by section, paragraph, page, etc. The cross-reference index is excluded from the page limitation of the offer.

L.4.4. The offer shall be limited to the following submissions and pages:

L.4.4.1. Volume I, RFP Documents and Price Proposal No page limit

L.4.4.2. Volume II, Technical and Management 40 pages (includes both factors and subfactors)

Factor 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Knowledgeability Sub-Factor 2 – Key Personnel Factor 2 – MANAGEMENT/STAFFING APPROACH

L.4.4.3. Volume III, Past Performance 15 pages

L.4.5. The page limits do not apply to the QC plan, Questionnaires, cover letter, solicitation, Amendments, table of contents, cross reference index, resumes, definitions, required representations and certifications. The Government shall treat page limitations as maximums. If exceeded, the Contracting Officer will remove the excess pages prior to the evaluation. The Government will not read or evaluate removed pages.

L.5. PROPOSAL CONTENT

L.5.1. Volume I RFP Documents and Price Proposal

L.5.2. RFP documents shall contain the signed original of all documents requiring signature of the offeror. This would include the Standard Form (SF) 1449. Offerors are cautioned that the SF 1449 (original submission) must contain an original signature in Block 17 of the form. Each offeror should complete (fill-ins and signatures) and submit the original as stated below. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the offer and all certifications requiring original signature. PART I should include the following information:

L.5.2.1. (Tab 1) Executive Summary - A summary cover letter to the proposal should provide the following: Identification of the proposal POC and phone number; Cage Code, DUNS Number and Tax Identification Number TIN.

L.5.2.1.1. Also include a list of the proposal package contents;

L.5.2.1.2. Name of the offeror’s cognizant DCAA office, if available, DCAA POC and phone number; date of last audit

L.5.2.1.3. List of subcontractors and the task areas of expertise in which they will perform. (Note: In accordance with 13 CFR 125.6 and FAR 52.219-14, “Limitation of Subcontracting” at least 50% of the work must be performed by either the small business acting as the Prime Contractor or a small business JV). If a formal teaming agreement is contemplated provide a copy of the agreement.

L.5.2.1.4. Indicate socioeconomic status (see paragraph 6.2.4 below)

L.5.2.1.5. Provide Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Pre-award Clearance Information. To expedite the Government’s EEO pre-award clearance request process, the prime Contractor shall include a list of all proposed subcontractors with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $10 million or more, to include the following information:

Name, address, individual’s name/point of contact, and telephone number. The Government plans to request EEO clearances early in the evaluation process to avoid possible delays in making contract awards.

L.5.2.1.6. Joint Venture and Teaming Information.

L.5.2.1.7. Include a narrative addressing the financial capability of the prime Contractor, critical subcontractors, teaming Contractors, and/or Joint Venture partners. This narrative should demonstrate the understanding of and capability to meet the financial requirements of the solicitation.

L.5.2.2. (Tab 2) Section A – Standard Form 1449, Solicitation Offer and Award.

Acknowledgment of Amendments can be made on the face of the SF 1449 or signed copies of the amendments can be included in this Section.

L.5.2.3. (TAB 3) Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. Include any Representations and Certifications contained in Section K of this solicitation only. All potential offerors are required to register in the System for Award Management (SAM), https://www.sam.gov/index.html/#1 in order to complete the annual Representations and Certifications requirements of the solicitation. Note: the SAM site has incorporated the former "ORCA" and "CCR" websites site for completing your business representations and certifications. The SAM site contains a FAQs, user guides and videos for assistance. Ensure your SAM information is up-to-date and does not expire before the solicitation due date. You are not required to provide a copy of the Representations and Certifications with your written proposal. Do include any Representations and Certifications contained in Section K of this solicitation, which are in addition to the annual certifications on SAM. Additionally, provide the following in Tab 3 concerning your Business Size. Include all categories that are applicable-explanations/definitions of these can be found in the representations and certifications located at the SAM link above. Offerors are reminded that it is their responsibility to ensure that their SAM Representations and Certifications are accurate and current as of the date of their proposal submission.

L.5.2.4. Information provided below will be used to verify your certifications. Check all that are applicable ( ) Small Business ( ) Small Business, Woman Owned ( ) Small Business, HUBZone (Certified) ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Certified Section 8(a) Contractor - SBA District of Certification_______________ ( ) Small Veteran Owned Business ( ) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

L.5.2.5. Section I clauses that require contractor completion.

L.5.2.6. Offeror POCs: The Offeror is required to provide at least two (2) company individuals whose responsibilities will include reading and responding to Evaluation Notices (ENs). For example, the Offeror's Contract Manager, as an agent of the company might be the main agent responsible, but a second agent should be available in case of the main agent's unavailability. The agents' names, company titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses should be provided. A Title Page is allowable to provide for the restriction or disclosure and use of data as specified in FAR Clause 52.215-1.

L.5.2.7 FACILITY SECURITY CLEARANCE

L.5.2.7.1 No award will be made to any offeror, which does not possess a facility security clearance issued by the Defense Investigative Service at the Secret level. The Government will initiate appropriate security clearance action for any apparent successful offerors, which do not already possess such clearance. The Government is not obligated to delay award pending security clearance of any offeror.

L.5.2.7.2 The security classification of this procurement is specified in the Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, attached hereto.

L.5.2.8. By responding to this solicitation, the Offeror agrees to meet all the requirements incorporated herein, including those listed in the PWS, and agrees to all terms, conditions, and provisions.

L.5.2.9. (TAB 4) Price: The Pricing tab will include a comprehensive summary of all pricing information for the proposed services. The offeror shall submit a price proposal describing proposed pricing data for contract performance. The price proposal shall include a basis of estimate describing the rationale, and relating pricing to the Technical/Management proposal. The offeror shall state all ground rules and assumptions used to derive, develop, or calculate prices.

L.5.2.9.1 The offeror shall submit its price model (Attachment 1) in Microsoft Excel format, utilizing any of the following versions: Microsoft Office 2000, 2007, 2013 or Office XP. Spreadsheets shall be sent in a file format that includes all formulas, macro, and format information. Print image is not acceptable. The offeror shall at a minimum complete the Price Model provided at Attachment 1 to this RFP and provide additional detail necessary to verify compliance with any applicable wage determination and the provisions of FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

Any specific narrative regarding Volume Three (3) shall be submitted via a separate document in the form of Adobe PDF. Modifications to the labels of indirect rate categories and related formulas within the price model are permitted only to the extent necessary to conform to the offeror's accounting practices.