A21_Combined Synopsis Solicitation W912HQ-20-R-0007.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Number: W912HQ20R0007 – Request for Proposals

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format FAR 12.603 – Streamlined Solicitation for Commercial Items, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. Offers are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2020-05, dated February 27, 2020.

The requirement is for a 100% women-owned small business set-aside under NAICS code 541511, Custom Computer Programming Services. The size standard for this NAICS codes is $30,000,000.

All small businesses that are interested in submitting an offer on a solicitation that has been set aside for WOSBs under the WOSB Program must complete a certification prior to submitting the offer. This includes checking all of the boxes and having an authorized officer of the WOSB sign and date the certification. Once the certification is complete, you must upload it to the WOSB Program Repository (go to www.sba.gov/wosb) along with all other required documents.

Description: This requirement will be awarded as a Firm-Fixed-Priced (FFP), performance-based single award task order contract (SATOC) to support the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CIO/G-6 Cyber Directorate cyber readiness under FAR part 16.5 Indefinite Delivery Contracts.

USACE requires the ability to rapidly deploy cyber technicians to perform checks and simulated inspections, to recommend issue mitigation, ways to harden sites, and to train, report, and assist staff with Cyber issues.

Contract Line Items: This IDIQ contract will contain three contract line item numbers (CLINs):

labor, other direct costs, and travel. These CLINs will share the total contract capacity of $5,000,000 over the life of the contract.

This requirement and associated contract line item numbers (CLINs) are provided in a separate document labeled, “A21 – Appendix D – Labor Rates Pricing Schedule S20-0046.”

Basis for award: The Government will award a contract resulting from this combined synopsis solicitation to the responsible offers whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to represent the “Best Value” to the Government using tradeoff procedures, price and other factors considered. The evaluation factors are Technical Understanding & Approach, Personnel Experience, Response to Live task order, Past Performance and Price. See FAR 52.212-1 (and addenda) and 52.212-2 for additional information.

Offerors are required to be actively registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov prior to award. Offerors are highly encouraged to download and review all attachments to this solicitation prior to submitting an offer.

Period and Place of Performance:

The IDIQ contract will contain a five year ordering period. For planning purposes, work on Task Order One is estimated to begin in August 2020.

Place of Performance will be specified in each Task Order. Hours of work will also be specified in each task order and may include work outside normal business hours. Normal workday hours are Monday through Friday except US federal Holidays from 0700 to 1730 with the exception of Afghanistan. Their hours of work are Sunday through Friday, 10 hours/day. US federal holidays, closure of Government facility/installation due to local or national emergencies, administrative closings, or similar Government-directed facility/installation closings are also excluded. Task orders may require performance in CONUS and OCONUS. See Appendix C for a list of all potential work sites.

Date, Time, and Place Offers are Due: All requests for Request for Proposal (RFP) clarifications/questions are due by 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on 1 July 2020.

The closing date for the delivery of a response to this combined synopsis/solicitation is on or before 1:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on 15 July 2020. Offers shall be e-mailed to the Point of Contact (POC) shown below by the closing date and time. If an offer is e-mailed to the POC shown below, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the transmission is received by the Government prior to the closing date and time. Upon receipt of an electronic offer, the Government will acknowledge receipt of that offer via email to the offeror.

POC: Angela Lape Address: 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria VA Phone: 703-428-6384 Email: angela.s.lape@usace.army.mil

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerrors – Commercial Items, Addenda

As required in 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers, the offeror shall also include the following information in their proposal package:

The Technical factor should include the following information for each subfactor:

Factor 1 Technical:

Subfactor A: Understanding and Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach for accomplishing technical requirements in PWS paragraphs 2 and 3. The offeror must provide a detailed narrative of its methodology to accomplish all requirements described in these PWS paragraphs.

Subfactor B: Personnel Qualifications. Offerors shall demonstrate that they possesses or can obtain and retain necessary personnel. Offeror’s proposal shall include proposed staffing plan with recruitment, on-boarding, governance, training, and quality control descriptions. Offeror must submit a resume for personnel proposed to meet each KSA and Labor Category listed in PWS Table 4.5. The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposal to determine if personnel have qualifications described in PWS para 4.5.

Subfactor C: Response to Live Task Order. Offerors shall submit a separate proposal response to the live Task Order. The live Task Order response shall include evidence of the Offeror’s understanding of the Task Order PWS requirements, the Offeror’s plan to fulfill the Task Order requirements including a narrative summary of proposed personnel and their ability to adhere to the Task Order schedule. The live task order response shall include the offeror’s proposed level of effort.

Factor 2: Past Performance/Experience

(i) Offerors shall submit past performance information following the format listed below for a maximum of three contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last two years from the release date of this solicitation. On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation. Offers shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc. should be verified by the Offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the Offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

Past Performance Information Format:

Project Title Project Description Project Start & Ending Dates Offeror’s role in the Project Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email Narrative description of relevancy to this PWS, mapped to the PWS where applicable.

Performance recognition documents received within the last five years on projects relevant to this PWS such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition

(ii) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to past performance information retrieved through the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

Factor 3: Price.

The offeror shall complete the pricing schedule using the Microsoft Excel template provided in Attachment D: Labor Rates Pricing Schedule, which are binding labor rate ceilings inclusive of profit. The Offeror shall fill in the hourly rates for each of the ordering period years. Offerors are cautioned that the rates proposed will be legally binding for all periods and the rates proposed will be the maximum rates that the Offeror may use to price all firm-fixed priced task orders issued in either of the ordering period years. The Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of all data input, formulas, and calculations.

Each Offer mush review the live task order PWS in Attachment E of this RFP and submit a complete price proposal for the work proposed. This live task order will be issued as Task Order #1 at the time of IDIQ contract award. Offerors shall submit a price proposal for the live task order to include labor, other direct costs (ODCs), travel, and the level of effort required for the task order. Offerors shall utilize Attachment D for pricing. Offerors shall include relevant information and assumptions to support the prices proposed (i.e. types and quantities of ODCs estimated; number of trips estimated; number of travelers, etc.). Labor rates shall be proposed in accordance with pricing sheet. The Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of all data input, formulas, and calculations.

Additionally, offeror shall include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor A: Technical Understanding and Approach. This subfactor evaluates the

Offeror’s proposed technical approach, including the Offeror’s approach for managing the work and the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the PWS requirements. An unclear or undefined technical approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range, should discussions be conducted.

Subfactor B: Personnel Qualifications. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed level of knowledge and certifications held by the proposed personnel. The Contractor’s proposed staffing plan for meeting each KSA and Labor Category identified in PWS Table 4.6 will be evaluated against the minimum qualifications listed in the PWS paragraph 4.5.

Subfactor C: Response to Live Task Order. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed technical approach specific to the live task order in accordance with the PWS provided as part of the solicitation. The proposal shall include a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the requirement of the live PWS, and provide a detail description of the approach to address the PWS that demonstrates an understanding of the technical disciplines required to successfully perform the live task order. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how the Offeror would provide services to the cyber services to the USACE, CIO/G-6 Cyber Directorate. An unclear or under defined technical approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. This is a live task order that will be issued to the Offeror upon contract award.

Technical subfactors A, B and C are of equal importance. The Government will assign the following adjectival ratings when evaluating Factor 1: Technical Capability (individual elements are not separately rated):

Table 1 Technical Capability Rating

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates deep and thorough understanding of the requirements and provides an exceptional approach.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements and provides a reasonable approach.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal indicates understanding of the requirements and provides an adequate approach.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly indicate an understanding of the requirements or provide adequate approach.

Proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is greater than moderate

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

Factor 2 – Past Performance. Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and the quality of performance on the past contracts. A past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The Government reserves the right to consider any additional past performance information available. Sources of past performance information may include the SPRS, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or any other past performance information available. After reviewing past performance information, the Contracting Officer will document the findings.

The Government will assign an individual relevancy rating per project (submitted by the offeror and/or any additional past performance information available) as indicated below. Due to dynamic, ever evolving nature of cybersecurity field, recent project is defined as one completed within the last 24 months of the issuance of the RFP. A current project is defined as one with at least one invoice paid. Relevant is defined as a project with similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the work described in the PWS. The offeror shall receive an overall relevancy rating in accordance with Table 2 below.

Table 2 Past Performance/Experience Relevancy Ratings Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description 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.

After a relevancy rating has been assigned, the Government will consider relevant projects and will assign an overall performance confidence rating to the proposal as indicated below.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings from the Performance Confidence Assessment table. (Reference FAR 15.305(2))

Table 3 Performance Confidence Ratings

Performance Confidence Rating

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case that the offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or neutral) past performance.

Factor 3 – Price. The resulting award will be a single award FFP IDIQ contract. Price will not be scored or rated, but will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1 (b). The offeror shall complete the pricing schedule using the Microsoft Excel template provided in Attachment: D: Labor Rates Pricing Schedule, which are binding labor ceilings. The Offeror shall fill in the rates columns for each of the five years of the contract. It is up to the Offeror to ensure all calculations are correct.

The technical evaluation factor is significantly more important than past performance.

The technical subfactors are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than the price. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Evaluation Factors. For Past Performance/Experience, the evaluation will result in a Past Performance/Experience Confidence Assessment Rating. A rating of “No Confidence” will deem a proposal un-awardable. For Price, an offeror’s proposed price must be deemed fair and reasonable to be considered awardable.

The Government intends to make an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best technical and price terms.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

MINIMUM GUARANTEE:

This is a Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) and the resulting ID/IQ contract includes a five year ordering period.

The minimum guaranteed for this contract shall be $10,000. The Contracting Officer is under no obligation to issue any task orders against this contract in excess of the minimum guarantee amount. Awarded task orders will share an estimated capacity of $5,000,000.00. The only authorized ordering office is the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity (HECSA).