W91RUS-21-R-0001 Amendment 07.pdf

ACC-APG

CHARLES L. FRIEND 2133 CUSHING ST

FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613

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 amendment 07 is to clarify the existing requirement that Offerors must have a final Top Secret Facility Clearance to be eligible for aw ard and ensures consistency betw een IDIQ Attachment 1 DD 254 Continuation Sheets and IDIQ Attachment 13 IDIQ PWS. The requirement has been explained in previous answ ers to questions, but it is now captured in Section M explicitly to clarify. This has generated a change to the follow ing document: Solicitation Schedule B, Section M.

Proposal due date is still set for 31 March 2021 at 2:00pm (ARIZONA TIME).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Mar-2021

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 W91RUS21R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Feb-2021

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

18-Mar-2021

CODE

ACC-APG

2133 CUSHING ST

BLDG 61801 RM 3410

FORT HUACHUCA AZ 85613

W91RUS 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W91RUS

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91RUS21R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. GENERAL

The Government anticipates awarding approximately twelve (12) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts centrally managed by the Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground (AAC-APG) Huachuca Division. These contracts will be awarded as a total small business set-aside with a five-year ordering period utilizing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541513, Computer Facilities Management Services. All awardees will be given a fair opportunity to compete for each task order requirement in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts. The evaluation of the proposals submitted will be conducted on a Best Value Tradeoff basis. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

Awards will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposals are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Evaluation methodology for this procurement consists of three (3) factors: Mission Support including four sub factors (Management Approach, Past Experience, Quality Control and Sample Task Order), Price, and Past Performance. The solicitation will require Offeror’s proposals to price the full five year ordering period which will be included in the overall evaluation of offers for award in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 17.2.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Compliance Certification. In accordance with FAR 52.222-24, Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) must issue a certification of the Offeror’s EEO compliance with Executive Order 11246.

B. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to conduct a source selection in accordance with the competitive negotiated source selection procedures contained in Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary; however, award may be based upon the initial offer without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price, past performance and technical standpoint. 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. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation.

Any proposal that does not comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation shall be rejected and not considered for further evaluation.

C. BASIS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal will be based on an integrated assessment of mission support (including four subfactors), past performance, and price. Joint Venture/Teaming arrangements submitted within Volume 1, General, shall be verified by the Government to assess the validity of the arrangement. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work.

DOD Security Clearance. Offerors must have a final Top Secret Facility Clearance to be eligible for award. Each Offeror shall provide, as part of its proposal, a copy of the document received from the National Industrial Security System (NISS) or the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) that grants a Top Secret Facility Clearance level to the Offeror. A Joint Venture MUST have the required facility clearance in the name in which it is formed and in the Cage Code in which it is registered. The Facility Clearance is a material requirement of this solicitation.

Each Offeror shall also provide, as part of its proposal, a statement certifying that all personnel employed to perform under the resultant contract and/or task order meet (or will meet) the qualifications required in the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, at Section J, Attachment 1 (to include the requisite personal security clearances and National Agency Checks) by the date performance begins.

Only United States citizens may perform under this contract. Each Offeror shall demonstrate in its proposal the ability to obtain and maintain the required facility security clearance and its ability to provide personnel with the required security clearances for the IMCS IV program. At the Task Order level personnel must have, or be able to obtain the appropriate personal security clearance as stated on the Task Order Level DD Form 254. Offerors are required to maintain their Top Secret Facility clearance.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L will impact the resulting evaluation ratings and a deficiency or lack of responses to factors and /or subfactors may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration. The evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1: Mission Support. Mission Support contains four sub-factors:

a. Management Approach.

b. Past Experience.

c. Quality Control.

d. Sample Task Order

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

In making the best value determination for the IDIQ awards, Mission Support is the most important factor which includes four sub factors (Management Approach, Past Experience, Quality Control, and Sample Task Order). Past Experience and the Sample Task Order subfactors are more important than the Management Approach and Quality Control subfactors. The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor, and when combined with Mission Support are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurate with the degree of equality among the Offerors’ Mission Support and Past Performance proposals.

To receive consideration for award, the following ratings/assessments must be achieved: a technical rating of no less than “Acceptable” for the overall Mission Support Factor and each of its sub-factors; an assessment of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” under the Performance Confidence Assessments under the Past Performance Factor.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH.

All proposals submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated by a formally established Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). An overall assessment of the merit of each proposal will be derived from the evaluation of the proposal as it relates to each factor in this solicitation. A narrative explanation will be provided to support the adjectival ratings and risk assessment for the Mission Support, Past Performance, and Price factors.

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

Adequacy of Response. Each proposal volume will be evaluated to ensure each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed and the submission instructions have been followed. The Government reserves the right to remove from consideration any proposal that does not comply with all instructions of the solicitation.

Factor 1 - Mission Support.

The evaluation process will consider the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement as identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. Evaluators will independently evaluate each proposal with respect to each of the subfactors within the Mission Support Factor. For each proposal, the evaluator will assign an adjectival rating to each subfactor. The evaluators will come to a consensus rating for each subfactor, and then a consensus rating for the overall factor.

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.

Contractors shall comply with the Limitation of Subcontracting clause at 52.219-14 within the sample task order. The Limitation of Subcontracting clause will be incorporated into all task orders awarded through the IMCS IV IDIQ.

SUBFACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide an effective management approach/solution. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the proposal allows for management at various locations, to include teaming partners/joint ventures/ major subcontractors, and if there is clearly a defined chain of command that allows for decentralized management decision making. All items identified in Section L, Subfactor 1, Management Approach, will be used to evaluate this subfactor. In conducting the assessment, the following will be considered:

The Offeror’s proposed management approach

The Offeror’s approach to effect a smooth phase-in and contract transition

The Offeror’s proposed recruitment and retention of contractor personnel

The Offeror’s training and certification program(s)

The Offerors approach to effectively managing subcontractors and the subcontractors’ added value to the IMCS program.

SUBFACTOR 2 – PAST EXPERIENCE. The Government will assess if an Offeror has provided technical services in accordance with the technical services required within the PWS. The Government will assess the Offeror’s applicability of past experience through the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the requirements set forth in the PWS.

Past Experience will be evaluated within the Mission Support Factor, focusing on problems that the Offeror incurred and the Offeror’s solution to resolve the issues, the following will be considered:

The Offerors’s past experience supporting communications requirements of Network Enterprise Centers, or similar organizations, as set forth in the PWS.

The Offeror’s past experience supporting the operations and maintenance of the communications systems identified in the PWS and support emergency restoration and unforeseen communications outages.

The Offeror’s past technical experience in supporting existing and emerging communications technologies, systems, and facilities.

The Offeror’s past experience in efficient and effective procurement of vehicles, tools and test equipment relative to the PWS requirements.

The Offeror’s past experience establishing external maintenance agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) supporting Tier II and Tier III operations and maintenance of information technology and telecommunications functionality.

SUBFACTOR 3 - QUALITY CONTROL. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s on-site quality control systems used and the Offeror’s ability to meet the acceptable quality levels specified by the performance metrics. In conducting the assessment, the following will be considered:

The Offeror’s proposed corporate office approach to ensuring quality in services delivery, and operations and maintenance of communications systems.

The Offeror’s ability to monitor contract activities and identify, in a timely manner, problem areas and recommend solutions.

The Offeror’s approach to efficiencies and continual service improvements. The Offerors integration of quality method, management of change, and capability management that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the services delivered.

SUBFACTOR 4 – SAMPLE TASK ORDER. The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement. The evaluation will gauge the extent to which the requirements of the sample task order have been considered, understood, and satisfied; the extent to which the approach demonstrates a clear understanding of all considerations involved in meeting the requirements and addressing problems presented by the task; and the extent to which the approach is workable and the results achievable. The labor categories identified by the offeror will be analyzed to determine if personnel with the proper levels of expertise are proposed.

The assessment for Mission Support factor will utilize the combined Technical/Risk Rating methodology ratings listed in Table 1 below:

Table 1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement Significant Strength, Strength, Weakness, Significant Weakness, and Deficiency are defined below:

Significant Strength- is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Significant Weakness- in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Factor 2 – Price.

Pricing for the Sample Task Order shall be used to evaluate price for award. The Government will ensure the Offeror accurately completed all pricing documents required in Section L to evaluate price. Price analysis will be conducted on the Offeror’s proposal to determine if price is reasonable for the proposed technical approach. In order to determine the price reasonableness of the proposal, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed total estimated price for all periods of performance for the sample task order.

The total evaluated price for the Sample Task Order will be used for award purposes.

The total evaluated price will include the Base period, and all four (4) option periods for the Sample Task Order, to include evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services six (6) months. The total evaluated price will not be assigned an adjectival rating or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and (g). The proposed price will also be evaluated for realism, as described in FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), to assess whether the proposed price is so low as to reflect a lack of understanding of the contract requirements and/or to assess the risk inherent in the proposed approach. The proposed price will not be adjusted as a result of this evaluation. In addition Exempt labor categories will be evaluated on the sample task order to determine whether the proposed rates are fair and reasonable for the market where Ft. Combat is located. The exempt labor categories and rates will be used as a ceiling rate and incorporated into any resulting IDIQ basic contract. The Contractor shall use national average market salaries to price Exempt labor categories. To be complete, all hourly rates identified in the Pricing Worksheet shall be fully burdened rates identifying the pricing build-up.

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of FAR 15.404- 1(b). The techniques used to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices include, but are not limited to, the following:

Comparison of proposed prices received from other Offerors in response to this

RFP.

Comparison of prior proposed prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar items.

Comparison of proposed prices against the Independent Government Estimate

(IGE).

Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar labor categories.

Comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices.

The Government may use information from the Defense Contract Audit Agency and/or Defense Contract Management Agency in verifying the Offeror’s proposed direct labor and indirect expense rates.

Factor 3 - Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s as well as that of joint ventures/teaming partners and major subcontractors past and recent performance on contracts similar to this effort in order to assess the risk inherent in selecting an Offeror for award. Each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years for similar efforts. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to size and complexity of this procurement and relevance of the performance to the requirements of the PWS in Section C of the solicitation. The Government may use other sources other than those identified by the Offeror to assess past performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant and recent past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”. A satisfactory or higher confidence rating will weigh more favorably than a neutral confidence rating.

Sources of past performance information will include but not limited to the offeror, questionnaires tailored to the acquisition, and any other sources available to the Government, such as the System for Award Management (SAM), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The following are not subfactors but areas that will be evaluated together for assessment of overall Past Performance.

Management of Personnel: Effectiveness in managing resources, directing work, and providing services under the relevant contracts.

Schedule: Effectiveness in meeting time schedules under the relevant contracts.

Business/Customer Relations: How well the offeror worked with the respective clients under the relevant contracts through the contractor's demonstration of reasonable and cooperative behavior with its clients.

Customer Satisfaction: How well the offeror satisfied its respective clients' requirements under the relevant contracts, specifically, through evaluating the offeror's overall commitment to quality, timeliness, and efficiency in its performance of work under the relevant contracts.

Quality of Service: How well services conformed to contract requirements and standards of workmanship.

Cost Control: Effectiveness in forecasting and controlling estimated costs;

accurate and timely invoices; actual costs closely reflect negotiated rates.

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 three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment.

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, magnitude, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including teaming partners/joint venture partner(s) and major 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 information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor. 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems.

Relevancy ratings are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A quality assessment will assess the Offeror’s past performance on the recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well (quality) the contractor performed on the contracts.

A Performance Confidence Assessment is assigned based on the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. The Performance Confidence Assessment reflects the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record. In conducting a Performance Confidence Assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3 below:

Table 3

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

E. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS.

The Government reserves the right to award approximately twelve contracts based on initial offers, without discussions (FAR 52.215-1).

(End of Summary of Changes)