A2 - Attach 2 Instructions - Evaluation.pdf

Request for Proposal 24322622R0002 USALearning® Training and Education Support Product and Services

Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 25

Proposal Instruction and Evaluation for Award

Table of Contents

GENERAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS…………………………………………………….. 2

MICROSOFT TEAMS AND PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS………………………………… 3

Proposal Format Table…………………………………………………………………….. 4

BASIS FOR AWARDS…………………………………………………………………………… 4

GENERAL EVALUATION APPROACH………………………………………………………. 5

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR OFFERORS AND METHOD OF EVALUATION

PER VOLUME……………………………………………………………………………………. 7

VOLUME 1 – ACCEPTABILITY………………………………………………………………. 7

Instructions for Offerors.......……………………………………………………………… 7

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………

VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH……………………………………………………… 13

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………… 13

Sample Task Order Proposal……………………………………………………… 13

Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo………………………………………………… 14

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 16

VOLUME 3 – RELEVANT EXPERIENCE…………………………………………………….. 17

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………… 17

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 18

VOLUME 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE………………………………………………………… 19

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………… 19

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 19

VOLUME 5 – CERTIFICATIONS AND CLEARANCES…………………………………….. 22

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………… 22

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 23

VOLUME 6 – RESPONSIBILITY………………………………………………………………. 24

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………. 24

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 24

VOLUME 7 – PRICE…………………………………………………………………………….. 24

Instructions for Offerors…………………………………………………………………… 24

Method of Evaluation……………………………………………………………………… 25

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 25

GENERAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The following instructions are for the preparation and submission of proposals. The purpose of this section is to establish requirements for the format and content of proposals so that proposals contain all essential information and can be evaluated equitably.

Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments (16

Total) prior to submitting either questions or preparing its proposal. Omission of any required information from the proposal submission requirements shall result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

Proposals shall be valid for a minimum of 180 days after solicitation closing date.

Late proposals will not be accepted for evaluation. Please be advised that timeliness is determined by the date and time an Offeror’s proposal is received by the Government not when an Offeror attempted transmission. Please do not wait until the last minute to submit proposals.

Offeror proposals shall consist of all seven (7) volumes:

• Volume 1 - Acceptability

• Volume 2 - Technical Approach

a. Sample Task Order

b. Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo

• Volume 3 – Relevant Experience

• Volume 4 – Past Performance

• Volume 5 - Certifications and Clearances

• Volume 6 – Responsibility

• Volume 7 - Price

Offeror’s proposals shall be submitted via Microsoft Teams. All proposal documents must be uploaded into the seven (7) separate folders identified by Volume Number. No paper or email versions of your proposal will be accepted. Any paper or emails proposals received will not be evaluated and considered for award.

In order to successfully submit all elements of a proposal only use fully supported browsers. Offerors shall review the following link for the limits and specifications for Microsoft Teams to assist with access:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/limits-specifications-teams.

All information within the page limitations of the proposal is subject to evaluation. The

Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Basis for

Award Selection and Evaluation Criteria.

The Government will not reimburse Offerors for any cost incurred for the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/limits-specifications-teams

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 25

MICROSOFT TEAMS AND PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

In order to access and submit a timely proposal to the USAL Training and Education Teams workspace, the Offeror shall submit an email request to join the workspace no later than 3:00 P.M. EST May 4, 2022, to USALTrainingandEducation@opm.gov. The request shall include:

• Names and emails of one Point of Contact (POC) and/or no more than two backup POCs to join the team’s workspace. The Offerors POCs should be designated individuals responsible for uploading proposal documents in the team’s workspace. Only POCs identified in the request will have access to the workspace.

Once a Teams request is received, the Government will process the request within three (3) business days.

Upon process completion, a Welcome Email will be sent to the Offeror’s POC representative(s) which will include information needed to access the Offeror’s guest account (Channel) in the USAL Training and Education Teams Workspace for submission of Proposal Documents.

Any request to join the workspace that is not received at the designated government email after the exact time specified for receipt of request is late and will not be considered. Failure to join the workspace will prevent ability to submit a proposal for evaluation and consideration for award.

Additional Information:

• There is no fee or need for a Microsoft Team Account in order to submit proposals under this announcement.

• Documents uploaded to Offeror’s designated Channels are secure and confidential.

• The Offeror’s designated Channel is private and not viewable by other Offerors.

• Access to your Channel will be removed at the designated solicitation closing date and time.

NOTE: The Teams workspace is only for proposal submittals and not for submitting any questions on the solicitation.

Offeror’s responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions:

Offeror’s proposal shall include all seven (7) electronic volumes that contain all proposal documents via

Microsoft Teams.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the government. Proposal submissions shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening.

All file and document submissions shall be clearly indexed, logically assembled, and placed in the applicable Volume Folder located in each Offeror’s perspective Teams Channel. Proposal page limitations are applicable to this procurement. The Table below indicates the maximum page count (when applicable) for each volume of the Offeror’s proposal.

The following Proposal Format Table is to assist Offerors in organizing their proposal submission documents to ensure the government can easily identify which documents apply to which criteria for evaluation purposes. Offerors shall adhere to the Volume Numbers, Format and/or Templates, and Page Limitations (if any) provided in the Proposal Format Table. Offerors shall include its company name or company name abbreviation and Volume Number in the filename. For example, mailto:USALTrainingandEducation@opm.gov

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 25

ABC Incorporated filename for Volume 1, SF-1499 is ABC.VOL1.SF1499.pdf. Additionally, the

Offeror may provide a Cover Letter and/or Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are.

Inclusion of a Cover Letter and/or Table of Contents is optional. If a Cover Letter and/or Table of

Contents is included, the document shall be filed in folder Volume 1 of the Offeror’s Teams

Channel.

Proposal Format Table:

Volume Attachment Format/Template Page Limitations

Volume 1 - Acceptability Attachments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 18 Limited to Template

Limited to

Template

Volume 2 – Technical

Approach

NA N/A N/A

a. Sample Task Order

Proposal

Attachments 15 and

Microsoft Word, Adobe, Excel Pricing

Limited to Template

Maximum of 20

Pages

b. Pre-Recorded

Presentation/Demo N/A

Video: .mp4

Index Document:

Microsoft Word, Adobe, Excel

One Hour Time

Limit on

Presentation/Demo

Volume 3 – Relevant

Experience Attachment 11

Limited to Templates provided

Limited to

Template provided-

A total of no more than maximum of 5 pages.

Volume 4 – Past

Performance Attachment 12

Limited to Template

Provided

Limited to

Template Provided

Volume 5 - Systems, Certifications and

Clearances

N/A Microsoft Word, Adobe, Excel

No Page

Limitations

Volume 6 - Responsibility Attachment 3 and 10 Limited to Template Limited to

Template

Volume 7 – Price N/A N/A N/A

Pricing Workbook Attachment 13 Limited to Template

Provided

Limited to

Template Provided

Pricing Narrative, if applicable N/A

Microsoft Word, Adobe, Exel

Maximum of 5

Pages

BASIS FOR AWARDS

The source selection process on the USAL Training and Education Support Products and Services will neither be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) nor Tradeoffs. Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. For USAL, the best value basis for awards will be determined by the

Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRO-RP).

The HTRO-RP approach will best achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors with robust expertise and qualities in a variety of professional services disciplines that are most important to USAL

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 25 and its customers, such as the Technical Approach Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo, Sample Task Order, Past Performance, and Price.

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to approximately seven (7)

Offerors; however, the Government retains the right to award fewer or more than seven (7) awards should it be determined in its best interest. In the event the Government does decide to award more than seven

(7) contracts resulting from this solicitation, it will award the contracts to the next highest ranked

Offeror(s). In the event of a tie at the anticipated number of awards all Offerors tied will receive an award. If one (1) (or more) of the Offerors in the top seven (7) validated ratings (or more than seven (7) should the Government make additional awards) is found to not have a fair and reasonable price, it will be eliminated from the ranking. No further ranking beyond the identified number of awardees will be made.

Once the highest scored proposals are identified, including all ties, evaluations will cease, and contract awards will be issued.

The Government intends to strictly enforce all the proposal submission requirements outlined in the solicitation. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as being non-conforming to solicitation requirements.

The Government intends to award contracts without discussions. Initial proposals must contain the best offer. The Government may conduct clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a). The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

Volumes to be Evaluated

• Volume 1 - Acceptability

• Volume 2 - Technical Approach

a. Sample Task Order

b. Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo

• Volume 3 – Relevant Experience

• Volume 4 – Past Performance

• Volume 5 - Certifications and Clearances

• Volume 6 – Responsibility

• Volume 7 - Price

GENERAL EVALUATION APPROACH

The OPM evaluation team will perform the evaluation process in four phases:

1. Acceptability Review

2. Technical Review

3. Responsibility Determination

4. Pricing

1. Acceptability Review: First, the team will validate that a support document exists for all the evaluation elements in accordance with the Offeror’s proposal checklist submitted in accordance with (Attachment 8) and compare it to the Offeror’s self-scoring worksheet submitted. Any proposal that includes incomplete information or does not comply with the instructions set forth in this solicitation regarding the submission requirements will be removed from consideration for award without further evaluation.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 25

Once the preliminary scoring is complete for all proposals, the OPM evaluation team will sort the offers from highest score to lowest score.

The OPM evaluation team will then validate the Top seven (7) highest scoring proposals to ensure they have successfully passed all the Acceptability Review requirements of the solicitation. In the event of a tie at the number seven (7) position, all Offerors tied in the seventh position will continue in the screening process.

Any proposal in the Top seven (7) that fails any of the criteria listed in the Acceptability Review, will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable. The next highest rated Offeror(s) (based upon score) who passes the Acceptability Review will be added in the eliminated Offerors place. Only Offerors who initially pass all the criteria in the Acceptability

Review in accordance with the solicitation will be considered eligible for award.

2. Technical Review: Following the Acceptability Review screening, the evaluation team will then perform a technical review to evaluate and validate the support documentation for each and every evaluation element that the Top seven (7) have stated in the Offeror’s proposal checklist and self-scoring worksheet.

In the event that an evaluation element claimed is unsubstantiated or otherwise not given credit for, the Offeror’s preliminary score will have the point value of the refuted evaluation element deducted and the Offeror will be re-sorted based upon the revised preliminary score. If the Offeror remains in the Top seven (7) the evaluation of the proposal will continue in the evaluation process. If the

Offeror does not remain in the Top seven (7), the next highest rated Offeror (based upon score) who passes the Acceptability Review will be added to the Top seven (7) and evaluation will begin on that offer.

3. Responsibility Determination: Offerors that have passed the first two (2) review phases are considered apparent successful Offerors and will be evaluated for a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Parts 9.1 and 19.6. In the event that an Offeror is determined to not be responsible, the evaluation process will continue until the Top seven (7) successful Offerors are identified that represent the highest technically rated offers (based on scores) with a fair and reasonable price.

4. Pricing: In concurrence with the 3rd phase, the evaluation team will check to validate the Top seven (7) highest scored proposals have proposed fair and reasonable pricing. In the event that an

Offeror has not provided fair and reasonable pricing, the offeror will be eliminated the evaluation process will continue until the Top seven (7) successful Offerors are identified that represent the highest technically rated offers (based on scores) with a fair and reasonable price.

Once the Top seven (7) Offerors have been validated, evaluations will cease, and contract awards will be issued. In the event of a tie at the position of number 7, all Offerors tied for this position will receive a contract award.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information or support documentation, the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 25

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR OFFERORS AND METHOD OF EVALUATION PER

VOLUME

VOLUME 1 – ACCEPTABILITY

Instructions for Offerors: To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Acceptability. This volume shall contain the following:

a. Solicitation Section A – Standard Form (SF 1449) (Attachment 7) and Acknowledgement of

Amendments (Attachment 6), if any.

All the evaluation elements an Offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for in accordance with Volumes 1 through 7, shall be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in 17a

(Identifies the Prime Contractor) and Signature of Offeror/Contractor Block 30A (Contractor on the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, with a corresponding CAGE Code and Unique Entity ID. in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 1449, Block 30b (Name and Title of Signer).

b. Proposal Checklist

The Offeror shall provide answers to all the questions in accordance with (Attachment 8), titled, “Proposal Checklist”. No other format or additional proposal documentation will be considered.

c. Self-Scoring Worksheet

The Offeror shall submit (Attachment 9), titled, “Self-Scoring Worksheet”. No other format or additional proposal documentation will be considered.

1. Each Project or evaluation element is scored a maximum of one time. Reference sample

Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 14), as an example of how to fill out the Offeror’s

Self Scoring Worksheet. Note: The scoring elements are not minimum requirements.

2. Do not alter rows or columns of the Self Scoring Worksheet. Do not alter point value in column C or formula or score in column E.

3. Follow all instructions provided on the worksheet.

4. Include notes, as shown in the sample Self-Scoring Worksheet.

5. The Offeror shall only fill in Column D by entering a “Yes” or “No” for each element as

Applicable. Just type the word, not the quotation marks. Do not leave any Rows under

Column D blank.

6. For Each of the seven (7), (six (6) required and one (1) optional), identified relevant experience projects:

• List each project one time. Indicate if the Offeror was the prime for the contract listed. Respond “YES” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract.”

• Include the Contract number. If the contract submitted is an IDIQ, include the full base contract number and the task order number(s).

• In the note’s column, include a 2-to-3-word description and the dollar value of the work performed.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 25

• For credit of work performed as a first tier teaming small business subcontractor, include the name of the Prime company and subcontracting plan that covered the performance of the work. Respond “YES” for the question

“was your company the Prime for this contract”, if performed work as a small business first tier subcontractor. Respond “NO” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract”, if work performed as other than small business first tier teaming subcontractor or any other tier regardless of business size.

• If the project was performed for a commercial company, and no contract # was provided, indicate as such.

• Must have been completed within the past three years prior to the solicitation closing date; or be ongoing.

• The Offeror shall provide a signed copy of the Contract or Task Order Award form (e.g., SF 1449, SF 26, SF 33, DD 1155, GSA Form 300, or any other official Government Award Form from a Cognizant Federal Office not identified above). The Award Form must explicitly identify the Contract

Number or Task Order Number, Contractor, U.S. Federal Government

Agency, the effective award date, and the date the Contracting Officer signed.

For non-government work being claimed, Offeror must provide sufficient information for validation of the work performed. A past performance questionnaire form has been provided to assist with submission of this information (Attachment 12).

d. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter

If an Offeror is sharing resources by way of a meaningful relationship within a corporate structure in order to meet minimum requirements and/or obtain scored evaluation criteria from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure, a meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) is required to be submitted with the proposal. If applicable, a meaningful relationship commitment letter with each entity shall include the following information:

• Clear and legal identification of the meaningful relationship between the

Offeror and entity within a corporate structure must be described.

• Each minimum requirement and/or scored evaluation criteria provided by the entity must be specifically identified.

• A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the entity’s claimed resources under USAL Task Orders.

• The process for utilizing and implementing any claimed system, certification, and/or clearance obtained from the entity under USAL Task Orders.

• If only part of the Offeror’s organization has an approved System, Certification and/or Clearance, the Offeror shall describe the distinction between which business units or sites and geographic locations have been approved.

• Authorized signatures with the ability to commit both the Offeror and entity.

Print Name, Title, Phone Number, and E-mail address for each authorized signature.

1. If a parent organization has complete and full control over all meaningful relationship entities, the parent entity may prepare a single Meaningful Relationship Commitment

Letter that identifies all elements required above.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 25

2. If an Offeror is not sharing resources by way of a meaningful relationship within a corporate structure in order to meet minimum requirements and/or obtain scored evaluation criteria from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure, a meaningful relationship commitment letter is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

3. For the purposes of this Solicitation, a “meaningful relationship” exists within a corporate structure when at least one of the following conditions exists:

• An entity is a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent organization.

• An entity is a parent of a wholly owned subsidiary.

• An entity operates under a single internal operational unit.

• An entity operates under a consolidated accounting system.

• An entity operates under a consolidated purchasing system.

• An entity operates under a consolidated human resources or personnel system.

• An entity operates under common policy and corporate guidelines.

• Operating structure between the entities includes internal organizational reporting lines and management chains for lines of business that operate across the formal corporate subsidiaries.

4. Definitions:

“Affiliates” are business concerns that are affiliates of each other if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or has the power to control the other, or another concern controls or has the power to control both.

“Division” is a separate business unit of a company representing a specific business function.

“Subsidiary” means an entity in which more than 50 percent of the entity is owned directly by a parent corporation; or through another subsidiary of a parent corporation.

“Within a corporate structure" is defined as having an established legal business relationship whereby entities share common resources, such as: (1) board of directors, (2) officers, (3) employees, and (4) shareholders or owners. An example is a multinational corporation with subsidiaries, divisions, and/or affiliates all part of the same multinational corporation.

5. Outside a corporate structure, such as a “Subcontractor” performance under a “Prime”

Contractor or two separate companies that may share some resources and be considered

“affiliates” but are not within the same corporate structure will not be considered for establishing Meaningful Relationship Commitments, OPM will not allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including relevant experience project(s), system(s), or certification(s) as a “Subcontractor” in accordance with the following definitions:

“Prime” Contractor means the Contractor has privity-of-contract with the Government for all contractual obligations under a mutually binding legal relationship with the Government. In other words, when the Government awards a Contract to a Contractor, the Contractor is considered the “Prime” Contractor. For example, “Prime” Contractors are identified as such on the cover page of contracts or task orders such as:

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 10 of 25

• Standard Form (SF) 1449 – Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items –

(Block 17a identifies the Prime Contractor)

• SF 26 – Award/Contract – (Block 7 identifies the Prime Contractor)

• SF 33 – Solicitation, Offer, and Award – (Block 15A identifies the Prime Contractor)

• Department of Defense (DD) 1155 – Order for Supplies or Services (Block 9 identifies the Prime Contractor)

• Optional Form 307 – Contract Award (Block 7 identifies the Prime Contractor)

• GSA Form 300 – Order for Supplies and Services (Block 6 identifies the Prime

Contractor)

6. The Government will allow an Offeror to take credit for any Project, System, Certification, and/or Facility Clearance from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure so long as there is a “meaningful relationship” to the Offeror and formal “commitment letters” are provided by both parties to the

Government. For example, if ABC Inc. is the Offeror and ABC Inc. is taking credit for the subsidiary, Best R&D LLC’s DCMA approved “Purchasing System”, ABC Inc. must show how USAL Task Orders will be processed through Best R&D LLC’s Purchasing

System. Furthermore, ABC Inc. must submit a “meaningful relationship commitment letter”, between ABC Inc. and Best R&D LLC. that they will, in fact, process ABC Inc.’s

USAL Task Orders through Best R&D LLC’s Purchasing System. When an Offeror is sharing resources from other entities by way of a Meaningful Relationship within a

Corporate Structure, only one Offer (e.g., proposal) from that Corporate Structure shall be submitted.

7. Failure to follow instructions or to submit a meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) when required may result in an Offeror’s proposal being non-conforming to the

Solicitation and rejected.

8. Meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) will be incorporated by reference into any resulting contract award.

9. Meaningful relationship commitment letters shall only be used within the offering Prime

Contractor’s OR Joint Venture/Partnership Contractor Teaming Agreement (CTA) member's corporate structure. They are not available for use by subcontractors in a Small

Business Prime/Subcontractor CTA as subcontractors do not have privity of contract with the government.

e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA)

1. Offerors who are an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA as defined in FAR

9.601(1) or FAR 9.601(2) may submit a proposal under this Solicitation subject to the following conditions:

i. The Offeror (e.g., Joint Venture or Prime Small Business contractor) and each Contractor identified in an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA must be registered in SAM at https://www.sam.gov with a corresponding Unique Entity ID and CAGE Code and submit complete representations and certifications in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-3 at the time of proposal submission.

https://www.sam.gov/

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 11 of 25

ii. All minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria must have been performed by the Offeror or existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA. If the experience submitted is outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA, then all Contractor’s identified in the

Partnership or Joint Venture shall submit at least one Relevant Experience Project. For example, if Company A submits a relevant experience project outside the Joint Venture, then Company B must also submit a relevant experience project outside the Joint Venture and so forth.

For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant

Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé.

iii. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, it must meet the definition of a Joint Venture for size determination purposes (FAR 2.101 or 13 CFR 121.103).

iv. The Offeror shall submit a complete copy of the existing CTA agreement that established the CTA relationship. The existing CTA agreement shall include the following:

a. Disclose the legal identity of each team member of the CTA.

b. Describe the relationship between the team members.

c. Disclose the form of ownership of each team member.

d. Disclose the primary point of contact of each team member.

e. Disclose the Prime who will be the only entity the government shall have privity.

f. Disclose any limitations on liability or authority for each team member.

g. Describe what resources each team member provides the teaming agreement.

h. A statement from each team member authorizing the use of that team member’s relevant experience and past performance in support of the Official

Legal Entity’s proposal

i. For Joint Ventures, disclose whether or not the existing Joint Venture agreement designates a particular entity as the “team lead,” and if so, the existing Joint Venture agreement must clearly explain the specific duties/responsibilities of the “team lead” to the other members of the team and to the Government.

j. Describe the specific duties/responsibilities of each member of the team members as they relate to each other and explain the specific duties/responsibilities that each team member will have for purposes of contract performance and meeting the performance standards. All parties to the

CTA agreement shall commit to ensure performance of the contract and to complete performance despite withdrawal of any member.

k. Address the circumstances and procedures for replacement of team members, including the team lead (note: replacement of team lead is only applicable for

FAR 9.601(1) CTAs).

l. Address the duration of the existing CTA agreement, including when it became effective, when it expires, and the basis for termination. The duration of the CTA agreement must include the complete period of performance.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 12 of 25

Note: Offerors whose existing CTA agreement that established the CTA relationship does not address items (a) through (l) above may, at its discretion, execute an addendum to the CTA agreement prior to submission of the proposal to address any items not already covered by the existing CTA agreement, in lieu of establishing a new CTA agreement. This addendum shall be attached with the CTA agreement in submission of the Offeror’s proposal.

2. Definitions:

“Contractor Team Arrangement” means an arrangement in which two or more companies form a

Partnership or Joint Venture to act as a potential Prime Contractor (See FAR 9.601(1)); or, a potential Prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its

Subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (See FAR

9.601(2). For the purposes of submitting an Offer under this solicitation, an existing CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(1) is allowable in accordance with the following paragraphs.

Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) Solicitation is limited to only First

Tier Small Business Subcontractors as defined in 15 USC 632 (dd)(2) as a subcontractor who has a subcontract directly with the prime contractor. All Prime/Subcontractor CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard, as reflected in their representations and certifications.

3. All evaluation criteria must be held by either: (a) All team members of the CTA. Scoring will only be awarded at the levels met or exceeded by all members of the existing

Partnership or Joint Venture; or (b) By the Offeror (i.e., the Joint Venture itself or Prime

Small Business contractor).

4. For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, SBA’s approval of the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture

Agreement (ref. 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520) shall be provided upon proposal submission. Award will be contingent upon approval by the SBA of any amendments, as applicable, to the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement (ref. 13 CFR

125.9(e)(7), 13 CFR 124.513(h)).

5. Failure to provide the Government with the requested documentation establishing the

CTA relationship shall result in the Offer being non-conforming to the Solicitation and rejected

f. DD 254 Form

The Offeror shall submit (Attachment 18), titled, “DD 254”. The Prime Contractor is responsible for adhering to the instructions on the DD254. No other format or additional proposal documentation will be considered.

g. Any proposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions upon which the proposal is predicated, price, technical, and/or otherwise. Offerors are hereby advised that any Offeror-imposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions which deviate from the Government’s material terms and conditions established by the Solicitation, may render the Offeror’s proposal Unacceptable, and thus ineligible for award.

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 13 of 25

Method of Evaluation: Offerors that initially pass all the criteria in the Acceptability Review will continue in the evaluation process.

Offerors who fail any of the criteria listed in the Acceptability Review will be removed from consideration for award and promptly notified in writing, as soon as practicable.

The Offeror’s SF-1449, Proposal Checklist, Self-Scoring Worksheet, Proposed Terms and

Conditions and Assumptions (if applicable), Copy of Mergers, Novations, Change of Names (if applicable) Existing Joint Venture/Partnership (if applicable), will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis regarding whether the requested proposal submission information meets the criteria for the information and is current, accurate, and complete.

The Offeror’s Self-Scoring Worksheet will be evaluated for complete and non-conflicting entries.

Responses to “YES” questions that do not contain all required information, or that do include required contract or certification attachments, will be reset to “NO” for that entry.

The Offeror shall ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete.

The Offeror’s Sample Task Order Technical Proposal, Relevant Experience, and past performance

Projects will be initially evaluated on a pass/fail basis in regard to meeting the minimum proposal submission requirements.

VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Instructions for Offerors: To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Technical Approach.

This volume shall contain the following:

a. Sample Task Order Proposal

b. Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo

Sample Task Order Proposal

Offeror shall submit a Sample Task Order proposal in response to the sample task order request

(Attachment 15). The Offeror shall provide all information required. The proposal shall consist of no more than a 20-page technical proposal and a separate price proposal (Attachment 16). NOTE: This

Sample Task Order is only for evaluation purposes and will not result in a task order award.

The offeror should complete the Self-Scoring Worksheet and respond to the following questions for validation and completeness of the Sample Task Order:

1. Does the Sample Task Order proposal discuss in detail all requirements, to include how the

Offeror would design, develop, and deliver all product or services described?

2. Is the proposal formatted in a manner that is easy to read, free of grammatical and punctuation errors and conveys information in a clear and concise manner?

3. Does the staffing plan show each role and estimated hours for each?

4. Is a Work Breakdown Structure provided for each Functional Area (FA) requirement; does it include all required items listed in the Sample Performance Work Statement (PWS)?

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 14 of 25

5. Is a milestone schedule provided and does it include all required elements in the PWS?

6. Is a separate price proposal provided that included all requirements listed in the PWS?

Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo

Offeror shall demonstrate one selected project that validates capabilities for Functional Area (FA) 1

Formal and Informal Learning ISD and Support Services or FA2 Simulator Live and Virtual requirements. The selected project shall be one of the projects listed in the Offerors Volume 3 – Relevant

Experience.

During the presentation, the Offeror must show and explain all elements responded as “YES” on the Self-

Scoring Worksheet. Any items checked as YES in the Self-Scoring Worksheet, but not presented, explained adequately, or addressed within the allotted 60 minutes will have points deducted. Points will also be deducted for items demonstrated that do not show an understanding of the topic discussed, such as selection of conflicting adult learning theories or project management approaches.

The following questions from the Self-Scoring Worksheet will be responded as YES or NO based upon the project that is to be demonstrated. Any choices that are selected as “other” should be clearly explained along with source reference for the theory or approach.

Offeror will select only one from the list below:

1. Project demo is utilized for formal learning as self-paced interactive instructional module that run over a customer LMS.

2. Project demo is an instructional/serious learning game or application that runs independently over a mobile and/or desktop environment

3. Project demo is informal learning activity or portal that utilizes xAPI predominantly for tracking of independent learning activities

Offeror will provide YES/NO responses to all of the questions below (4 – 51): For all “YES” responses, include the video time marker in column I that indicates the start time for that topic demo.

4. Is a project demo provided in a .mp4 format that is 60:00 minutes or less?

5. Is a separate index/table of contents provided that shows topic references and times?

6. Is the project section 508 compliant? Offeror to show all code and design elements that support their response.

7. Does the project use SCORM for compatibility/conformance with SCORM compliant

LMS?

8. Does the project use xAPI for tracking learner-based activities?

9. Was a review software/tool utilized for customer reviews/testing?

10. Was the demonstration clearly and easy to follow? Was the provided index clear in referencing each topic in the SSW?

Media Elements: Offeror will provide YES/NO responses to all the below questions as applicable to the project. It is not anticipated that all questions will be a "YES" response, and only items that will be included in the demo should be included as YES responses.

11. Does the demo include video as part of the content delivery?

12. If video is used, is it close-captioned?

13. Does the video utilize professional talent?

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 15 of 25

14. Is the video in a streaming format, playable on multiple devices, including mobile?

15. Is xAPI utilized to track the learning playback of videos?

16. Is there audio only narration used to support static content?

17. Does the audio narration utilize professional voice talent?

18. Is there a text-script (visible or not-visible) that provides an identical script to the audio?

19. Does the demo utilize 3-D animations?

20. Are there 3-D background or elements that are composited with video scenes?

(Backgrounds with video actors chromakeyed)

21. Does the demo utilize 2-D animations?

22. Are photos utilized to support content or information presented?

23. Are images alt-tagged?

24. Are there branched screens or elements or additional roll-over content that provides additional learning information or context?

25. Is role-playing utilized in part or all of the learning?

26. Does the project incorporate social learning (peer-to-peer) as part of additional engagement?

27. Is micro-learning utilized (as a standalone trackable activity)

28. Is the learning activity-based?

29. Does the micro-learning activity utilize xAPI for tracking?

30. If xAPI is utilized, does it report the data to a LRS?

31. If LRS is utilized, does it have a dashboard for viewing learner data?

32. If xAPI and/or LRS is utilized, does it provide learner completion data to the LMS?

33. Is a game-engine utilized for the project/demo?

34. If yes to the above, is the game-engine open-source?

35. Is the demo a mobile iOS or Android application?

36. Does the demo or application utilize a browser-based environment, such as Chrome, Edge or Firefox?

37. Does the demo include assessment questions? (T/F multiple choice)

38. Does the learning assessment utilize scenarios?

39. Is this a blended learning (i.e., distance, face-to-face, self-paced, non-self-paced) solution?

Instructional Methodologies, Models and Learning Theory Application. Describe, during the demo, which of the below instructional systems design methods and/or learning theory applications was utilized as part of the design of the project demonstration. NOTE: Not all the below will apply to every project, only answer YES for those that apply and will be described during the demonstration. Any such description should include why and how the method or approach was used in the project.

40. Behaviorism

41. Social Constructivism

42. Cognitive Constructivism

43. Vygotsky's Theory of Learning

44. Experiential learning theory

45. Learning-by-doing learning theory

46. Gagne's 9 Events of Instruction

47. Problem-Based Learning

48. Collaborative Learning Approach

49. Action-based Learning Model

50. Blooms Domains of Learning (Also known as Bloom's Taxonomy)

51. Other - Specify during demo

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 16 of 25

Project Methodology. Describe, during the demo, which of the below project management approach(es) was utilized as part of the design of the project demonstration. NOTE: Not all the below will apply to every project, only answer YES for those that apply and will be described during the demonstration. Any such description should include why and how the method or approach was used in the project.

52. Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate (ADDIE)

53. Agile

54. Scrum

55. Waterfall

56. Critical Path

57. Other - Specify during demo

If the Offeror does not provide the sample task order proposal and Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo according to the instructions above, points will be deducted from the Self-Scoring Worksheet.

Method of Evaluation:

Sample Task Order Proposal

Sample Task Order proposal will be validated for completeness and relevance to the requirement. NOTE:

This Sample Task Order is only for evaluation purposes and will not result in a task order award.

If the proposal completeness and relevance cannot be validated, points will be deducted from the SELF-

SCORING WORKSHEET.

Points will be deducted on the following basis:

1. One hundred (100) points for each functional area in the proposal which is not adequately covered to include discussion of how the requirement will be executed.

2. Fifty points (50) for each shortfall in the staffing plan skills do not align with requirements or does not show adequate staffing to meet the requirements.

3. Twenty-five points for WBS each task omission or if the task does not align with the requirements in the PWS.

4. Fifty points (50) for each shortfall in the milestone plan – missing critical milestones or unreasonable schedule.

5. Fifty (50) points per missing requirements in price proposal.

6. Fifty percent of points will be deducted if major grammatical punctuation and ambiguous wording is found continuously throughout the proposal.

7. All points may be deducted omissions or do not comply with instructions.

Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo

Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo will be validated for completeness and relevance to the requirement based on the items identified within the Self Scoring Worksheet. If there is Failure to show or cover any “YES” response during the 60-minute demonstration, then responses will be changed to “NO” and points will be deducted from the Self Scoring Worksheet. Points may also be deducted for incomplete/ambiguous information, low quality graphics, audio quality, or other weakness in accordance with the table below:

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 17 of 25

Example Point Adjustment

Points claimed on SSW, however not shown/discussed in demo

All points deducted

Referenced in demo, however, is incorrect (example points claimed for Agile project management, but

Waterfall method is discussed instead)

All points deducted

Referenced in demo, however explanation is not clear or complete (example, alt tag for photo is present, but does not clearly describe the associated image)

50 Percent of points deducted

Quality is somewhat disrupted (example, low quality audio and/or graphics to where picture or sound cuts out for a second at a time or words cannot be understood)

50 Percent of points deducted

Quality is highly disrupted (example, low quality audio and/or graphics to where picture or sound cuts out for significant periods of time or speaker is very difficult to understand)

All Points deducted

VOLUME 3 – RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Instructions for Offerors: To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Relevant Experience.

This volume shall contain the following:

Offerors shall provide Relevant Experience documentation (within the past 3 years from the date of solicitation) for work and experience in similar projects (similar scope of work, similar magnitude of effort, similar complexity, etc. – as identified in the requirements document).

The Offeror shall provide project references for each functional area as follows:

• FUNCTIONAL AREA 1 (FA1) - Formal/Informal Learning. Offeror shall provide two projects as follows:

o one formal project reference, and o one informal project reference

• FUNCTIONAL AREA 2 (FA2) - Simulators & Live/Virtual. Offeror shall provide three projects as follows:

o one project for live and virtual simulation, o one project for personal computer learning game projects, and o one project for mobile game & applications.

• FUNCTIONA AREA 3 (FA3) - Organizational Training and Planning. Offeror shall provide one project as follows:

o one project reference on one of the categories provided.

• The Offeror may provide no more than one (1) additional project experience in supporting OCONUS Location Training. The project listed may be the same as one of the six (6) required projects listed above.

A total of six (6) required and one (1) optional project references shall be submitted under

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 18 of 25

Volume 3. All listed projects must have a minimum obligated value (including base + exercised options) at time of proposal of at least $50,000 for work performed by the Offeror.

Each project may be listed only one time. If the project spans several FA topics above, select the one that represents the majority of the work performed.

Offeror will provide project references. To receive credit, all listed projects must be verifiable.

Projects that cannot be Validated will not be counted and points deducted accordingly.

The Offeror shall provide a Relevant Experience Project Template (Attachment 11) with each project submitted for Volume 3. No other format will be considered. Offeror shall not alter or change the template. Any alternation or change to the template will result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

The following information shall be provided for each project:

1. Project Contractor company name, address and details for a point of contact (including telephone number, title and e-mail address) for whom the Offeror provided services. Note:

Point of contact must be a current name for the contracting officer/POC.

2. Contract/Task Order/etc. Number

3. Contract Dollar Value

4. Period of Performance (to include start and end dates)

5. Performed wok as a prime contractor or subcontractor

6. A brief description of the work, including – at minimum:

a. Explanation as to why and how the project is relevant to the requirement.

b. Whether the work was performed for a government or private entity.

c. Any significant problems or issues that occurred during performance of the contract and how the Offeror resolved those issues.

7. NAICS or PCS Code project was solicited under

8. Whether or not work was performed in multiple locations

9. Whether or not work was performed CONUS or OCONUS

10. Whether or not performance involved Subcontract or Teaming arrangements

Method of Evaluation: Relevant Experience proposal will be validated for completeness and relevance to the requirement utilizing the Relevant Experience Template (Attachment 11).

If proposal completeness and relevance cannot be validated, points will be deducted from the SELF-

SCORING WORKSHEET.

Relevant Experience will be validated for completeness and relevance to the requirement. If there is

Failure to provide the relevant experience to any “YES” responses, then responses will be changed to “NO” and points will be deducted from the Self Scoring Worksheet. Points may also be deducted for not providing the information in accordance with the table below:

Example Point Adjustment

Offeror did not provide the Six (6) required projects for each functional area as described in the instructions above.

All points deducted for applicable category

Relevant Projects Submitted were not over $50,000.00 All points deducted for applicable category

Amendment 2 Attachment 2 Page 19 of 25

Relevant Projects were listed more than once and spanned over several Functional Areas

All points deducted for applicable category deducted

Prime Offeror was less than 50% of the value of the project

All points deducted for applicable category

VOLUME 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Instructions for Offerors: To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Past Performance.

The six (6) required projects identified and submitted in the Offerors Volume 3 Relevant

Experience shall be used to validate past performance. The additional seventh (7th) project for

OCONUS experiences will not be evaluated for past performance. Offerors shall not provide additional projects not identified in Volume 3 or points will be deducted from…