1. FA8808-20-R-0001 -- 52.212-1 (Tailored)_52.212-2 (Tailored)_52.212-4 (Addendum).pdf

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (TAILORED)

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

L-1 General Instructions

The proposals shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for an effective evaluation, and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide a convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience or best practices, and that evaluations will be based only on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

The instructions below state the evaluation criteria that the Government will apply to Offeror’s proposal, including Technical and Price Volumes for the Base and option periods of performance. The Offeror shall propose two, 3-month options beyond the Base period in accordance with 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services, to be evaluated and exercised at Government’s discretion.

L-1 Cover Page

Offerors must submit a one (1) page cover page that includes the following:

Name of Offeror Solicitation Number: FA8808-20-R-0001 Cage Code and DUNS Number.

Contact information (office phone, cell phone, and e-mail) for technical and cost issues or questions.

Statement of Offeror’s compliance with the solicitation terms and conditions, and acknowledgement of all amendments.

L-2 Volume Content and Limits

The page limits listed in the table below are maximum page limits. Requested personnel biographies are not subject to the page limits. Pages submitted in excess of the stated page limitations will be removed and not evaluated. Page / margin size – Single-spaced on 8½ x 11 inch paper format, Times New Roman font 10 point, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. No foldout pages. Include in Volume IV any ground rules and assumptions (GR&A), including what data and support will be needed from the Government, in support of execution of the proposal. As part of any Offeror proposed GR&A, state expectations with regards to data rights of data and products generated during the course of performance. The Government assumes it has Unlimited Rights to data and products generated during the course of contract performance.

Price information cannot be included in any volume except Volume III.

Table 1. Volume Contents and Limits

Volume Sections Page Limit Due Date I

Cover Page Maximum 1 page Due at proposal receipt Signed 1449 No page limit Due at proposal receipt

II

Factor 1, Subfactor 1 – Personnel: Key Personnel List (FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms And Conditions-Commercial Items Addendum (See below))

*The 52.212-4 Addendum shall be incorporated into the resultant contract

No page limit

Due at proposal receipt

Factor 1, Subfactor 1 – Personnel: Key Personnel Biographies Maximum of 2 pages per biography

Due at proposal receipt

Factor 1, Subfactor 2 – Experience: Two (2) recent examples of successful organizational transformation

Maximum of 4 pages Due at proposal receipt

Factor 1, Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach: Offeror shall describe its approach to meeting the PWS requirements and its technical capability to do so

*Aspects of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach may be unilaterally added to the PWS by the Government.

Maximum of 4 pages Due at proposal receipt

Factor 1, Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach: Oral Presentation Slides

Maximum of 15 slides

Required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See

FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation- Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3.

III Factor 2 – Price (Base and Options) No page limit Due at proposal receipt

IV

Ground Rules and Assumptions No page limit Due at proposal receipt Organizational Conflict of Interest Analysis & complete SMC OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist (see attached)

No page limit Due at proposal receipt

52.212-3 Offeror Representations And Certifications-Commercial Items (Mar 2020)

*Complete as required

No page limit Due at proposal receipt

L-3 Questions Due Date

Any questions pertaining to this RFP shall be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Contracting Officer, Capt Alejandro Sena, alejandro.sena.2@us.af.mil, and no later than 11:59PM Pacific Time on 8 June 2020.

L-4 Proposal Due Date

Proposals shall be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer, Capt Alejandro Sena, alejandro.sena.2@us.af.mil, no later than 4PM Pacific Time on 12 June 2020 and include “USSF Field Command Organizational Design Consultant” in the subject line of the email. If selected to enter Phase 2, the Government anticipates conducting oral presentations on or about 18 through 20 June 2020.

There is a 10 MB limit for all electronic submissions via e-mail. The 10 MB size limitation applies to a single e-mail. Offerors may submit multiple e-mails but all e-mails from an Offeror must be received before the closing time for proposals. When sending electronic files, the Offeror shall account for potential delays in file transfer. Offerors are encouraged to submit their responses early to avoid potential file transfer delays due to high demand or problems encountered in the course of the submission. All submissions shall be received in their entirety before the due date and time in order to be considered. E-mail transmission to a government address is not instantaneous and delays in transmission often occur. The Government takes no responsibility for any delays in the transmission of an e-mail submission.

L-5 Submission Factors

The submission shall contain a clear, concise, and complete description of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to accomplishing the PWS requirements. Technical responses shall contain sufficient content for the Government to determine whether an Offeror understands the PWS requirements. To demonstrate understanding, the Offeror shall propose sound, practical, and feasible methods to accomplish all tasks identified in the PWS.

Volume II: Factor 1, Technical: Offerors shall provide a proposal and an oral presentation that provides:

Subfactor 1 – Personnel: The Offeror shall complete the Key Personnel List found in FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items Addendum (located at the end of the RFP). The Offeror shall propose no more than seven (7) Key Personnel.

Consistent with the Factor 1, Subfactor 1 evaluation criteria, the Offeror shall provide succinct biographies of the proposed Key Personnel members, including descriptions of commercial and government experience relevant to meeting the PWS requirements.

Subfactor 2 – Experience: Consistent with the Factor 1, Subfactor 2 evaluation criteria, the Offeror shall describe two (2) recent examples of successful organizational transformation that are comparable to the transformation that is the subject of this acquisition. For purposes of comparability, the Space and Missile Systems Center workforce (civilian, military and contractor) is approximately 6,000 personnel with an annual budget of $9B.

Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach (required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2.

See FAR 52.212-2 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3):

Consistent with the Factor 1, Subfactor 3 evaluation criteria, the Offeror shall describe its approach to meeting the PWS requirements and its technical capability to do so. The Offeror shall discuss its approach to performance in light of the health issues presented by the current pandemic. Proposal submissions under this Subfactor shall include a proposed organizational structure and any prime/subcontractor or teaming arrangements.

In addition to the written proposal narrative, Offerors invited to participate in Phase 2 shall also provide an oral presentation to specifically address this subfactor. The oral presentations, led by no more than three

(3) members of the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel team, will consist of a 30 minute presentation to the Government Evaluation Team on a date/time appointed by the Contracting Officer. The oral presentations shall contain information consistent with the proposal. Oral presentation charts are limited to 15 charts. In the event of differing information, the written proposal narrative shall take precedence. The Offeror shall provide an electronic copy of their oral presentation twenty-four (24) hours before their scheduled presentation time to the Contracting Officer, Capt Alejandro Sena, alejandro.sena.2@us.af.mil. The Offeror is responsible for providing the video conference platform for the oral presentation. Coordinate video conference logistics with the Contracting Officer no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to your scheduled oral presentation. Additional logistical details will be provided after proposal submission. The Evaluation Team will not ask any questions except to address administrative issues or clarifications. The Offeror shall record the oral presentation and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer within twenty-four

(24) hours after the conclusion of the oral presentation. The video recording will be retained as part of the evaluation record.

Volume III: Factor 2, Price (required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See FAR 52.212-2 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3): Offerors shall provide a firm fixed price for each contract period of performance and a total proposed price. Offerors shall submit the completed table below in Volume III.

Table 2. Proposed Price

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

0001 USSF Field Command Organizational

Design

FFP

Period of Performance 1 Jul 20 – 28 Feb 21

Months

1001 USSF Field Command Organizational Design FFP (3 month option)

1 Mar 21 – 31 May 21

L-6 Other Information

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

In accordance with FAR 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Contracting Officer has analyzed the planned acquisition and determined that no known actual or potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) situations exist with respect to this solicitation.

The Offeror shall perform its own OCI analysis and submit the results of that analysis as part of its proposal.

Specifically, the Offeror shall analyze the planned acquisition for actual or potential OCI situations associated with its or any of its teammate’s or subcontractor’s performance under any contract it or any of its teammates or subcontractors has been or may be awarded by any federal agency or other entity. The Offeror shall describe in detail the methodology used to identify actual or potential OCI issues. If the Offeror identifies any actual or potential OCIs with respect to the performance of itself or its subcontractors or teammates, the Offeror shall provide an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan to be incorporated as an attachment to any resulting contract. At a minimum, the plan shall address all of the items identified in the most current version of SMC’s OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist provided as an attachment to this solicitation. Any proposed avoidance or mitigation techniques shall be consistent with FAR 9.5 and the most recent decisions of the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

If award is made to the Offeror, the resulting contract may include an organizational conflict of interest limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after communications with the Offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified actual or potential conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract which disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts.

Resolution of OCI issues are treated in a manner similar to the Contracting Officer’s contractor responsibility determination. Any communications necessary to resolve OCI issues shall not be considered discussions. As such, the Contracting Officer may issue Evaluation Notices to the Offeror prior to any decision to enter into discussions in order to resolve questions or concerns with the Offeror’s OCI analysis or mitigation plan.

2001 USSF Field Command Organizational Design FFP (3 month option)

1 Jun 21 – 31 Aug 21

TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE

52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (TAILORED)

M-1 General Information

This acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased evaluation. The most highly rated Offeror(s) will be selected from the Phase 1 evaluation to enter Phase 2. One (1) Offeror from the Phase 2 evaluation will be selected for contract award. While the Government Evaluation Team and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-2 Phase 1

Phase 1. To determine the most highly rated Phase 1 Offeror(s), the Source Selection Authority will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the Offerors’ proposal against the Phase 1 Evaluation Factors described below and select the most highly rated Offeror(s) . The Phase 1 evaluation shall only be inclusive of Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1, Subfactor 2. Only the most highly rated Phase 1 Offeror(s) (as determined by the Source Selection Authority) shall be evaluated in Phase 2.

Table 1. Phase 1 Evaluation Factors Factors & Subfactors Phase 1 Eval

Factor 1: Technical Approach No Technical Rollup Rating

Subfactor 1: Personnel ✔

Subfactor 2: Experience ✔ Subfactor 3: Organizational Design Approach Evaluated in Phase 2 Factor 2: Price Evaluated in Phase 2

For the Phase 1 Evaluation, Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1, Subfactor 2 are of equal importance.

M-3 Phase 2

Phase 2. To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the Offerors’ proposals against the Evaluation Factors described below and make an independent, integrated, comparative assessment and best value decision. Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1, Subfactor 2 shall not be re-evaluated in Phase 2. The Source Selection Authority shall consider all Factors and Subfactors in making the best value decision.

Table 2. Phase 2 Evaluation Factors

Factors & Subfactors Phase 2 Eval Factor 1: Technical Approach No Technical Rollup

Rating

Subfactor 1: Personnel ✔

Subfactor 2: Experience ✔ Subfactor 3: Organizational Design Approach ✔ Factor 2: Price ✔

All Technical Subfactors are of equal importance. When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than Factor 2: Price.

Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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 IAW FAR 15.306(c).

M-4 Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1: Technical Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which:

Technical SubFactor 1, Personnel: The Offeror demonstrates commercial and government experience with organizational transformation.

Technical Subfactor 1, Organizational Design Approach: The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the PWS, and a sound approach and capability to perform the PWS requirements.

Technical SubFactor 3, Experience: The Offeror describes two (2) recent and successful organizational transformation examples where it provided services as the primary organizational design consultant for organizations comparable in size and complexity to the proposed USSF Field Command (approximately 6,000 personnel and $9B in annual budget).

M-5 Technical Ratings

The Government will assign one Technical Rating to each Technical Subfactor based on the rating scale shown below:

Table 3: Technical Ratings Outstanding Offeror indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Offeror indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Acceptable Offeror indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Offeror has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Offeror does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Factor 2: Price. Pricing will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and Affordability.

Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (sum of the Base Period and two (2) Option Periods) will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if it, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (Reference FAR 31.201-3). In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. A reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

Unbalanced Pricing. The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Affordability. The Offeror’s proposed price cannot exceed $5.5M for the base year and cannot exceed $8.25M, inclusive of options. The Offeror’s failure to meet this constraint will be grounds for excluding the Offeror from competition.

FAR 52.212-4 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

(a) The Offeror agrees to assign to this contract those key personnel listed in paragraph (d) below. No substitutions shall be made except in accordance with this clause.

(b) The Offeror agrees that during the first 60 days of the contract performance period no personnel substitutions will be permitted unless such substitutions are necessitated by an individual’s sudden illness, death or termination of employment. In any of these events, the contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer and provide the information required by paragraph (c) below. After the initial 60 day period, all proposed substitutions must be submitted in writing, at least (15) days in advance of the proposed substitutions to the contracting officer. These substitutions requests shall provide the information required by paragraph (c) below.

(c) All requests for approval of substitutions under this contract must be in writing and provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitutions. They must contain a complete resume for the proposed substitute or addition, and any other information requested by the Contracting Officer to approve or disapprove the proposed substitutions. All substitutions proposed during the duration of this contract must have the same or similar qualifications of the person being replaced. The Contracting Officer or his authorized representative will evaluate such requests and promptly notify the contractor of the approval or disapproval thereof in writing.

(d) List of Key Personnel

Name Duty Title Company

(e) If the Contracting Officer determines that suitable and timely replacement of key personnel who have been reassigned, terminated or have otherwise become unavailable for the contract work is not reasonably forthcoming or that the resultant reduction or productive effort would be so substantial as to impair the successful completion of the contract, the contract may be terminated in accordance with FAR 52.212-4.

(End of Clause Addendum)