W9133L-17-R-0028-0002_signed.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

The purpose of this amendment is to: 1.) Extend the due date for proposals to 1300 EST on 12 JAN 18, 2.) Clarify the Government's intent for the price evaluation factor in Section M and update Attachment 1 (Price Proposal Matrix) and 3) Update the language contained w ithin the Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions table. See continuation pages and the updated Attachment 1 - Price Proposal Matrix.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 19

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Jan-2018

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-0028

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Aug-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 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

04-Jan-2018

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-0028

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1 INTRODUCTION. The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital copies, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

2 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of six volumes. The Volumes are: I –Technical Approach; II – Management Approach; III–Past Performance; IV- Small Business Participation Plan, V - Price; and VI–Solicitation. Files shall not contain classified data.

The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. An Offeror's failure to provide in its proposal the information specified below may result in that proposal not being considered by the Government for award.

All supporting data required for development of the proposal shall be included or summarized in each proposal within the stated page limitations. Mere statements that the Offeror understands the requirements and can or will comply with the requirements without supporting information are not acceptable and may be reason for determining a proposal to be unacceptable.

Offerors are required to extend the validity of proposals for at least 120 days from the due date of offers.

2.1.1 Submittal of Solicitation Questions

Communications and questions concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification shall be made in writing to the Contracting Specialists, MAJ Mark Williams and Mr. Neal Dedicatoria.

The due date for communications and questions will be 1600 hours (Eastern Time) on

08 JAN 2018.

As soon as an Offeror is aware of any problems or ambiguities in interpreting the specifications, terms or conditions, instructions or evaluation criteria of this solicitation, the Offeror should promptly notify the Contracting Officer.

Electronic submission of questions and comments shall be submitted to the contract specialists at neal.h.dedicatoria2.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.williams1.mil@mail.mil.

Electronic mail attachments, if included, shall be prepared using Microsoft Office 2000 (or greater). It is preferred that only one set of questions be submitted by each Offeror instead of multiple sets of questions. When submitting questions and comments, please refer to the specific text of the RFP in the following format:

Subject: RFP No. W9133L-17-R-0028 Reference: RFP Section ___, Paragraph(s) ____, Page(s) ____.

All questions will be answered via amendment and provided to all vendors on

FEDBIZOPPS.

2.1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions.

During the evaluation process, the Government may, at its discretion enter into clarifications or communications as needed. The Government need not enter into communications or clarifications with all Offerors.

In evaluating the proposals, the Government may establish a Competitive Range to reduce the Offerors participating in the competition to only those Offerors most likely to receive the award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified officially in writing.

If the Government determines discussions are necessary, the Government will establish a competitive range and begin negotiations with those firms within the competitive range. During the negotiation process, all proposal revisions must be submitted electronically in MS Word track changes format and accompanied by a complete electronic resubmission of the electronic file.

3 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

3.2 Printing should be single-spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

3.3 The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME TITLE DIGITAL

COPIES

MAXIMUM

PAGES

I *Technical Approach N/A N/A

I a. –Subfactor I – Overall IDIQ contractTechnical Approach

1 30

I b. – Technical Approach Subfactor II –Sample Task Order Proposal

1 100

II – Management Approach 1 30 III – Past Performance 1 N/A IV Small Business Participation 1 N/A V – Price 1 N/A VI – Solicitation 1 N/A

*The OCI Risk Mitigation Plan will not count against the Page Limitations above.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

3.4 Proposal Files.

3.4.1 Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

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

NOTE: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations;

however, each 11X17 page counts as two pages.

3.4.2 Restrictions. The following additional restrictions apply:

(a) File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be separate uploads in PDF format. Zip disks are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each file shall be labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self-extracting exe files are not acceptable. **

(b) Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

3.5 Proposal Submission

(a) Proposal Due Date and Time. The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volumes I through VI, shall be submitted by 1300 hours (Eastern Time) on 12 JAN 2018. Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the Government after the proposal due date and time will be considered “late” and, at the Government’s discretion, may not be considered.

(b) Paper copies of the proposal are not required, however should an Offeror choose to send one, they can be submitted to the address listed below:

NGB-AQ

Attn: MAJ Mark Williams/ Mr. Neal Dedicatoria 111 George Mason Drive Arlington, VA 22204

Electronic proposal submissions shall be submitted to the Contracting Specialists neal.h.dedicatoria2.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.williams1.mil@mail.mil.

Upon receipt of an Offeror’s proposal, the Contracting Specialist will e-mail the vendor a confirmation of receipt of the proposal and the Government’s ability to open all attachments.

4 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL APPROACH.

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Overall IDIQ contract Technical Approach. Evaluation emphasis will be placed on:

o Accomplishment of the Requirements of the IDIQ contract PWS. The Government will evaluate the technical approach in terms of how 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 of the overall IDIQ contract. 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).

o Understanding of the IDIQ contract Requirements. The Government will evaluate how the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the overall IDIQ contract requirements as it relates to the mission and role of the Army National Guard (ARNG) Recruiting Enterprise and the ARNG as a whole. Further, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of their role, as potential awardee, in support of this IDIQ contract.

Below are some items/examples (not all-inclusive) the Government will consider when evaluating the Offerors overall IDIQ contract Technical Approach:

o Recruiting and Retention Management Support Services. Real time data analysis and data visualization capabilities for decision making support to include, but not be limited to the following: End Strength, Effective manning ; Advertising and Marketing Return on Investment; Sales Force Return on Investment;

Effectiveness of Strategy; and Effective Use of Metrics.

o Digital Outreach and Advertising. How the Offeror intends to leverage digital and social media channels to reach an ever-shifting target demographic, focusing on adjusting to media consumption trends and developing technology sets. Offerors that can demonstrate the ability to stay ahead of trends and innovate will be viewed as more desirable to the Government.

o Local Recruiting and Retention Activity Support. How the Offeror’s Technical approach is able to best meet the unique and diverse requirements of the ARNG’s highly decentralized execution model; ensuring consistency with State Brands and objectives.

o National/Regional Advertising. How the Offeror proposes to design, build, and execute media campaigns leveraging, Print, Online, Outdoor Marketing, Direct Marketing and to maximize effectiveness and ROI through media mix models and data driven decision making processes.

o State/Regional Event Outreach. Offeror should demonstrate an approach that can integrate marketing event data with overall strategy objectives.

o Creative Support Services. Offeror’s approach to provide support for print and other related media source products. This approach should be able to strongly integrate with the Government organic creative team.

o The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for the IDIQ contract pursuant to the Offeror’s completed Attachment #1, IDIQ Price Proposal Matrix. All Offerors shall fill out Attachment 1, to be considered for award. Failure to complete Attachment 1 are grounds for the Offeror to be found non-responsive and not be considered for award.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Sample Task Order Proposal.

Evaluation emphasis will be placed on:

o The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach in terms of how well the methodology proposed will accomplish the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS and how effectively the proposal describes, in detail, how the offeror intends to meet the requirements of the sample task. 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).

o The Government will evaluate the offeror's unique processes and/or approaches to overcome performance risks in performance of the Sample Task Order. 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.

o The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor mix to provide staffing for the Sample Task Order to ensure appropriate labor resources (levels of effort and labor categories) are commensurate to the tasks outlined in the Sample Task Order.

Below are areas of particular interest that will be evaluated by the Government to determine the Offeror’s approach to maximize effectiveness and ROI through media mix models and data driven decision making processes. Additional emphasis will be placed on:

o Media Buys: How the Offeror will utilize and maximize advertisement coverage in regards to the following: (1) State; (2) Media Type; (3) Vendor (4) Media Type Description; (5) Quantity; (6) Frequency; (7) Return on Investment (ROI) (How many leads, engagements or impressions?); (8) Dates of Placement; (9) Pricing information; (10) any other information critical to determining value of media placement.

o Marketing Plans and Assessment. How the Offeror will address: Mission Priorities, Areas of Focus, Marketing and Advertising Objectives and Budget Allocation for the State of Florida.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's OCI Risk Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan must minimize any potential conflict to an acceptable risk level. An Offeror that fails to submit an acceptable plan will be ineligible for award.

5 VOLUME II – MANAGEMENT APPROACH.

This volume shall be organized as follows:

The Offeror shall discuss completely and in detail its proposed approach for the management of the requirement including the following:

a) The implementation of proposed solutions with reference to the timely delivery of reliable, secure, flexible, responsive, and compliant services;

b) The approach to managing and coordinating its subcontractor efforts;

c) The processes for internal team communication, monitoring team performance, and resolving team conflict;

d) The organizational approach to the extent that it demonstrates clear lines of communication with delegated authority, which allows for timely accomplishment of tasks, timely submission of deliverables, immediate resolution of task discrepancies and establishes corrective action plans;

e) The approach and methodologies to the planning, execution, tracking, and reporting of the tasks under this contract demonstrating sound and logical business practices;

f) The project management approach and methodology for ensuring that cost, schedule and performance objectives are controlled, reported, and managed;

g) The approach for managing tasks, demonstrating knowledge and application of project management disciplines, including: the tools and methodologies for planning the activities of its team(s), scheduling, organizing, and deploying resources, controlling the execution of the task, monitoring progress, status reporting, resolving critical issues, and planning for subsequent phases of work;

h) The approach to monitor, inspect, and correct deficiencies relating to execution of requirements in the PWS; and

i) The approach to recruiting, training and retaining high quality personnel.

6 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE.

Past Performance Questionnaire. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 4 and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete all other sections of the questionnaire and e-mail the completed questionnaire to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist no later than the proposal due date. The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The contractor shall submit past performance data when the effort is either ongoing or has been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of the RFP. Past performance data is relevant if it is performed under a single contract or order that is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this RFP to include joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) past performance. The offeror must submit at least three but no more than five past performance references/questionnaires. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in MS Word (doc) or MS Excel (xls) Table Format to include the following fields: Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC’s Name, Title, Telephone Number and E-mail Address.

7 VOLUME IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal, Attachment 5. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

8. VOLUME V – PRICE. This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed pricing. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required;

however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. All Offerors must submit their price proposal in accordance with Attachment 1.

The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

8.1 The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.

8.2 The proposal shall set forth a summary of the total estimated price-by-price element and shall provide a breakdown of the proposed estimated pricing of each CLIN separately, including all direct and indirect charges and fees. In order to maintain a minimum level of commonality between proposals, each offeror is required to complete (in it's entirety) the Price Proposal Matrix provided in Attachment 1. The pricing summary spreadsheets shall be provided for the base effort and each option year. All documentation furnished to support the price summaries are to be provided in a format chosen by the offeror that is easily traceable to the price summary sheets.

8.3 For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is 28 FEB 2018.

8.4. The offeror shall submit a complete breakdown of price by major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a member of the offeror’s overall team who is expected to perform 20% or more of the proposed effort.

9. VOLUME VI – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

9.2 Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in Volume VI.

END OF STATEMENT OF SECTION L

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

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 five evaluation factors:

1. Technical Approach � Sub-factor 1 – Overall IDIQ Technical Approach � Sub-factor 2 – Sample Task Order Proposal

2. Management Approach

3. Past Performance

4. Small Business Participation Plan

5. Price

The Technical Approach factor is considered more important than the Management Approach factor.

The Management Approach Factor is considered more important than the Past Performance factor. The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Plan. All non-priced factors combined are considered more important than the price factor. Each of the subfactors under the Technical Approach are equal in weight. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Approach, Management Approach and Small Business Participation factors and must be rated no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” and “Relevant” for the Past Performance factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE CONSIDERED MORE IMPORTANT THAN

PRICE.

Relative order of importance terminology. An evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria set forth below. Evaluation criteria consists of five factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the Government and as required by law, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:

a) Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor.

The factor is given far more consideration than another factor.

b) 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.

c) Equal. The factor is the same in value as another factor.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

Factor 1: The Technical Approach factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Overall IDIQ Technical Approach

b. Subfactor 2 – Sample Task Order Proposal

All subfactors are considered to be equal in weight.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Management Approach: Each offeror's proposed management approach will be evaluated as set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 4. Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

Factor 5: Price: The resulting award will be a FFP IDIQ contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

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

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

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven 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.

D. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Factor 1 - Technical Approach

The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Overall IDIQ contract Technical Approach.

Evaluation emphasis will be placed on:

o Accomplishment of the Requirements of the IDIQ contract PWS. The Government will evaluate the technical approach in terms of how 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 of the overall IDIQ contract. 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).

o Understanding of the IDIQ contract Requirements. The Government will evaluate how the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the overall IDIQ contract requirements as it relates to the mission and role of the Army National Guard (ARNG) Recruiting Enterprise and the ARNG as a whole. Further, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of their role, as potential awardee, in support of this IDIQ contract.

Below are some items/examples (not all-inclusive) the Government will consider when evaluating the Offerors overall IDIQ contract Technical Approach:

o Recruiting and Retention Management Support Services. Real time data analysis and data visualization capabilities for decision making support to include, but not be limited to the following: End Strength, Effective manning ; Advertising and Marketing Return on Investment; Sales Force Return on Investment; Effectiveness of Strategy; and Effective Use of Metrics.

o Digital Outreach and Advertising. How the Offeror intends to leverage digital and social media channels to reach an ever-shifting target demographic, focusing on adjusting to media consumption trends and developing technology sets. Offerors that can demonstrate the ability to stay ahead of trends and innovate will be viewed as more desirable to the Government.

o Local Recruiting and Retention Activity Support. How the Offeror’s Technical approach is able to best meet the unique and diverse requirements of the ARNG’s highly decentralized execution model; ensuring consistency with State Brands and objectives.

o National/Regional Advertising. How the Offeror proposes to design, build, and execute media campaigns leveraging, Print, Online, Outdoor Marketing, Direct Marketing and to maximize effectiveness and Return on Investment (ROI) through media mix models and data driven decision making processes.

o State/Regional Event Outreach. Offeror should demonstrate an approach that can integrate marketing event data with overall strategy objectives.

o Creative Support Services. Offeror’s approach to provide support for print and other related media source products. This approach should be able to strongly integrate with the Government organic creative team.

o The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Labor Mix for the IDIQ contract pursuant to the Offeror’s completed Attachment #1, IDIQ Price Proposal Matrix. All Offerors shall fill out Attachment 1, to be considered for award. Failure to complete Attachment 1 are grounds for the Offeror to be found non-responsive and not be considered for award.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Sample Task Order Proposal. Evaluation emphasis will be placed on:

o The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach in terms of how well the methodology proposed will accomplish the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS and how effectively the proposal describes, in detail, how the offeror intends to meet the requirements of the Sample Task Order. 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).

o The Government will evaluate the offeror's unique processes and/or approaches to overcome performance risks in performance of the Sample Task Order. 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.

o The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor mix to provide staffing for the Sample Task Order to ensure appropriate labor resources (levels of effort and labor categories) are commensurate to the tasks outlined in the Sample Task Order.

Below are areas of particular interest that will be evaluated by the Government to determine the Offeror’s approach to maximize effectiveness and ROI through media mix models and data driven decision making processes. Additional emphasis will be placed on:

o Media Buys: How the Offeror will utilize and maximize advertisement coverage in regards to the following: (1) State; (2) Media Type; (3) Vendor (4) Media Type Description; (5) Quantity; (6) Frequency; (7) Return on Investment (ROI) (How many leads, engagements or impressions?); (8) Dates of Placement; (9) Pricing information; (10) any other information critical to determining value of media placement.

o Marketing Plans and Assessment. How the Offeror will address: Mission Priorities, Areas of Focus, Marketing and Advertising Objectives and Budget Allocation for the State of Florida.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's OCI Risk Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan must minimize any potential conflict to an acceptable risk level. An Offeror that fails to submit an acceptable plan will be ineligible for award.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Management Approach Factor - The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposed approach for the management of the requirement based on the following:

a) Offerors implementation of the proposed solutions with reference to the timely delivery of reliable, secure, flexible, responsive, and compliant services;

b) Offeror’s approach to managing and coordinating its subcontractor efforts;

c) Offeror’s processes for internal team communication, monitoring team performance, and resolving team conflict;

d) Offeror’s organizational approach regarding the extent that it demonstrates clear lines of communication with delegated authority, which allows for timely accomplishment of tasks, timely submission of deliverables, immediate resolution of task discrepancies and establishes corrective action plans;

e) Offeror’s approach and methodologies to the planning, execution, tracking, and reporting of tasks under this contract demonstrating sound and logical business practices;

f) Offeror’s proposed project management approach and methodology for ensuring that pricing, schedule and performance objectives are controlled, reported, and managed;

g) Offeror’s approach for managing tasks, demonstrating knowledge and application of project management disciplines, including: the tools and methodologies for planning the activities of its team(s), scheduling, organizing, and deploying resources, controlling the execution of the task, monitoring progress, status reporting, resolving critical issues, and planning for subsequent phases of work;

h) The Government will evaluate the approach by which the Offeror intends to monitor, inspect, and correct deficiencies relating to execution of requirements in the PWS; and

i) Offeror’s proposed approach to recruiting, training and retaining high quality personnel.

The Government shall rate this factor utilizing the ratings listed in the table below:

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance based on the following:

Recency. The government will evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is defined as work performed in the past three years from the closing date for receipt of proposals. A separate recency rating will not be given, rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating (para. 4.2.4) is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Past performance older than three years will not be considered.

Relevancy. The Government will evaluate how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to this requirement. Aspects of relevancy include but are not limited to: similarity of service, complexity, dollar value, and use of key personnel.

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.

Quality. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offerors' performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality rating will not be given, rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment, 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.”.

Neutral Confidence. In the case of an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral confidence".

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.

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.

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.

5. Small Business Participation Factor. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

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

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

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

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {2%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.50%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {1%} of the total contract value.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

For purposes of evaluation for Factors One, Two and Four, Strength, Significant Strength, Weakness, Significant Weakness and Deficiency are defined as follows:

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 Task Order performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the Task Order.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful Task Order performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Task Order performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Task Order performance.

Price Factor. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness, price realism, completeness and balance for the fixed priced effort. The Government will evaluate each offeror based on information provided in Attachment 1, including each worksheet in Attachment 1.

For the "Base Year," "Option Year 1," and "Option Year 2" worksheets, offerors should include proposed labor rates for the listed positions to satisfy the PWS IDIQ requirements. For the "Sample TO 0001 (Services)" and "Sample TO 0001 (Media Buy)" worksheets, offerors should propose the cost to perform the Sample TO PWS and Sample TO Media Buys to include the level of effort in terms of services provided and media buys in the relevant worksheets.

The combination of the Sample TO 0001 (Services) and Sample TO 0001 (Media Buys) prices will be evaluated as the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the Offeror.

In terms of “price reasonableness”, the Government will focus on whether the price is too high to be considered fair and reasonable. In terms of “price realism”, the Government will focus on whether the price is too low. The Government’s concern is that the offeror may not understand the requirement or may be offering such a low price that there may be disruption to the program such as high employee turnover. In terms of “completeness”, the Government will focus on whether the price appears to cover all of the work identified in the PWS. In terms of “balance”, the Government will focus on whether the pricing is consistent throughout the term of the contract to include any options.

The Government will review CLINs for reasonableness and realism to determine whether they reflect an understanding of Government tasks or contain apparent mistakes this will be considered a performance risk.

The Offerors proposed price must demonstrate a complete understanding of the PWS requirements in relation to the Management and Technical Approach.

(End of Summary of Changes)