W91QF4-16-R-0002_VSR_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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Add attachment # 08, questions and answ ers from the solicitation.

2. Revise section L of the solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jan-2016

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91QF4-16-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Dec-2015

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

14-Jan-2016

CODE

MICC FORT LEAVENWORTH

535 KEARNY AVE.

BLDG 338

FORT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027

W91QF4 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91QF4-16-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Performance Work

Statement

18 16-DEC-2015

Attachment 02 Performance Req Summary

7 22-JUL-2015

Attachment 03 Wage Determination 10 14-JUL-2015 Attachment 04 Travel Worksheet 8 15-DEC-2015 Attachment 05 Government Furnished

Equip

1 15-DEC-2015

Attachment 06 Relevant Contract Form 6 15-DEC-2015 Attachment 07 UK Travel 32 11-AUG-2015 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Performance Work

Statement

18 16-DEC-2015

Attachment 02 Performance Req Summary

7 22-JUL-2015

Attachment 03 Wage Determination 10 14-JUL-2015 Attachment 04 Travel Worksheet 8 15-DEC-2015 Attachment 05 Government Furnished

Equip

1 15-DEC-2015

Attachment 06 Relevant Contract Form 6 15-DEC-2015 Attachment 07 UK Travel 32 11-AUG-2015 Attachment 08 Questions and Answers 4 14-JAN-2016

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTI

L-I – PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

1. Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF 33, to the following address:

MICC Fort Leavenworth ATTN: Joshua Zachariah 535 Kearney, Bldg 338 Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

2. Offers shall be mailed through a commercial/Government carrier or hand carried. Submissions via fax will not be accepted.

3. The point of contact responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer via the Contract Specialist. Address all questions or concerns the offeror may have to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer joshua.r.zachariah.civ@mail.mil and Ruth.N.Austin.civ@mail.mil.

Technical Questions - shall be sent in writing to Mission and Installation Contracting Command Fort Leavenworth, ATTN: Joshua Zachariah, 535 Kearney, Bldg 338, Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027 or email to joshua.r.zachariah.civ@mail.mil. All questions must be submitted no later than January 06, 2016 12:00 p.m.

Central Time. Telephonic inquiries will not be accepted.

B. General Instructions

1. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection (negotiated) procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria under Section M, “Factors to be Evaluated.” Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

2. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and the proposed contract type.

3. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, IAW FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part

15.306 (c)(2).

4. These instructions prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

5. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

6. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain an electronic copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy the hard copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

7. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

8. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR

15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

C. Proposal Preparation Instructions

1. Offeror’s proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes: General and Price, Mission Capability, and Past Performance.

2. Proposal Format

(a) Offerors shall submit an original and the number of copies listed in paragraph (c) below of their proposal.

(b) Exceptions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors (Sections A through M). Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable Volume and exceptions with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. It is recommended that the Offeror contact the Contracting Officer immediately/prior to solicitation closing upon identifying an area that may result in an exception. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale & Impact

Section B, PWS/SOO/ SOW, Section L&M, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe The rationale and impact of the exception

(c) The proposals shall be organized into three (3) volumes. Proposals are to be neatly bound, binders are not necessary. (If submitting a binder, spine inserts are unnecessary.) A cover sheet should be bound in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification and the offeror's name. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationery and logos are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12 point font). Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections. In addition to submitting hard copies of the proposals, digital copies shall be provided on CD-ROM disk in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel or Adobe PDF formats. Separate disks for each volume are not necessary. All digital files may be on one disk. File names to be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision. Offerors’ submittals shall be free of viruses, Trojans, spyware, and other malicious code for which appropriate detection and removal/quarantines software exists. Page limitations are as follows:

VOLUME TITLE NO. HARD

COPIES

NO. OF

DIGITAL

COPIES

PAGE LIMITS

I General and Price

1 1 N/A

II Mission Capability 3 1 18 III Past Performance 3 1 N/A

(d) Proposal Limitation. The proposal shall not exceed the limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and returned, unread, to the offeror. The Government will not accept any changes to the contractor’s proposal after the closing date of the solicitation (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late proposals). If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notice (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

(e) Page Limit Includes: All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

(f) Page Limit does not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

(g) What Counts As A Page? A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. The Contractor shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion.

In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

(h) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

(i) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each.

3. Proposal Content

(a) Volume I – General and Price. Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 33 (including acknowledgment of Amendments), along with a completed Section B, and Section K of the solicitation document.

Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government. All Excel formulas, lookup tables, and links should be intact, and no links should exist to files not included with the submission. Excel workbooks should not contain hidden spreadsheets. For the Price Volume, the electronic version will take precedence for any differences noted between the hard and electronic versions of an offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of your proposal.

Certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of contracts due to expected competition; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary consistent with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing. Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data is required to determine the proposed price fair and reasonable. The General and Price Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

Exceptions/Assumptions (if required) - Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

SF 33 and SF 30s as applicable - The SF 33/30 shall be fully completed upon submission. The contractor shall acknowledge any amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the SF 33 with Section L, FAR 52.215-1 (b), Instruction to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition. The offeror shall provide the name, title, telephone number, and e-mail address of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs) - Section B shall be submitted fully completed and error free. It shall contain the offeror’s prices for the established Contract Line Items (CLINS).

Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors) – The offeror shall ensure that in accordance with Section K all Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, are submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely. A copy of the entity record from the System for Award Management (SAM) with date validation shall be included. Offerors need not duplicate representations and certifications in Section K which are already included in their SAM record.

Pricing - Offerors shall submit a fully completed price breakdown in the format specified below. A separate breakdown shall be submitted for each period of performance, which shall be traceable to the amounts inserted in Schedule B.

PWS Task Labor

Category Exempt / Non-Exempt (i)

AWD Code (ii)

Hours Fully Burdened Labor Rate (iv)

Total

(i) Exempt/Non-Exempt. The offeror shall identify whether the proposed position is classified as Exempt or Non-exempt. The terms “Exempt” and “Non-exempt” refer to applicability of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Service Contract Act (SCA) requirements as reflected in the applicable AWD’s. Further instructions are indicated below.

(ii) Area Wage Determination (AWD) Code. If the position is Non-exempt then the offeror shall provide the five digit AWD code for the corresponding position title.

(iii) Hours. The Offeror shall identify the estimated hours for each proposed labor category. The proposed hours should reflect a realistic assessment of each Team Member’s expected participation/contribution to this effort.

(iv) Fully Burdened Labor Rate. The offeror shall identify the applicable wage rate for each labor category.

If the position is Exempt, the offeror shall provide a clear explanation for the basis for the proposed wage rate.

Additionally, the Offeror shall ensure that the non-exempt rates are compliant with the applicable AWD. The fully burdened rate shall include fringe benefits and all applicable indirect burdens.

Travel Worksheet - The offer shall complete Attachment 4 (Travel Worksheet) of the solicitation. A separate breakdown shall be submitted for each period of performance, which shall be traceable to the amounts inserted in Schedule B.

(b) Volume II - Mission Capability Volume

(1) The Mission Capability Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Mission Capability sub factors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(2) The Mission Capability Volume shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a format consistent with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this solicitation. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor’s technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWS. The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks. The Mission Capability volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

-Table of Contents -Cross Reference Matrix -Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the proposal.

-Mission Capability

--Sub Factor 1 – Technical Approach --Sub Factor 2 – Management and Staffing --Sub Factor 3 - Quality Control Plan

(3) Mission Capability Evaluation Factors

Factor One Technical Approach – The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s overall understanding of the services required. The proposal shall contain a detailed narrative fully explaining how the Offeror intends to accomplish the tasks and deliver the required deliverables with minimum risk to the Government in terms of quality and time. This narrative should focus on how the work will be done and not on what is to be done.

Factor Two Management and Staffing –

(1) The proposal shall include a detailed narrative describing the management process and procedures that you will use in managing the work effort to accomplish the requirements specified in the PWS. This narrative should include a description of clear lines of authority and clearly identify those personnel who will interact with the government.

(2) The proposal shall include a staff loading chart depicting: labor categories of proposed personnel and level of effort proposed for each labor category. The staff loading chart shall be clearly indexed to tasks/deliverables specified in the PWS. A full description of each labor category including education and experience levels shall be included in the proposal. No names or resumes of individuals, shall be submitted in the proposal. No pricing data, including labor category hourly or annual rates shall be included in this part of the proposal.

Sub Factor Three Quality Control Plan – The proposal shall include an outline (summary) of your proposed Quality Control Plan for this requirement. The Quality Control Plan shall include best business practices, process for continuous improvement and customer feedback and complaint resolution procedures.

(c) Volume III - Past Performance. The Government will perform a Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 30 percent, or more, of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

(1) The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than 3 years for the submitted data. The past performance data shall document a successful history of past contract performance.

(2) In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources

(3) Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. In the case of an offeror without any relevant past performance history, Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an " Unknown/Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant present and past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown/Neutral Confidence" rating.

(4) All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating.

The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. Offerors with no past performance may provide the equivalent information on company officials and/or personnel proposed for this action. If the offeror has no relevant past performance, they will be rated as “Unknown/Neutral Confidence” rating.

(5) Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

Table of Contents Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment #.

Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information.

Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

Specific Relevant Contracts Format - The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M-I- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Basis for Contract Award

(1) This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price Factors. A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors to represent the most advantageous to the Government. As part of making the assessment, a best value analysis will be performed determining whether or not exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

(2) As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. THEREFORE, THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED

PRICE. However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

Offers received for less than the stated requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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.

c. Evaluation Criteria

(1) Evaluation criteria consist of the following factors and sub factors. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Sub Factor 1: Technical Approach Sub Factor 2: Management and Staffing Sub Factor 3: Quality Control Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative importance of each factor and sub factors is as follows: Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Within Factor 1, subfactor 1 is more important than subfactor 2; subfactor 2 is more important than subfactor 3. All Factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(3) Factor 1 - Mission Capability. The Mission Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

Factor 1: Mission Capability Sub Factor 1: Technical Approach Sub Factor 2: Management and Staffing Sub Factor 3: Quality Control Plan

(a) Rating Scheme:

Sub Factor 1: Technical Approach - The Offeror shall demonstrate understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal will be evaluated based on the proposed approach to perform the work.

Sub Factor 2: Management and Staffing - The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed management process and procedures are adequate to ensure timely and quality performance of the PWS requirements. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the staffing plan is reasonable to ensure adequate level of personnel to perform the work and if the proposed personnel types possess adequate education and experience to successfully perform the contract work effort in accordance with the performance work statement.

Sub Factor 3: Quality Control Plan - The proposed Quality Control plan shall summarize/outline the offeror’s internal quality control and risk management procedures that will be to ensure quality performance of the required work. The proposed summary/outline will be the foundation of the successful offeror's QCP as required by the PWS. The proposed summary/outline shall identify each of the elements required by the PWS.

(b) Separate Technical/Risk Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Mission Capability sub factor 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 sub factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub factor that receives a marginal or unacceptable rating will result in an overall marginal or unacceptable rating for the factor and are not eligible for award. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

(c) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2. The technical risk rating will be defined at the Factor level.

Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

(4) Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Customer Satisfaction

(a) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

(b) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

(1) There are two levels of relevancy as shown in Table 3. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

(2) 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.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

(d) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. 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 this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(e) Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

(5) Factor 3 – Price. The Price Factor will not be scored or rated. The offeror’s response will be evaluated for price reasonableness and pricing balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

(a) Price reasonableness will be evaluated in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b).

(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.

(c) 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 price to the offeror's total price. 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of Summary of Changes)