RFP W91CRB23R0016 Amendment 02 07072023.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

Amendment 2 is issued to correct an administrative error from Amendment 1 so that the order of the Section L Volume I-Technical Subfactors matches the order of the Section M Volume I-Technical Subfactors as previously included in the RFP. Offerors are reminded that the solicitation closes on 10 July 2023 at 11:00 am EDT. See updates in red on pages 3 and 4.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jul-2023

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 W91CRB23R0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Jun-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Jul-2023

CODE

ACC - APG - W91CRB

BLDG 4310

6515 INTEGRITY COURT

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-3013

W91CRB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91CRB23R0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (SECTION L

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The offeror’s proposal must include all information requested under the Request For Proposal (RFP) to be considered for award.

a. Proposals shall remain valid for a period of at least 180 days from Government receipt. Each volume shall be submitted electronically via email to Esther Casari at esther.casari.ctr@army.mil and to Jeffrey Schoerner at jeffrey.a.schoerner.civ@army.mil. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Offerors are advised to ask the Contracting Officer (KO) for clarification of any part of these instructions that they do not understand. Portions of proposals received may be incorporated into any resulting contract, as determined appropriate by the Government.

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. Standard Arial or Times New Roman 12-point minimum font size is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

All information pertaining to price shall be confined to Volume IV - Price.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Maximum Pages

I Technical 50

II Mission Capability 10 (not including resumes)

III Past Performance 10

IV Price No page limit

V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

No page limit

NOTE: The title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against page count limitations. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be read and will not be evaluated.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. 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. The title page or first page of each volume shall include the Offeror’s name, CAGE code, Unique Entity ID, address, and point of contact. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and Request for Proposal (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”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. Proposals shall be submitted electronically in five (5) volumes, as outlined in Section A(1)(b) above. The title page of each volume shall clearly identify each volume by volume number and volume name, (i.e., Volume I, Introduction), Request for Proposal (RFP) number, and date of submission. Use indexing table of contents to identify all sections within a particular proposal volume. All proposal files shall be created using Microsoft Office products or Adobe Acrobat. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted using the Cost Model ACDB Microsoft Office Excel provided with the RFP.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters and 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. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical. The proposal shall contain adequate information so that the Government can determine whether the proposed services meet all the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors shall not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Proposals that reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation may be determined non-responsive and may not be considered for award. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1 – Subfactor 1. This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to obtain Nondisclosure Agreements (NDAs) required for Department of Defense (DoD) programs within 90 days of contract award. The offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

Discuss experience of instances when NDAs were processed within 90 days of contract award.

The approach shall demonstrate clear evidence of the Offeror's experience within the last five (5) years executing NDAs as required for Department of Defense (DoD) programs.

Section 2 – Subfactor 2. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform Automated Cost Database (ACDB) services for each of the four (4) commodity areas described in the PWS. The Offeror shall discuss experience by, providing two (2) but no more than four (4) examples, and discuss approach and capabilities to provide analysis, recommendations, development and training on datasets and databases of cost information for all four covered commodity areas. The provided information shall substantiate the following:

Clearly explain planned approaches/steps to collect and normalize data for cost estimating purposes.

Clearly explain how the Offeror intends to create organized datasets with both new, raw, and normalized data and organize it into searchable, user-friendly data spreadsheets/repositories/databases for use in analyses by cost estimators.

The offeror shall discuss experience and provide examples, discuss approach and capabilities to wrangle and normalize cost data for the development of benchmarks, methods, custom cost estimating relationships (CERs), cost factors, or other estimating approaches.

Clearly explain data collection approaches (cost, technical, descriptive) from a variety of data sources to include Army data sources and commercially available data sources for all four (4) identified commodities.

Section 3 – Subfactor 3. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s priced thirty-day transition-in plan. The

Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

Clearly demonstrates a reasonable, realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance.

Ensures sufficient resources and trained and qualified personnel are on hand and available to begin work on the effort.

(ii) VOLUME II – Mission Capability. This Factor evaluates the Offeror’s corporate experience. The

Offeror shall submit a proposed Management Approach which ensures performance is achievable for each separate commodity area, and elaborates on all credentials, experience, and qualifications of all listed personnel.

(iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 10 pages, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. Offerors shall submit no more than two (2) Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime and no more than two (2) contracts for each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five (5) years from the issue date of this RFP. All must be relevant to the portion(s) of the PWS that the prime or major subcontractor is expected to perform. Major subcontractors are defined as members of the team who are expected to perform 25% or more of the proposed price. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541519 required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID, and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, current address, e-mail address, and telephone number).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, and telephone number.

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address, and telephone number.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, and telephone number.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, and telephone number.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Task Order and/or Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received for each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to esther.casari.ctr@army.mil and Jeffrey.a.schoerner.civ@army.mil. The offeror shall also e-mail a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire to the to the emails above. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date (month/day) E-Mail was sent to

POC.

(6) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Government agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(iv) VOLUME IV – Price. In order to be considered for award, all Offerors must complete and submit the Cost Model ACDB (Excel Workbook) with the instructions provided therein and an accompanying price narrative volume. If proprietary data will not be shared between the Prime and Subcontractor(s), each Subcontractor’s price proposal volume may be submitted directly to the contracting officer and contract specialist via email.

The price proposal volume shall consist of all information required to support a fair and reasonable pricing determination for all proposed costs and prices. Adequate competition is anticipated in response to this commercial solicitation. Therefore, in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) and (b)(3) certified cost or pricing data is not required, and data other than certified cost or pricing may be required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3. In accordance with FAR 15.403-5(b) the Contracting Officer may specify the format of cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data.

The Price Proposal Volume shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, Narrative discussion, and a completed copy of the Microsoft Excel Price Proposal Model workbook (Attachment A). The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume. Each offeror shall conduct appropriate cost/price analysis to establish the cost/price fairness and reasonableness of any proposed subcontract prices and shall include evidence of the results of these analyses in the offeror's price proposal.

(1) The Offeror shall include pricing within Attachment A - Price Proposal Model as a separate file/appendix to this volume. Offerors shall follow all the instructions in this attachment. Offerors are permitted to alter the format of the spreadsheet (i.e., add and subtract rows, columns, and formulas as necessary, etc.) in order to conform to the nuances of the Offeror’s disclosed accounting practices and estimating systems. However, it is requested that the general format be maintained as much as possible for Government evaluation purposes. This file shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format—offerors shall maintain all spreadsheet formulas as distributed by the Government and shall not convert to PDF, hide or lock cells, etc. Price Proposal spreadsheets/workbooks shall be self-contained and shall not include references to external data sources at time of submission to the Government.

(2) Offerors shall propose their own skill mix and level of effort (labor categories and labor category hours) for the entire effort in order to reflect their approach to satisfying the Government requirements detailed in the Performance Work Statement.

(3) Travel/Other Direct Cost: A normalized annual amount for Travel and Other Direct Costs has been specified by the Government for proposal purposes and included in the Price Proposal Model. Each Offeror shall include the normalized Travel/ODC amounts in their proposal. Offerors are permitted to apply indirect burdens onto the normalized Travel and ODC amounts, however please note that the normalized amounts provided for Travel/ODCs are the ceiling amounts, and any burdens applied will be deducted from the normalized ceilings, reducing the amount of Travel/ODC funding that will be available for contract execution.

(4) For all proposed Key Personnel, as specified in the PWS, the Offeror shall include signed letters of intent (one page maximum) that shall include individual’s name, contingent start date, salary amount and position/title. The letters of intent with unredacted salary amount shall be included in an appendix to the price proposal narrative volume, and the proposed labor rates for those key personnel shall match with the salary amounts identified in the submitted letters of intent.

(5) Use of uncompensated overtime is not encouraged per FAR 37.115-2(a). In accordance with FAR 52.237- 10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, the Offeror and/or subcontractor shall indicate / detail the existence of any uncompensated overtime within their proposed labor rates and its cost/price impact on the Offeror's or subcontractor's proposal.

(6) There is no page limitation on the price proposal. The Government strongly encourages inclusion of supporting documentation and schedules necessary to substantiate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed costs/prices. Offerors are encouraged to provide whatever supplemental supporting narrative information is necessary to help the Government understand why the proposed costs are fair and reasonable. Supporting narrative shall be submitted in Microsoft Word (2016 or later) or Adobe PDF compatible format. Any supporting schedules shall be submitted in a Microsoft Excel (2016 or later) compatible/readable format. Supporting information may include data such as, but not limited to, payroll data (W2, paystubs) and recognized national and regional salary surveys.

(7) Offerors shall provide substantive support for the proposed labor escalation rate(s) with supporting rationale and direct reference to all relevant market forecast data that were utilized in selecting the escalation rates. This data shall be supported within the pricing narrative volume with print screens/excerpts from the data source(s) referenced.

(8) In accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b)(1) each offeror shall conduct appropriate price and/or cost analysis to establish the reasonableness proposed subcontractor cost/prices. Evidence of their review shall be submitted as part of the Offeror’s cost/price proposal. Any subcontractor proprietary information can be submitted under separate cover to the contracting officer if the subcontractor declines to provide documentation to the Offeror.

(v) VOLUME V – Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

(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 1449 and all certifications requiring original signature.

An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449), Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications /Representations.

(2) Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Identification and Risk Mitigation Plan: The Offeror shall conduct due diligence and submit with their proposal an "Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Identification and Mitigation Plan". This plan shall identify all facts that a reasonably prudent person would consider relevant in determining whether a potential conflict of interest might arise in the award or performance of this contract. The OCI Plan shall identify at a minimum all current contracts involving work that may impact the ACDB and Cost Analysis Support program or otherwise create the appearance of an OCI as anticipated by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For any potential conflicts of interest, the Offeror shall provide a mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer. The mitigation plan shall provide verifiable means of eliminating any significant conflict of interest in the performance of this contract. The mitigation plan shall also describe the contractor's current policies for identifying, reporting, and preventing future organizational and personal conflicts of interest that might arise in the performance of this contract. In addition, within the submitted OCI plan, the Offeror shall identify any contractor personnel to be employed under the terms of the submitted proposal who were previously employed, within the last two years, by the Government organization(s) to receive service under this contemplated contract.

B. 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 four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factor is more important than the Mission Capability Factor. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable. The Technical Factor and Mission Capability Factor when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. To receive consideration for award a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors). Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

NOTE: THE TECHNICAL FACTOR AND MISSION CAPABILITY FACTOR ARE SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

C. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 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. The Government reserves the right to make award based on the Price factor in the event that the Technical, Mission Capability, and Past Performance results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical Factor

(i) Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 3.

(ii) Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the Technical factor and subfactors 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 evaluation of each proposal the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating. The combined subfactor ratings will derive an overall Technical Factor rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Mission Capability Factor

(i) Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the Mission Capability factor as detailed in Section L of this proposal. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the Mission Capability factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

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

Factor 4: Price Factor

The resulting award will be a single award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Items (CLINs). Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated 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 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.

2. The Technical proposal shall contain adequate information so that the Government can determine whether the proposed approach meets all of the requirements outlined in the PWS. All requirements specified in the RFP are mandatory. By proposal submission offerors represent that their firm will perform all requirements specified in the RFP. Offerors shall not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirement specified in the RFP. The technical proposal shall demonstrate the ability to meet all solicitation requirements. Offerors shall identify in their proposal if their firm does not meet the minimum requirements. If the firm does not possess the resources to meet the requirements of the PWS, the offeror must discuss how they intend to meet the requirements (i.e., Subcontracting).

Marginal levels of overall subfactor ratings could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s NDA collection approach and experience. The evaluation will focus on the following:

The approach shall demonstrate clear evidence of the Offeror's experience within the last three (3) years executing NDAs as required for Department of Defense (DoD) programs.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform Automated Cost Database (ACDB) services for each of the four (4) commodity areas described in the PWS. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

Clearly explain planned approaches/steps to collect and normalize data for cost estimating purposes.

Clearly explain how the Offeror intends to create organized datasets with both new, raw, and normalized data and organizing into searchable, user-friendly data spreadsheets/ repositories/ databases for use in analyses by cost estimators.

The offeror shall discuss experience and provide examples, discuss approach and capabilities to wrangle and normalize cost data for the development of benchmarks, methods, custom cost estimating relationships (CERs), cost factors, or other estimating approaches.

Clearly explain data collection approaches (cost, technical, descriptive) from a variety of data sources to include Army data sources and commercially available data sources for all four (4) identified commodities.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Transition Plan for the basic contract period and all option years. The evaluation will focus on the following:

Proposes a realistic, achievable, and affordable transition schedule and staffing plan.

Ensures sufficient resources and trained and qualified personnel are on-hand and available to begin work on the effort.

Offers an approach to ensure the availability of trained and qualified personnel.

3. Mission Capability Factor. The evaluation shall be based on the requirements identified in the PWS, and shall elaborate on all credentials, experience, and qualifications required under this section.

The evaluation will determine if the submitted management plan will ensure performance is achievable for each separate ACDB. The evaluation will determine the feasibility of the submitted staffing plan for each separate commodity area.

The Offeror shall provide a resume for each of the following personnel: Program Manager (PM), Subject Matter Experts (a SME shall be provided for each ACDB commodity), Senior Cost Analyst/Researcher(s), Junior Cost Analyst(s)/Data Analyst(s), and Journeyman Cost Analyst(s).

The level of commitment, (employment agreements, letters of intent) for named key and non-key employees will be evaluated in order to reduce the risk that proposed employees may be different from those qualified, proposed for each ACDB commodity area.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating the Technical Approach Factor and Mission Capability Factor and Related Risks is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating

4. Past Performance Factor. Each Offeror’s past performance proposal will be rated as either “Acceptable or Unacceptable” and is based on an assessment of the past performance submitted by the Offeror and the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. This assessment is based on

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the services described in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the services described in the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate how well the Offeror performed on the contracts detailed in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government will focus its evaluation on the forms and questionnaires provided by the Offeror in its proposal and may consider data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance on Government contracts for same or similar services that are relevant and recent.

Under this factor, the Government may evaluate third party references provided for each Offeror and its major subcontractor(s) relevant and recent efforts, to verify the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar in size, scope and complexity to the portion(s) of the PWS that the prime Offeror or applicable major subcontractor is proposed to perform. Recent efforts are defined as those performed during the last five (5) years from the issue date of this RFP.

Offerors shall be deemed to satisfy requirements of the Past Performance factor when ALL references providing feedback as to recent and relevant efforts by the Offeror and each of its major subcontractors, indicate that the Offeror’s performance was acceptable in all of the areas evaluated by the Government. Marginal ratings in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) may be considered Unacceptable.

For the past performance factor, Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Table 2 – Past Performance

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note above).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

5. Price Factor. The total evaluated price (TEP) to be used in the award determination will be the total of ALL CLINs including the Transition-In price. Proposed amounts for Transition-In will be evaluated for price reasonableness as appropriate and will be included as part of the evaluated TEP. A completed copy of Attachment A

- Price Proposal Model shall also be included in all offeror price proposals.

a. The proposed price will not be adjectively rated. Each offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1) the various analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 will be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The level of detail of this analysis will be determined by the contracting officer based on competition and other factors.

b. An offeror’s submitted proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency between the price proposal and other sections of the Offeror’s proposal (e.g., technical proposal), whether real or apparent, shall be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise fundamental questions regarding the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

c. The Government may determine that an Offeror’s price proposal is not awardable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. As detailed in FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items/years are significantly overstated or understated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. If subcontractor sealed volumes are submitted, they will be evaluated by the Government using the same methodology detailed above.

(End of Summary of Changes)