W91WFU-19-R-0001_Amendment_0001.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 incorporate changes and revisions to Addendum 52.212-1 and the PWS in response to questions from industry.

No other changes w ere made.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Apr-2019

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 W91WFU19R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Apr-2019

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

30-Apr-2019

CODE

RCO STUTTGART

KELLEY BARRACKS

GEB 3307 PLIENINGERSTRASSE

70567 STUTTGART

GERMANY

W91WFU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91WFU19R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Performance Work

Statement

40 08-APR-2019

Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix 1 Attachment 3 Q&A Matrix 1 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Performance Work

Statement

42 30-APR-2019

Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix 1 Attachment 3 Q&A Matrix 1

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

1. Paragraph (a) small business size standard does not apply to this acquisition.

2. Paragraph (b) is modified to add the following requirements for submission in response to the solicitation:

a. Proposal Preparation:

i. Introduction:

1. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) volumes. The volumes are:

I – Technical, II – Price Offer, III – Past Performance, and IV – Solicitation, Offer, and Award Documents, and Certifications/Representations.

Files shall not contain classified data. With the exception of the internal hyperlinks created by the MS Word Table of Contents function, the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, per FAR 52.212-1(g), Offerors are cautioned to examine the solicitation in its entirety and to ensure that their proposal contains all necessary information, provides all required documentation, and is complete in all respects. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions.

3. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers”.

4. This request does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of Offeror’s proposal or in making any necessary studies for the preparation thereof or for any visit the Contracting Officer may request for the purpose of clarification of the proposal or for preparation for negotiations.

5. Submit any questions regarding the solicitation by email to Ms. Marie Summers at maria.h.summers2.ln@mail.mil AND Ms. Olivia Epps at Olivia.f.epps.civ@mail.mil. All questions must be submitted no later than 15 calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. Any questions received after this time may not be answered. The subject of the email shall be: “W91WFU-19-R-0001 - USAG-S DES ESS Sustainment Questions.” Questions shall be submitted using the attached Q&A Matrix (Attachment 3), and shall include the vendor name, submission date, question number, source document from which the question arises, source document page number, and question. Government responses to questions will be incorporated via an amendment to the RFP for review by all potential Offerors; therefore, do not mark questions/comments with a restrictive legend and do not include proprietary information. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to access FedBizOps (www.fbo.gov) to obtain amendments and the most current information regarding this solicitation.

Offerors are deemed to have knowledge of all documents that are posted to FBO.

6. Proposals shall be reviewed and analyzed by the Government IAW the evaluation criteria listed under 52.212-2 and its addendum. The submittal package must be received by the designated date and Central European Time (CET) found in block 8 of the SF 1449 Solicitation. Fax submittals will not be accepted. The Government will not be held liable for proposals not received. Proposals shall be submitted via the AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange website (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Default.aspx). Offerors must give access to the following email addresses: maria.h.summers2.ln@mail.mil AND olivia.f.epps.civ@mail.mil. All proposals shall be electronic only. No paper copies will be accepted. A confirmation email shall also be sent to maria.h.summers2.ln@mail.mil AND olivia.f.epps.civ@mail.mil to confirm receipt and successful download of the AMRDEC proposal submission. The subject of the email shall be: “W91WFU-19-R-0001 –USAG-S DES ESS Sustainment, Confirmation of Receipt.”

ii. Proposal Submission Requirements:

1. Any exceptions made to any of the line items and conditions of the offer must be stated in a separate letter of transmittal that is to accompany your proposal.

2. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must delete, or by explicit language exclude, any conditions (preprinted or otherwise) appearing on the Offeror’s letterhead or on the reverse thereof which may be in conflict with any of the general special conditions contained in this solicitation. Failure to eliminate such conflicting conditions may result in rejection of the proposal as unacceptable as such offer would not conform to the solicitation.

3. All contractors need to have a valid DUNS Number, a NCAGE or CAGE Code and must have active SAM

Registration at the time of offer submission in www.sam.gov to be eligible for award.

4. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate electronic document, as specified below. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Number

Volume Title Maximum Pages

Electronic Document Type

I Technical 20 PDF II Price Unlimited Excel (.xlsx) III Past Performance 20 PDF IV Solicitation, Offer, and Award

Documents, and Certification/Representations

Unlimited PDF

5. A representative of the firm authorized to commit the firm to contractual obligations must sign the Offeror’s proposal.

6. All proposals, questions, and correspondence, shall be submitted in the ENGLISH language. Any supporting document (e.g., certificates) contained in the proposal which is not in English shall be accompanied with a corresponding English translation of the document. Proposals submitted in a language other than English will not be evaluated or considered for award.

7. All pricing shall be submitted in USD only. Proposals submitted in a currency other than USD will not be evaluated or considered for award.

8. The Government will evaluate the proposal using only the information provided with the proposal. Failure of an

Offeror to submit information sufficient to evaluate the offer, or that does not follow the guidelines as stipulated herein, may be deemed ineligible for award.

9. The government may incorporate any part of the proposal into the resulting contract. A variety of methods may be used to execute the incorporation (i.e. use of attachment documenting beneficial aspects, updates to PWS documenting above-threshold performance, or any other reasonable means).

iii. Proposal Files:

1. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents shall be included for each volume. All documents 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”.

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

2. File Packaging. Proposals shall be submitted as electronic documents and shall be either Microsoft Office Suite

(2010 or newer) or Portable Document Format (PDF) compatible. Microsoft Excel files submitted shall be unlocked, formula driven, and numbers shall not be hard coded, where applicable. Proposals shall include separate electronic files for each volume. All file names shall include the respective company name, document name, and volume number (using abbreviations as necessary). WINZIP (.zip) files cannot be accepted as they are routinely blocked by the domain firewall.

3. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Volumes I and III of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Table of Contents and Summary Section do not count towards the page limits identified above. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the RFP number in the header and/or footer. Company identifying information shall be limited to the cover page of the submitted proposal of each section with the exception of the SF 1449, or as otherwise requested. This includes technical submittals and schedules provided with the proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. With the exception of the internal hyperlinks created by the MS Word Table of Contents function, the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

a. VOLUME I – Technical. The Offeror shall include in this volume the Offeror’s plans to implement the

Performance Work Statement’s requirements. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

i. Section 1 – Subfactor 1. Facility Clearance Levels and Safeguarding Capability. Offerors’ proposals shall address Facility Clearance Levels and Safeguarding Capability IAW PWS para. 4.2. Proposal shall include a short narrative (not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page) highlighting the understanding of what corporate security clearances are required to perform the requirements of this RFP. Offerors shall submit a time stamped screen shot of Industrial Security Facility Database (ISFD) or National Industrial Security System (NISS) with their current Facility Clearance (FCL) and Safeguarding Capability status. The time stamped screen shot will not be counted towards the page limits identified above.

ii. Section 2 – Subfactor 2. Value Added Reseller (VAR) for Lenel. Offerors’ proposals shall address Service Level Agreements/Value Added Reseller (VAR) status for Lenel© IAW PWS para. 5.7.8.

Proposal shall include a statement of understanding of what Service Level Agreements/Value Added Reseller (VAR) statuses are required to perform the requirements of this RFP. Offerors shall submit verification of a Service Level Agreement or Value Added Reseller (VAR) status with Lenel©.

Documentation verifying the Service Level Agreement of VAR status with Lenel© will not be counted towards the page limits identified above.

iii. Section 3 – Subfactor 3. Staffing/Management Plan. The staffing and management approach shall reflect a clear understanding of the skills, education and experience needed to execute the specific tasks defined in the PWS, how they are to be utilized in performance of the contract, and how the Offeror will recruit, staff and retain qualified personnel to meet PWS requirements. The document must include the rationale and methodology used to determine the type (labor category), number of personnel proposed, and the level-of-effort proposed for accomplishing the specific tasks in the PWS.

Methodology must demonstrate a clear understanding and plan to accomplish the technical requirements stated in the PWS. Offerors shall submit resumes, curriculum vitae (CV), or similar forms of documentation substantiating the minimum education, experience, and certification requirements for all key personnel IAW PWS para. 1.13. Documentation substantiating the minimum education, experience, and certification requirements for all key personnel will not be counted towards the page limits identified above.

iv. Section 4 – Subfactor 4. Phase-In Plan. The Offeror's proposal shall include a Phase-In Plan IAW PWS para. 1.20.1.1. The proposal shall include a realistic, achievable approach to effect a smooth and orderly transfer of performance responsibility to the successor to ensure continuity of operations, to include employee notification/retention/clearing thru appropriate offices, turnover of work in progress, inventories and transfer of Government property. It shall also include recruiting, qualifying, relocating, screening, and certifying employees to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, with all applicable background checks and authorizations to perform services in Germany (i.e. TESA approval) in order to begin assuming responsibility for contract functions by contract start date. The proposal shall also include a milestone chart of significant actions to be completed during the phase-in.

v. Section 5 – Subfactor 5. Technical Approach. The technical approach shall reflect a clear understanding of the requirements defined in the PWS with a description of how they are to be performed and how the Offeror will ensure consistent, quality performance over the life of the contract. The technical approach shall include enough detail to demonstrate a clear understanding and methodology to accomplish all requirements stated in Part 5 of the PWS.

b. VOLUME II – Price. Using the attached Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2), the Offeror shall include in its Price Proposal the following submittal requirements:

i. Completed Pricing for all contract line items (CLINs) as identified in the Continuation Sheet of the SF

1449. The Offeror shall provide a unit price for each applicable CLIN that accurately supports the total amount/the extended max amount of the CLIN for evaluation. Offerors are reminded to include pricing for all resources necessary to accomplish work required by the PWS, to include fully-burdened rates, materials, and other direct costs (ODCs). Prices must not include the Value Added Tax (VAT) as referenced in DFARS 252.229-7001 (Alt I).

ii. For Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs (CLINs 7500, 7501, 7502, 7503, 7504, 7505, 7506), the Offeror shall propose a price for each CLIN to cover all reporting costs. If the Offeror proposes to provide this report at no additional cost to the Government, it shall indicate “Not Separately Priced”, “No Charge”, or “$0.00”, rather than not addressing the line item. If the line item is left blank, the Offeror agrees that this report will be provided at no additional cost to the Government, $0.00 shall be used for evaluation purposes, and the contract CLINs will be identified as Not Separately Priced (NSP). Future requests for compensation will be denied.

iii. The Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF 1449 and continuation sheets. All unit prices and rates that comprise the proposal are contractually binding.

c. VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall submit between three (3) and five (5) Government contracts for the prime Offeror in performance or awarded within the last three (3) calendar years from the issuance date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 561621) required by the solicitation. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

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

1. Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code 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, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

2. Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

3. Government’s technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

4. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

5. 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.).

6. Awarded price/cost.

7. Final or projected final price/cost.

8. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

9. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

ii. 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 solicitation.

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 on 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.

iii. Section 3 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers 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 shall 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.

iv. 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 Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

d. VOLUME IV – Solicitation, Offer, and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

Certifications and Representations – Each Offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation page 1 – Blocks 17a, 30a, 30b, 30c (without modification to the file). An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and all certifications (a completed copy of the provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items) requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

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

End of Addendum

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the tradeoff source selection process in order to obtain the best value for the services required. The award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The Technical factor is more important than the Past Performance factor, and the Past Performance factor is more important than price. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include a “Pass” or “Acceptable” or higher for all subfactors) and Satisfactory Confidence achieved for the Past Performance Factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

B. 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.

Factor 1:

The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Facility Clearance Levels and Safeguarding Capability

b. Value Added Reseller (VAR) for Lenel©

c. Staffing/Management Plan

d. Phase-In Plan

e. Technical Approach

All Technical subfactors are weighted equally. Subfactors 1 and 2 will be reviewed prior to the remaining subfactors to determine their pass/fail ratings. If subfactor 1 or 2 receive a “fail” rating, the evaluation will cease, and the proposal will be determined unawardable.

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

Factor 2: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a contract with FFP CLINs. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the phase-in period, the base year, the phase-out period, and all options. To account for the option period(s) possible under Clause 52.217-8 (maximum six months), Option to Extend Services, the Government will take the price for all CLINs of the final option period, prorate it to a six-month value, and add it to the sum of all CLINs (base plus all phase and option periods). This amount will be the total evaluated price. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. An omitted price may result in proposal elimination.

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

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1: Facility Clearance Levels and Safeguarding Capability. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s current Facility Clearance (FCL) and Safeguarding Capability status to ensure it meets the minimum requirements IAW PWS para. 4.2. The evaluation will result in a Pass/Fail rating as described in Table 1. Subfactor 1 will be evaluated as “pass” when it successfully meets the following criteria: Offeror provides a time stamped screen shot of their Industrial Security Facility Database (ISFD) with their current Facility Clearance Level (FCL) showing “top secret” and their Safeguarding Capability showing “secret”, and a statement positively acknowledging that all key personnel the offeror will provide to execute PWS tasks will possess Top Secret/SCI Security Clearances when performance begins. Failure to provide the above will result in a rating of “fail”.

b. Subfactor 2: Value Added Reseller (VAR) for Lenel©. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s current Service Level Agreements/Value Added Reseller status to ensure it meets the minimum requirements IAW PWS para. 5.7.8. The evaluation will result in a Pass/Fail rating as described in Table 1. Subfactor 2 will be evaluated as “pass” when it successfully meets the following criteria:

Offeror provides proof of Value Added Reseller status (i.e. certificate, certification on letterhead, etc). Failure to provide the above will result in a rating of “fail”.

c. Subfactor 3: Staffing/Management Plan. This subfactor will be evaluated based on the adequacy, feasibility, and reasonableness in approach on the following items: the adequacy of the plan completely satisfying the key personnel eligibility requirements specified in PWS para. 1.13, the feasibility of all proposed personnel to meet/execute all PWS requirements, and the reasonableness of the proposed labor categories and number of hours (or FTE) to execute the PWS requirements for each period of performance. The evaluation will result in an adjectival rating as described in Table 2.

d. Subfactor 4: Phase-In Plan. This subfactor will be evaluated based on the following items and will result in an adjectival rating as described in Table 2:

i. A realistic, achievable approach to effect a smooth and orderly transfer of performance responsibility to the successor to ensure continuity of operations, to include employee notification/retention/clearing thru appropriate offices, turnover of work in progress, and inventories and transfer of Government property IAW PWS para. 1.20.1, and

ii. Plan for recruiting, qualifying, relocating, screening, and certifying employees to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, all with applicable background checks and authorization to perform services in Germany (i.e. TESA approval, BACO-90, etc.)

to begin assuming responsibility for contract functions by contract start date.

e. Subfactor 5: Technical Approach. This subfactor will be evaluated based on the adequacy and feasibility in approach on the following items: the adequacy of the approach for how it satisfies the requirements specified in the PWS, and the feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed technical methodology/approach to fulfill the requirements in the PWS. The evaluation will result in an adjectival rating as described in Table 2.

The Pass/Fail Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the Offeror’s status for subfactors 1 and 2.

TABLE 1

Adjectival Rating Description

Pass Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Fail Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Combined Technical/Risk Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal, identified in subfactors 3, 4, and 5.

TABLE 2

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

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.

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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2. Cost/Price Factor. The Government will evaluate price for award by calculating a Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) for each Offeror. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices, based on Attachment 2 - Price Maxtrix, for the phase-in period, base year, all option years, phase-out period, and the 52.217-8 Option period. Offerors will include pricing for all resources necessary to accomplish work required by the PWS, to include fully-burdened rates, all required materials, and all other direct costs (ODCs). All unit prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. An omitted price may result in proposal elimination.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

a. The price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

i. Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submission for completeness and compliance with provision 52.212-1. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

ii. Reasonableness. The Offerors price proposal will be evaluated based on the results of a price analysis, using the proposal analysis techniques and procedures as defined in FAR 15.404-1 and DFARS 215.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

iii. Balance. The Government will review the proposed prices for balanced pricing. This review will ensure that the price of one or more line items is not significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques, not to include price realism analysis. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price for one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the out-year prices or individual contract line items are significantly unbalanced. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items, subline items, or exhibit line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

b. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

c. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and 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 under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 561621, Security alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the submitted contracts that have been determined to meet the recency criteria.

i. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

ii. The following criteria in Table 3 will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

TABLE 3

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 scopeand magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

e. The quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant will be assessed to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from CPARS and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, a performance confidence assessment for the Offeror will be made based on the Offeror’s performance record, and a selection of the most appropriate rating from Table 4 below will be made. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

i. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 [see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)], and shall receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

TABLE 4

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.

End of Addendum

(End of Summary of Changes)