DRAFT CWMD PPA A&AS Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria 70RWMD20R00000001 Section VII and Section VIII.pdf

RFP 70RWMD20R00000001 for CWMD PPA A&AS

SECTION VII - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

(This section will be removed upon award.)

1.0 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY

Proposal submission is due no later than 10:00 am, Eastern Standard Time (EST), Thursday, February 06, 2020. Offerors shall submit their proposal via email to the Contract Specialist, Brad Grimm at william.grimm@hq.dhs.gov and the Contracting Officer, Chiara Best at chiara.best@hq.dhs.gov. Offerors that do not meet the delivery deadline for receipt may be excluded from the competition and its proposal may not be accepted.

Offeror shall submit their signed proposal as a “PDF” document. Each electronic file shall be clearly named in accordance with the solicitation provisions and shall be submitted in “PDF” format except when specified otherwise. Files are not to exceed the standard 5 MB individual file size limitation. The Offeror’s electronic proposal shall be submitted according to the requirements set forth in this section.

NOTE: This is a fair opportunity ordering process under FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv). The procedures in FAR subpart 15.3 do not apply to this acquisition. Each Offeror may only submit one (1) Proposal. Alternate Proposals will not be considered and will not be evaluated. If only one (1) proposal is received as a result of this solicitation, the Government may choose to cancel this solicitation and re-solicit in order to garner competition.

2.0 QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

All questions regarding this RFP shall be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer identified above no later than 10:00 am, Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday, January 13, 2020. Offerors that do not meet the deadline for questions may not have their questions considered and responded to from the Government.

Please ensure that questions are written in a way that enables the Government to have a clear understanding of the Offeror’s issues or concerns with the referenced area of the solicitation.

Statements expressing opinions, sentiments, or conjectures are not considered valid inquiries or comments for this purpose and will not receive a response from the Government. Further, Offerors are reminded that DHS will not address hypothetical questions aimed toward receiving a potential “evaluation decision” from DHS.

Answers to questions will be provided to all prospective Offerors, giving due regard to the proper protection of proprietary information. In order to receive responses to questions, Offerors shall cite, at a minimum, the section, paragraph, number, and page number in the format shown below:

DRAFT

mailto:william.grimm@hq.dhs.gov mailto:chiara.best@hq.dhs.gov.

Email “subject line” shall read:

RFP No.: 70RWMD20R00000001 – Questions Submitted by (Insert Contractor Name)

The table below shall be filled in and submitted as a Microsoft Excel (2003 or later) attachment using the following format:

Reference RFP

Section Paragraph No. Page No.(s) Question

All questions will be answered in an amendment and provided to all Offerors. DHS will not attribute any question(s) asked to the submitting Offeror(s).

3.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS

The Government will not pay any costs incurred by the Offeror in the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this RFP.

4.0 PROPOSAL VALIDITY PERIOD

Proposal shall be valid for a minimum of 90 days.

5.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 OVERALL PROPOSAL STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

Offeror shall submit a proposal which consists of two (2) electronic volumes, as described below:

Naming Convention Tab Title

Volume I: Technical

Tab A Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter (limit 3 pages)

Tab B Technical Assumptions

Tab C Technical (limit 30 pages excluding resumes and Past Performance Questionnaire)

Volume II: Price Price (no page limit), signed SF1449 and SF 30 (if any), pricing assumptions (if any), and completed Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix.

Information contained in each volume shall be complete to the extent that review of one volume may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, review of the other.

DRAFT

Proposals shall be legible, single-spaced, typewritten, in a font size not smaller than twelve

(12) point Times New Roman. No reduction in font size is permitted except for charts/tables and text boxes (10-point font) or other graphic illustrations (9-point font). Each page shall have text margins of at least one (1) inch on all sides. Header/footer information (which does not include any information to be reviewed) may be included in the margin space. Pages that exceed the maximum page limitation will not be reviewed.

The Proposal submitted shall fully comply with all requirements in the RFP. Failure of the Offeror to address all requirements of the RFP may render the Proposal unacceptable and may result in the rejection of the Proposal.

Clarity and completeness of the Proposal is also of the utmost importance. The Proposal shall be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner with comprehensive and factual information as well as complete and substantiated data. Accordingly, any Proposal in which material information requested is not furnished, or where indirect or incomplete answers or information are provided may be considered not acceptable for evaluation.

The following are examples of deficiencies that may render the Proposal unacceptable and may result in the rejection of the Proposal:

• General statements that the Offeror understands the requirements of the work to be performed, or simple rephrasing or restating of the Government’s requirements will not be considered adequate.

• Simple statements of compliance (i.e., “understood”; “will comply”) without the detailed description of how compliance will be met may not be considered sufficient evidence that the proposed services can technically meet the requirements of this

RFP.

• Submissions containing omissions or incomplete responses to the requirements of this RFP or use of nonspecific phrases such as "in accordance with standard procedures" or "well- known techniques" may also be considered inadequate.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to present enough information to allow the various work efforts, support, and management approaches to be meaningfully evaluated on a fair and uniform basis without discussions. The Offeror shall include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems it identifies in its quote.

Proposal amendments will be allowed only prior to the due date for Proposals. Changes to the Proposal by the Offeror shall be accomplished by amended page(s). Any changes from the original page shall be indicated by a vertical line, adjacent to the change, on the outside margin of the page. The Offeror shall include the date of the amendment on the lower right edge of the page.

5.2 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

NOTE: No price information shall be included in Volume I.

Tab A: Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter

Your submission of the Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter shall include the following information:

(a) Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS);

(b) Offeror’s OASIS Contract Number

(c) Contact Name;

(d) Contact Email address;

(d) Contact telephone and fax number;

(e) Complete business mailing address; and

(f) In accordance with FAR 52.212-3(b)(2), verification that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this proposal and are incorporated in this proposal by reference (see FAR 4.1201).

Tab B: Assumptions

Firms must indicate, in this section only, if any technical related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with the Statement of Work as written. If technical assumptions are not noted in this Volume and this section of the proposal, it will be assumed that the submitted proposal reflects no technical assumptions for award and the Offeror agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein.

It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the proposal. Accordingly, any technical related assumptions listed in any other volume or section shall be null and void.

Any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP shall be stated in this Section. The Offeror is advised that any exception taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP may adversely impact its evaluation rating. Any assumptions that are considered unacceptable by the Government and cannot be resolved may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration.

Additionally, the offeror shall submit their completed HSAR 3052.209-72 – Organizational Conflict of Interest and FAR 52.209-2 – Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporation in this section.

Tab C: Technical

Technical Proposals s shall consist of four (4) factors: (1) Small Business Subcontracting Goal, (2) Technical Capability & Approach, (3) Management Approach, and (4) Past Performance. Offeror shall strictly adhere to the page limitations.

FACTOR 1: Small Business Subcontracting Goal

Offerors must meet or exceed a Small Business Subcontracting Goal of 20% of the total proposed value of this Task Order.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to assuring that maximum practicable opportunity is provided to small business concerns to participate in the performance of this contract consistent with its efficient performance. An offeror, other than a small business concern, shall demonstrate its ability to represent a creative and innovative program for involving the small business concerns as subcontractors in performance of this contract. The requirement stated below is applicable to this procurement and should be utilized for developing your technical proposal.

The offeror shall submit a one-page certified statement that they will subcontract at least 20% of the total proposed value of this Task Order to small business. The eventual awardee’s biannual report to CWMD will include progress against the Task Order small business goal of at least 20%. This biannual report will be required when invoice is submitted in April and November.

FACTOR 2: Technical Capability & Approach

The offeror shall provide a summary of its technical capabilities and approach that demonstrates in a clear, comprehensive, and concise manner its understanding of the SOW requirements, to include the degree to which the offeror effectively demonstrates how it will apply the knowledge, capability, and competency to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

Specifically, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate their technical capability and approach to:

• Provide operational and analytical, scientific, and technical expertise in support of NBIC’s biosurveillance mission

• Provide analytical, intelligence, and scientific support to Threat Analysis

• Provide analytical and scientific support to CWMD Targeting

• Provide development support, coordination and analysis for CWMD strategies, operational planning, and policies.

FACTOR 3: Management Approach

The Offeror shall provide information related to its management approach in order to facilitate the Government’s consideration of Factor 3. Specifically, the Offeror shall describe the following:

• Mapping offeror labor categories to Government labor categories

• Identifying top skills required to perform the SOW requirements

• Recruiting people with the skills required to perform the SOW requirements

• Training to maintain and improve worker skills

• Retaining workers

• Ensuring delivery of quality work products

• Managing changes in work priorities and work surge demands

• Minimizing the transition impact, such that continuity of services will be maintained without disruption

Offerors shall provide their labor category descriptions and a labor category cross reference matrix that lists all the labor categories required by the Government and maps them to the correlating offeror labor categories.

FACTOR 4: Past Performance

The offeror shall provide Past Performance references and information that will demonstrate how well an offeror has performed relevant projects.

Past performance may cite federal, state, local government, commercial sources, or not for profit sources, and should highlight the company’s key role in the past performance being documented. This information shall consist of a one (1) page introductory matrix listing the offeror’s and its Tier 1 subcontractors’ past performance references. The Offeror should submit up to 3 past performance examples for the prime and up to 3 past performance examples from each of its Tier 1 subcontractors, defined as a subcontractor holding a subcontract with the prime contractor. At least one of the examples shall be from the prime. The offeror should include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance for each reference. These references should also be from different contracts.

To be considered, past performance data may not be older than (3) years from the date of the quotation and may include active contracts. Further, offerors should include a list of all relevant DHS on-going contracts or contracts completed in the last (5) years.

All past performance references, whether from the prime or sub, must be for work performed as the prime contractor that is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work identified in the Statement of Work. Past performance does not necessarily have to be Government-related; but it is important to demonstrate and provide evidence of past performance for work that is relevant to the work described in the SOW. Relevancy is defined as being similar in size, scope and complexity to that described in the SOW.

The offeror is required to provide rationale as to why the offeror believes the identified experience is relevant to the SOW. The Government will provide a review of the offeror’s rationale as to why the offeror believes the identified past performance is relevant to the Government’s SOW.

The offeror is also required to identify any performance problems/issues/challenges arising out of the contract and clearly describe management actions implemented to overcome problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of a lessons learned type analysis. The offeror shall also provide explanation of how those lessons learned will be applied to the SOW to increase the likelihood of successful performance. Evidence of performance-based methodologies in past performance shall be provided where available.

For each past performance reference submitted, provide the following information, in the format provided:

PAST PERFORMANCE

Contract Number (or Identifier) Name and Address of Company/Agency Program Title Contact Person Telephone Number of Contact Person E-mail Address of Contact Person Identify if you were the Prime or Subcontractor Period of Performance (e.g. start date and completion date)

Contract Type (FP, T&M, LH, etc.)

PAST PERFORMANCE

Contract Value Description of Work (Types of work performed, problems encountered and their resolutions, any subcontractors or partnerships…)

Rationale for relevance of described work to

SOW

Lessons learned and application of those lessons to SOW

The offeror shall forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 3) to each reference. The reference shall forward the completed questionnaires directly to the contracting officer and contract specialist at chiara.best@hq.dhs.gov and william.grimm@hq.dhs.gov by the proposal deadline. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure its customer references return the surveys directly to the contracting officer and contract specialist on time. Surveys received late may be accepted and reviewed at the discretion of the contracting officer, if the contracting officer determines that it will not cause undue delay to the procurement process.

The Government reserves the right to use publicly available reports and data from

CPARS.

The Government may also use present and/or past performance information obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by the offeror.

5.3 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL (NO

PAGE LIMIT)

General

The Offeror shall prepare a Price Proposal that contains all information necessary to evaluate the prices submitted by the Offeror. This includes the completed and signed Standard Form (SF) 1449, SF 30 (if any), and a completed copy of Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix. The Pricing Matrix shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel (2003 or later) in order for the Government to be able to verify the accuracy of the pricing submitted. The pricing matrix shall be completed for all LCATs with available hours for all CLINs provided on the spreadsheet.

Assumptions

Offerors must indicate if any pricing related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with this RFP or the Statement of Work as written. If assumptions are not noted in this Volume, it will be assumed that the offeror’s proposal reflects no assumptions for award and the firm agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the offeror’s proposal.

Accordingly, any pricing related assumptions listed in any other volume shall be null and void. Any assumptions that are considered unacceptable by the Government and cannot be resolved may result in the firm being removed from consideration.

mailto:chiara.best@hq.dhs.gov mailto:william.grimm@hq.dhs.gov

Pricing Matrix

When completing Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix, the Offeror shall:

• Fill in the proposed fully burdened labor rate and extended price for each task.

a. To assist in the verification of accurate pricing, Offerors shall round labor rates to the nearest hundredth when calculating the extended price for each labor category.

• NTE amounts for ODCs (including Travel) have already been calculated and shall not be changed in the Pricing Matrix.

• The Offeror shall not change any of the above information already provided.

Please note: the labor categories provided have not been mapped to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) numbering system and therefore the standardized labor categories found in Attachment 1 of the offeror’s OASIS Contract do not apply.

Fill-ins for Other Direct Costs under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I

In accordance with FAR 52.212-4 Alt I (i)(1)(ii)(D)(1), Offerors shall provide a list of all proposed Other Direct Costs (ODCs) anticipated for the duration of this task order. Please note: Travel is one ODC that has already been included by the Government for this fill-in.

Additional proposed ODCs (if any) will be assessed by the Government for inclusion under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I (i)(1)(ii)(D)(1).

SECTION VIII – EVALUATION

(This section will be removed upon award.)

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This requirement will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The best value determination will be made using the tradeoff process, where non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Small Business Subcontracting Goal;

Factor 2: Technical Capability & Approach;

Factor 3: Management Approach;

Factor 4: Past Performance; and Factor 5: Price (Not Rated).

The Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis that involves the assessment of benefits of superior technical proposal features (i.e., benefits clearly attribute to increased productivity, increased probability of successful task order performance, and unique and innovative approaches or capabilities) versus the added price. In the event that two or more proposals are determined to be technically equivalent, price will become more important, and award may be made to the lower priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each Offeror should include the most favorable and advantageous price and technical factors that the Offeror can submit to the Government. Proposal revisions shall be permitted only at the Contracting Officer’s request.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS:

Non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance with Small Business Subcontracting Goal being the most important and Past Performance being the least important.

When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1: Small Business Subcontracting Goal

Offerors must meet or exceed a Small Business Subcontracting Goal of 20% of the total proposed value of this Task Order.

This evaluation factor is being considered on a “pass” or “fail” basis. Any offeror not meeting or exceeding the 20.0% Small Business subcontracting goal will not be further evaluated.

Factor 2: Technical Capability & Approach

The offeror’s technical capabilities and approach will be evaluated to assess the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to demonstrate in a clear, comprehensive, and concise manner its understanding of the SOW requirements, to include the degree to which the offeror effectively demonstrates how it will apply the knowledge, capability and competency to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

Specifically, the offeror will be evaluated to determine how well they clearly demonstrate their technical capability and approach to:

o Provide operational and analytical, scientific, and technical expertise in support of NBIC’s biosurveillance mission o Provide analytical, intelligence, and scientific support to Threat Analysis o Provide analytical and scientific support to CWMD Targeting o Provide development support, coordination and analysis for CWMD strategies, operational planning, and policies.

Factor 3: Management Approach

The Management Approach will be evaluated to assess the level of confidence the Government has in the offerors ability to demonstrate a comprehensive, sound, and reasonable approach to manage the overall requirements as described in the SOW with minimal Government oversight required.

The Management approach will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s compliance with the following requirements:

• Mapping offeror labor categories to Government labor categories

• Identifying top skills required to perform the SOW requirements

• Recruiting people with the skills required to perform the SOW requirements

• Training to maintain and improve worker skills

• Retaining workers

• Ensuring delivery of quality work products

• Managing changes in work priorities and work surge demands

• Minimizing the transition impact, such that continuity of services will be maintained without disruption

Factor 4: Past Performance

The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to assess the level of confidence the Government has that the offeror will be successful in performing the contract, and with what required level of Government intervention. The evaluation will consider the relevancy, recentness, and quality of past performance references. Relevant is defined as work that is similar in size, scope and complexity of this solicitation. The size portion of relevancy does not imply that offeror work experience is a one-for-one comparison. Recent is defined as no older than five (5) years from the date of the award and may include active contracts. The Government may choose to evaluate publicly available reports, and/or data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government may use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by the offeror. Offerors without relevant past performance will not be rated either favorably or unfavorably under this factor. If an offeror has only one or two relevant past performance projects, the Government will evaluate past performance on the basis of these projects if, in the Government’s judgment, they indicate the extent to which past performance demonstrates the likelihood of successful performance.

The Government will review all past performance data submitted with the proposal, including the questionnaires that are submitted on a timely basis and those received late if the contracting officer determines that it will not cause undue delay to the procurement process. The Government may contact the referenced companies/organizations and others to verify the past performance information.

Specifically, past performance will be evaluated to include the offerors capability to perform other relevant work to the SOW and will be evaluated in the following areas:

• Relevancy and recentness of identified past performance to Government SOW

• Review of past performance questionnaires

• Lessons learned identified difficulties and mistakes in relevant work

• Lessons learned identifies corrections and improvements resulting from analysis of those difficulties and mistakes

Factor 5: Price (Not Rated)

Each price proposal will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This process involves verification that prices are included for all RFP requirements and that figures are correctly calculated. The Government will establish a “total evaluated price” based on the completed price proposal submitted. The government expects to receive price competition through several offerors. The “total evaluated price” will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2).

If needed, the Government intends to exercise the option for services under FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or a justification for exception to fair opportunity. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend the period of task order performance for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the last option period will be considered for all Offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be at the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options (including the options available under FAR 52.217-8 evaluated at the same rates of the last option period), is fair and reasonable, and whether the price of the base period and all option periods (including the option(s) represented by FAR 52.217-8), in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government.

Assessment Criteria and Confidence Rating Levels

The assessment criteria and confidence rating levels are summarized in the two tables below:

Technical Capabilities & Approach and Management Approach Confidence

Assessments Rating Description

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

SOME

CONFIDENCE

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

LOW

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

SOME

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

LOW

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

NEUTRAL

No recent/relevant past performance is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse, such that a meaningful confidence rating cannot be assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.