22R0003 0001 Amendment to Solicitation.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 correct dates (Issue Date, Due Date, etc.). The new Solicitation Issue Date is 04/01/2022. The new deadline for Questions and Answ ers is 04/13/2022 at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), and the Offer Due Date is 05/01/2022.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Mar-2022

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 W91QEX22R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Mar-2022

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 X is extended, 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

01-Apr-2022

CODE

410TH CSB - RCO MIAMI

9301 NW 33RD ST

DORAL FL 33172

W91QEX 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91QEX22R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION:

Offerors are required to submit a complete proposal package in accordance with the instructions below. Only electronic offers will be received via email. The Offeror shall submit electronic copies of their proposal to the Contract Specialist / Contracting Officer, Tonya J. James, at tonya.j.james.civ@mail.mil and at Sherwin D. Riley, sherwin.d.riley.civ@mail.mil, unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer. Proposal packages must be received on or before the solicitation closing date and time as listed on Block 8 of the SF 1449.

Questions and Answer Period:

The Contractor shall submit all questions and concerns in writing via email to the Contract Specialist, Tonya J. James at tonya.j.james.civ@mail.mil and Contracting Officer, Sherwin D. Riley, sherwin.d.riley.civ@mail.mil no later than Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 10:00 a.m. (EST). The email shall be entitled “Questions for Solicitation W91QEX-22-R-0003.”

The body of the email shall be numbered per question and contain questions in a clear and concise manner with specific reference to the page number and section of the solicitation, if applicable. No questions will be answered if received after 10:00 a.m. (EST) on Wednesday, 13 April 2022.

Answers shall be provided as an amendment to the solicitation notice as issued via SAM.gov website no later than Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 2:00 p.m. (EST) and shall be structured as an all-inclusive question/answer document encompassing all of the Contractor’s questions and the Government’s responses to those questions. No questions or answers shall contain any proprietary, Contractor’s names, or otherwise identifying information. When responding to questions, the Government will submit the questions as they were written verbatim if possible, however, if the Contracting Officer determined there are redundant questions, they contain any proprietary information, Contractor’s names, contain grammar or spelling errors, or otherwise, the Contract Specialist will redact, re-summarize, and/or exclude redundancies accordingly.

Should the Contracting Officer feel it is necessary; The Government may issue an amendment to add an additional question and answer period anytime throughout the duration of the Solicitation.

Page Limitations and Format: The Offeror shall comply with the following format and page limitations for each respective volume in accordance with the following table.

Volume Number

Title Maximum Pages (Excluding Cover Sheet and/or Table of

Contents)

Volume 1 Factor 1: Technical Experience * 15** Volume 2 Factor 2: Past Assessment* 15

Volume 3 Factor 3: Price* Signed SF1449 CLIN Structure***

1.Offerors are cautioned to comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and elimination from consideration for award.

(a.) Proposals submitted electronically via e-mail shall be prepared in Microsoft application programs. Adobe files are acceptable.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that due to security protocol and firewall infrastructure regulations, some electronic Microsoft based application attachments with embedded pictures, and other formatting may be cause for the security protocol and firewall infrastructure regulations under US Southern Command’s email server may be reject by the server. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to verify and certify the Government received an offeror’s submission timely.

(b.) Minimum Proposal Acceptance Period - The proposal acceptance period is 90 days. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in its Proposal Documentation that the proposal is valid for a period of not less than 90 days from receipt of offers.

(c.) The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price volumes:

Volume 1 –Technical Sub-factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2: Management Approach Sub-factor 3:

Staffing Plan & Résumés

Volume 2 – Past Assessment

Volume 3 – Cost/Price

NOTE: The distinction between technical experience and past assessment is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor which is comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past Assessment pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

(d.) With the exception of the first page, the Offeror shall ensure that the company name, logo, or other company identifying information does not appear in within the Volume 1, Technical.

(e.) Résumés. The number of pages per résumé shall not exceed three pages per key personnel (excluding any associated certification or qualification documents). The résumés will not be included in the maximum pages for Volume 2 of the proposal submission.

* Times New Roman, Size 10 Font, single spaced, 8.5 x 11 (front pages only) format ** Except for Key Personnel Résumés & Associated Certification Documents

*** Volume Page Limitations: Signed SF 1449 with filled in pricing under All CLINs, All Subsequent Amendments Signed, filled in pricing for all cost variables on the "Overtime Support Pricing Sheet", and filled in representations and certifications (optional) under FAR 52.212-3.

1. Submittal Requirements for price and each non-cost/price volume.

a. Volume 1 – Technical:

i. Sub-factor 1 - Experience: The Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) contract reference for which the Offeror was the prime contractor, subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) Partner. A maximum of three (3) contract submissions will be evaluated. The contracts must be or have been similar in size and scope in the support of U.S. Government. The Government will only consider contracts performed by the contractor not “Key Personnel”. The contract reference(s) submitted must provide evidence to support the following:

(1) The Offeror shall provide evidence of database development with five (5) years of experience and in-depth knowledge of Microsoft Access and Visual Basic. CTIMS is a highly developed Microsoft Access-based information management system, designed specifically for program management and the integration of real-time financial data. It consists of a series of interrelated databases used by the U.S.

Government on a daily basis. Provide evidence of Structured Query Language (SQL) and SQL Server experience. Provide evidence of in-depth knowledge of GFEBS financial systems and fiscal code with 5-year experience. Provide evidence of IT support services database development, system management, systems integration/administration, customer service support and training to end users and program management support.

Provide evidence of integrity checks when interfacing systems such as GFEBS, C2IE, CTIMS, and SOCIUM.

Provide evidence to show knowledge or some experience with the U.S. Debit Card Programs and the Deployable Disabusing System (DDS). Documented experience with the Army Planning Programming Budget Executing System (APPBES) cycle and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) formulating and standard command budget cycle requirements. Provide evidence to show experience evaluating, designing and developing interoperability solutions to communicate with stand-alone systems. Provide evidence to demonstrate experience using the contract’s primary systems to include GFEBS, DTS, DDS, CTIMS, C2IE, SOCIUM and SharePoint.

Developer must be able to import or export data from various formats such as HTML, MS Office formats, PDF and XML for integration of databases. Knowledge of XML files for integration is essential. The developer must have proven, demonstrable experience with integrating different databases. The Offeror shall submit contract references which demonstrate that the Offeror possesses a minimum of five (5) years of experience on recent and relevant service contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the solicitation requirements as defined in the PWS in support of the Information Management System for the U.S. Government.

(2) In order for the government to validate the evidence provided in support of this sub-factor, the Offeror must include for the contract reference in the technical experience proposal the following: Contract Number/Task Order Number; award date; period of performance (base and all option periods), an aggregate cumulative total dollar value of the contract/task order; a general description of the work performed and how it relates to the requirement found in the solicitation; and at least one accurate point of contact for the contract reference identified to include current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to submit the minimum requirements as stated above will be considered non-responsive and will result in the non-evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In order for an evaluator to make a technical determination per contract reference in relation to the recency, relevancy, size, and scope of an offeror’s submittal, the contract reference must contain information of and meet the following minimum criteria:

a. Recency – To be considered recent, the contract reference must have been awarded within the last five (5) years; performance must have begun no less than five (5) years; and is still active or was active within the last five (5) years, at time of proposal submission.

b. Relevancy – The contract reference must hold a minimum aggregate cumulative dollar value of $4,500,000.00 (includes base and option period values at time of contract award). A relevant contract reference can be a competitive or noncompetitive single contract, purchase order, or a standalone task order.

c. Similar Size and Scope: Each contract reference must be similar in size and scope to the requirements in PWS of the solicitation. Each reference shall include a general description of work performed which will be evaluated in terms of how it relates to the requirements found in the PWS. In order for a reference to be considered similar in size, each reference must hold an aggregate cumulative dollar value of at least $4,500,000.00. In order for a reference to be considered similar in scope, each reference shall illustrate an effort working directly with the US Government providing all personnel, tools, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform Information Management/IT Support Services as defined in this Performance Work Statement.

NOTE: The Prime and Teaming Partner or subcontractor may NOT use their experience combined as part of their proposal submittal both for their Technical Experience and Past Assessment Proposal submission. Each prime contractor’s experiences should be evaluated solely in determining if an Offeror is technically acceptable. Unless there is an approved SBA joint venture and/or mentor-protégée in place, evaluation of prime and subcontractor technical competency cannot be combined due to affiliation rules that pertain to the Ostensible Subcontracting Rules.

ii. Sub-factor 2 – Management Approach: The Offeror shall provide a management approach which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish all tasks in Part 5, Specific Tasks of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). At a minimum, the Offeror’s documentation shall illustrate the following:

(1) Communications: How the Offeror plans to keep an open line of communication between Contractor management and Government personnel (Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and SOUTHCOM J8 Staff) during normal duty hours and after hours should it be necessary.

(2) Management Plan: How the Offeror specifically plans to successfully accomplish all tasks in Part 5 of the PWS.

(3) Deliverables Management: An understanding of the deliverables schedule with a clear and well-defined plan to meet all scheduled deliverables in Technical Exhibit 3, Deliverables Schedule, of the PWS.

iii. Sub-factor 3 – Staffing Plan & Résumés: The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish all tasks in PWS Part 5 and meet the necessary security clearance specifications (personnel and facility) according to the attached DD254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specifications Document. At a minimum, the Offeror’s documentation shall illustrate the following:

(1) Organizational Chart: The Offeror shall submit an organization chart detailing the depth of proposed personnel performing under the resulting contract including both the service provides, management components, and ancillary service provides, if any, of the Offeror with applicable job titles and number of years’ experience working under such job titles.

(2) Contractor/Service Personnel Security Clearances: The Offeror shall provide documentation which illustrates that the Offeror and its proposed Key Personnel possess the minimum active or interim facility and personnel security clearances necessary to perform the tasks of this requirement in accordance with the DD254. The minimum security clearance requirements for both the Offeror and its proposed personnel must be active or interim at the time of proposal submission. Documentation must be furnished as part of this submittal for verification of appropriate clearance levels and active status.

(3) Key Personnel (Résumés): The Offeror shall submit the résumés of “Key Personnel” as defined in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10 through 1.6.10.3.2. Résumés must demonstrate expertise/capability. The information contained in each résumé shall include, but is not limited to, the individual’s specific experience as it relates to the tasks and required qualifications found in the PWS, the specific responsibilities, accomplishments, dates of involvement for each project supported, identification of all formal education (e.g: college, training courses, military, etc.), the dates attended and degrees and/or certifications earned during each experience reference accordingly. The résumés shall identify the title of each key personnel listed in accordance with the PWS as it pertains to the following personnel:

a. CTIMS/Financial Systems Database Developer: The résumé shall demonstrate that the proposed Senior Database Developer with ten (10) years of in-depth experience using Microsoft Access, Visual Basic and Structured Query Language (SQL). Knowledge of SQL Server. Requires in-depth knowledge of GFEBS financial systems and fiscal code with five (5) years of experience. Be familiar with the content and limitations of GFEBS files compatibility and how to perform integrity checks before CTIMS integration. Experience with the Army Planning Programming Budget Execution System (APPBES) cycle and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) formulation and standard command budget cycle requirements. Developer must be able to import and export data from various formats such as HTML, MS Office formats, PDF and XML for integration of databases. Knowledge of XML files for integration with SOCIUM is essential. Knowledge designing and developing interoperability solutions to communicate with systems, including GFEBS, DTS, SOCIUM, CTIMS, C2IE, DDS and SharePoint. In-depth knowledge of the U.S. Debit Card Program and the Deployable Disbursing System (DDS). The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.1 through 1.6.10.1.3.

A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the CTIMS/Financial Systems Database Developer Résumé.

b. Financial/Debit Card Analyst: The résumés shall demonstrate that each proposed

Financial/Debit Card Analyst with four (4) years of budget analyst experience in a government organization.

Additionally, four (4) years’ experience in the U.S. Debit Card Program. In-depth knowledge of GFEBS, DDS, OTCNET and Debit Card Module in CTIMS. The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.2 through 1.6.10.2.2. A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the Financial/Debit Card Analyst Resumé.

c. TCA Program Analyst: The résumé shall demonstrate that each proposed TCA Program Analyst with four (4) years of financial management experience in banking, financial transactions and/or program analyst. In-dept knowledge of GFEBS, DTS and CTIMS. The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.3 through 1.6.10.3.2. A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the Financial/Debit Card Analyst Résumé.

b. Volume 2 – Past Assessment: The Offeror shall submit complete and accurate Past

Assessment Questionnaires for a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) contracts for which the Offeror was the prime contractor, subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) Partner. The Offeror must provide a complete and accurate Past Assessment Questionnaire (PPQ), which can be found with instructions as Attachment 1 at the bottom of this document, for each submitted contract reference. It is the offeror’s responsibility to assure all identified contract reference PPQ’s are filled out entirely and are submitted to the Contract Specialist / Contracting Officer before the deadline to submit proposals under the subject solicitation. Contracts identified in the PPQ must be contracts completed for the Department of Defense.

i. Recency & Relevancy: Each contract references shall be similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. A recent contract reference will be considered an active contract within the last five (5) years at the time of proposal submission. A relevant reference is a contract of approximately the same size and scope as defined in Sub-factor 1, Section C – “Similar Size and Scope” in support of highly specialized technical and operational related functions providing technical, operational, command control, and other specialized services for the US Government.

ii. Other Sources of Past Assessment Information: In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past assessment. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past assessment information retrieved through the Past Assessment Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past assessment information rests with the Offeror.

NOTE: It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that there is a valid point of contact provided for each contract submitted, as well as current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. This point of contact will be used as a reference and for PPQ answer verification should it be necessary. Offerors may provide an alternate point of contact if possible. Failure of references to be able to respond to past assessment inquiries may preclude the evaluator’s ability to assign a past assessment rating of acceptable based on satisfactory performance.

c. Volume 3– Price:

Proposal Submittal Requirements:

i. Complete SF1449: The Offeror shall submit a completed SF 1449 CLIN structure indicating a unit price and total proposed price for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) for the base period accordingly.

ii. Overtime Support Pricing Sheet: A separate after-hours pricing sheet is submitted as part of

Solicitation W91QEX-21-R-0003, “Surge Support Pricing Sheet”. The Offeror shall fill out the pricing sheet for each proposed Key Personnel for the base and option periods accordingly. The Offeror shall provide a price per hour for all Key Personnel in the event overtime support is needed in accordance with PWS Paragraph 1.6.4, Hours of Operation, and PWS Paragraph 1.6.5.1, Surge Capabilities. The prices proposed will not be evaluated as part of the Offerors overall evaluated price; however, the prices will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (see below), in order to determine if the prices are reasonable and balanced.

NOTE: Offerors that submit pricing under the “Surge Support Pricing Sheet” that is determined to be significantly unbalanced or unreasonable may be considered unacceptable under this factor and therefore unacceptable for contract award.

iii. Online Representations & Certifications: Completed Representations and Certifications and ALL System for Award Management (SAM) Requirements accurate and current upon Offeror’s submission. This submission will not be taken into account for maximum page limitation purposes. The Offeror can fulfill this requirement through one of the following methods:

(1) 52.212-3 Offerors Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items.

(2) Via the Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) website at https://orca.bpn.gov/

(3) Via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at www.sam.gov

IMPORTANT: An offer submitted without a complete 52.212-3 or ORCA/SAM Record will not be accepted and will be determined ineligible for contract award.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to extend the notification deadline of the solicitation up to the date proposals are initially due. The Government may reject any or all responses if such actions are in the public interest and/or waive informalities and minor irregularities in the submitted offers.

The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation and make no award. By responding to this solicitation and submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation, the Offeror understands that the Government shall not be liable for any costs incurred by the Offeror in response to this solicitation.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

This is a competitive 8(a) Trade Off best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, utilizing Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures.

The Government intends to award a single contract under this solicitation. The award will be made based on the best overall value proposal that is determined to be most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three factors:

Technical Past Performance Prices

The Technical factors including the three subfactors, when combined with the Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

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.

Volume 1: Technical (Technical is further divided into the following subfactors.)

Subfactor 1: Experience Experience: Expertise and Capability in financial management, database development and systems integration (ex:

SOCIUM, C2IE, GFEBS, DDS)

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

1. Communications

2. Management Plan

3. Deliverable Management

Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan and Resumes

1. Organizational Chart

2. Key Personnel (Resumes) (CTIMS/Financial Systems Database Developer, Financial/Debit Card Analyst, and TCA Program Analyst). Resumes must demonstrate expertise/capability and firm commitment from persons that are listed in the proposal as defined in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10 through 1.6.10.3.2.

3. Contractor/Service Personnel Security Clearances

Subfactors 1, 2 and 3, Experience, Management Approach and Staffing Plan & Resumes, are equally important. All subfactors are equally important.

During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed price. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Factor 1: Technical is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Experience The Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) contract reference for which the Offeror was the prime contractor, subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) Partner. A maximum of three (3) contract submissions will be evaluated. The contracts must be or have been similar in size and scope in the support of U.S. Government. The Government will only consider contracts performed by the contractor not “Key Personnel”. The contract reference(s) submitted must provide evidence to support the following:

The Offeror shall provide evidence of database development with five (5) years of experience and in-depth knowledge of Microsoft Access and Visual Basic.

CTIMS is a highly developed Microsoft Access-based information management system, designed specifically for program management and the integration of real-time financial data. It consists of a series of interrelated databases used by the U.S. Government on a daily basis. Provide evidence of Structured Query Language (SQL) and SQL Server experience. Provide evidence of in-depth knowledge of GFEBS financial systems and fiscal code with 5-year experience. Provide evidence of IT support services database development, system management, systems integration/administration, customer service support and training to end users and program management support. Provide evidence of integrity checks when interfacing systems such as GFEBS, C2IE, CTIMS, and SOCIUM. Provide evidence to show knowledge or some experience with the U.S. Debit Card Programs and the Deployable Disabusing System (DDS). Documented experience with the Army Planning Programming Budget Executing System (APPBES) cycle and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) formulating and standard command budget cycle requirements. Provide evidence to show experience evaluating, designing and developing interoperability solutions to communicate with stand-alone systems. Provide evidence to demonstrate experience using the contract’s primary systems to include GFEBS, DTS, DDS, CTIMS, C2IE, SOCIUM and SharePoint. Developer must be able to import or export data from various formats such as HTML, MS Office formats, PDF and XML for integration of databases. Knowledge of XML files for integration is essential. The developer must have proven, demonstrable experience with integrating different databases. The Offeror shall submit contract references which demonstrate that the Offeror possesses a minimum of five (5) years of experience on recent and relevant service contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the solicitation requirements as defined in the PWS in support of the Information Management System for the U.S.

Government.

In order for the government to validate the evidence provided in support of this sub-factor, the Offeror must include for the contract reference in the technical experience proposal the following: Contract Number/Task Order Number;

award date; period of performance (base and all option periods), an aggregate cumulative total dollar value of the contract/task order; a general description of the work performed and how it relates to the requirement found in the solicitation; and at least one accurate point of contact for the contract reference identified to include current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to submit the minimum requirements as stated above will be considered non-responsive and will result in the non-evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In order for an evaluator to make a technical determination per contract reference in relation to the recency, relevancy, size, and scope of an offeror’s submittal, the contract reference must contain information of and meet the following minimum criteria:

d. Recency – To be considered recent, the contract reference must have been awarded within the last five (5) years; and is still active or was active within the last five (5) years, at time of proposal submission.

e. Relevancy – The contract reference must hold a minimum aggregate cumulative dollar value of $4,500,000.00 (includes base and option period values at time of contract award). A relevant contract reference can be a competitive or noncompetitive single contract, purchase order, or a standalone task order.

f. Similar Size and Scope: Each contract reference must be similar in size and scope to the requirements in PWS of the solicitation. Each reference shall include a general description of work performed which will be evaluated in terms of how it relates to the requirements found in the PWS. In order for a reference to be considered similar in size, each reference must hold an aggregate cumulative dollar value of at least $4,500,000.00. In order for a reference to be considered similar in scope, each reference shall illustrate an effort working directly with the US Government providing all personnel, tools, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform Information Management/IT Support Services as defined in this Performance Work Statement.

NOTE: The Prime and Teaming Partner or subcontractor may NOT use their experience combined as part of their proposal submittal both for their Technical Experience and Past Assessment Proposal submission. Each prime contractor’s experiences should be evaluated solely in determining if an Offeror is technically acceptable. Unless there is an approved SBA joint venture and/or mentor-protégée in place, evaluation of prime and subcontractor technical competency cannot be combined due to affiliation rules that pertain to the Ostensible Subcontracting Rules.

Subfactor 2: Management Approach The Offeror shall provide a management approach which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish all tasks in Part 5, Specific Tasks of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). At a minimum, the Offeror’s documentation shall illustrate the following:

(1) Communications: How the Offeror plans to keep an open line of communication between Contractor management and Government personnel (Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and SOUTHCOM J8 Staff) during normal duty hours and after hours should it be necessary.

(2) Management Plan: How the Offeror specifically plans to successfully accomplish all tasks in Part 5 of the PWS.

(3) Deliverables Management: An understanding of the deliverables schedule with a clear and well-defined plan to meet all scheduled deliverables in Technical Exhibit 3, Deliverables Schedule, of the PWS.

Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan & Résumés The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish all tasks in PWS Part 5 and meet the necessary security clearance specifications (personnel and facility) according to the attached DD254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specifications Document. At a minimum, the Offeror’s documentation shall illustrate the following:

(4) Organizational Chart: The Offeror shall submit an organization chart detailing the depth of proposed personnel performing under the resulting contract including both the service provides, management components, and ancillary service provides, if any, of the Offeror with applicable job titles and number of years’ experience working under such job titles.

(5) Contractor/Service Personnel Security Clearances: The Offeror shall provide documentation which illustrates that the Offeror and its proposed Key Personnel possess the minimum active or interim facility and personnel security clearances necessary to perform the tasks of this requirement in accordance with the DD254. The minimum security clearance requirements for both the Offeror and its proposed personnel must be active or interim at the time of proposal submission. Documentation must be furnished as part of this submittal for verification of appropriate clearance levels and active status.

(6) Key Personnel (Résumés): The Offeror shall submit the résumés of “Key

Personnel” as defined in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10 through 1.6.10.3.2. Résumés must demonstrate expertise/capability. The information contained in each résumé shall include, but is not limited to, the individual’s specific experience as it relates to the tasks and required qualifications found in the PWS, the specific responsibilities, accomplishments, dates of involvement for each project supported, identification of all formal education (e.g: college, training courses, military, etc.), the dates attended and degrees and/or certifications earned during each experience reference accordingly.

The résumés shall identify the title of each key personnel listed in accordance with the PWS as it pertains to the following personnel:

d. CTIMS/Financial Systems Database Developer: The résumé shall demonstrate that the proposed Senior Database Developer with ten (10) years of in-depth experience using Microsoft Access, Visual Basic and Structured Query Language (SQL). Knowledge of SQL Server. Requires in-depth knowledge of GFEBS financial systems and fiscal code with five (5) years of experience. Be familiar with the content and limitations of GFEBS files compatibility and how to perform integrity checks before CTIMS integration. Experience with the Army Planning Programming Budget Execution System (APPBES) cycle and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) formulation and standard command budget cycle requirements. Developer must be able to import and export data from various formats such as HTML, MS Office formats, PDF and XML for integration of databases. Knowledge of XML files for integration with SOCIUM is essential.

Knowledge designing and developing interoperability solutions to communicate with systems, including GFEBS, DTS, SOCIUM, CTIMS, C2IE, DDS and SharePoint. In-depth knowledge of the U.S. Debit Card Program and the Deployable Disbursing System (DDS). The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph

1.6.10.1 through 1.6.10.1.3. A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the CTIMS/Financial Systems Database Developer Résumé.

e. Financial/Debit Card Analyst: The résumés shall demonstrate that each proposed Financial/Debit Card Analyst with four (4) years of budget analyst experience in a government organization. Additionally, four (4) years’ experience in the U.S. Debit Card Program.

In-depth knowledge of GFEBS, DDS, OTCNET and Debit Card Module in CTIMS. The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.2 through 1.6.10.2.2. A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the Financial/Debit Card Analyst Resumé.

f. TCA Program Analyst: The résumé shall demonstrate that each proposed TCA Program Analyst with four (4) years of financial management experience in banking, financial transactions and/or program analyst. In-dept knowledge of GFEBS, DTS and CTIMS. The minimum skills, experience qualifications, certifications, and education requirements as listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.3 through 1.6.10.3.2. A copy of degree, certifications and firm commitment from the Key Personnel shall be attached immediately following the Financial/Debit Card Analyst Résumé.

d. Volume 2 – Past Assessment: The Offeror shall submit complete and accurate Past

Assessment Questionnaires for a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) contracts for which the Offeror was the prime contractor, subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) Partner. The Offeror must provide a complete and accurate Past Assessment Questionnaire (PPQ), which can be found with instructions as Attachment 1 at the bottom of this document, for each submitted contract reference. It is the offeror’s responsibility to assure all identified contract reference PPQ’s are filled out entirely and are submitted to the Contract Specialist / Contracting Officer before the deadline to submit proposals under the subject solicitation. Contracts identified in the PPQ must be contracts completed for the Department of Defense.

iii. Recency & Relevancy: Each contract references shall be similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. A recent contract reference will be considered an active contract within the last five (5) years at the time of proposal submission. A relevant is a a contract of approximately the same size and scope as defined in Sub-factor 1, Section C – “Similar Size and Scope” in support of highly specialized technical and operational related functions providing technical, operational, command control, and other specialized services for the US Government.

iv. Other Sources of Past Assessment Information: In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past assessment. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past assessment information retrieved through the Past Assessment Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past assessment information rests with the Offeror.

NOTE: It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that there is a valid point of contact provided for each contract submitted, as well as current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. This point of contact will be used as a reference and for PPQ answer verification should it be necessary. Offerors may provide an alternate point of contact if possible. Failure of references to be able to respond to past assessment inquiries may preclude the evaluator’s ability to assign a past assessment rating of acceptable based on satisfactory performance

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will use a common set of adjectival ratings to evaluate non-Cost/Price Factors to include subfactors.

The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strenghts, strenghts, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiences, risks, and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon those collective findings. The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the requiremets set forth in the Request For Proposal (RFP), utilizing adjectival ratings as shown below:

Utilize the rating methodologies and associated definitions set forth in Chapter 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procesures and the Army Source Selection Supplment for factors and subfactors.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Technical Rating: (DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.2.2)

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 5) and risk descriptions (see Table 6) below:

TABLE 5 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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

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 contract 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.

DISCUSSIONS: In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of (2) calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least (2) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will

TABLE 6 - Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing and/or online.

NOTE: It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that there is a valid point of contact provided for each contract submitted, as well as current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. This point of contact will be used as a reference and for PPQ answer verification should it be necessary. Offerors may provide an alternate point of contact if possible. Failure of references to be able to respond to past performance inquiries may preclude the evaluator’s ability to assign a past performance rating of acceptable based on satisfactory performance.

Past Performance Rating: In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators shall apply the following evaluation rating scheme at Tables 8 and 9 will apply:

TABLE 8 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description 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 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.

TABLE 9 - 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.

Findings Definition:

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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. An aspect of an offerors’ 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. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. 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. See

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that…