Atch 2 PAI Alerting ITO and Eval Criteria 3 Apr 26.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) HAF/A2 Publicly Available Information (PAI)

Enterprise Alerting Service

FA701426R0008

Attachment 2

ADDENDUM TO RFO PROVISION 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

INTENT

The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract as a result of this solicitation.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is being issued using NAICS code 541511. This is a full and open competitive source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) Part 12 and 15.

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with RFO 15.2 as supplemented. The Government intends to award a FFP contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors.

1.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DUE DATE AND TIME

The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III, shall be submitted by the date and time stated in Block 8 of Solicitation FA701426R0008, SF1449. Late submissions will be processed IAW RFO 52.212-1(c). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the Government has received the proposal by the stated due date. All times listed in the RFP are Eastern.

Proposal submissions shall be emailed to the following individuals by the date and time identified on the

SF1449.

Capt Richard Snyder, Contracting Officer (CO) E-mail address: richard.snyder.12@us.af.mil

Kevin Harrington, Contract Specialist (CS) E-mail address: kevin.harrington.3@us.af.mil

1.2 COMPLIANCE

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors shall comply with all instructions within this section, the following paragraphs will be evaluated for compliance: 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12.

1.3 MARKINGS

Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW RFO 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and RFO 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Classified information will not be permitted.

1.4 RFP RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

1.4.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall include all information requested by this RFP and shall be submitted IAW these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and RFP. Non-compliance with the instructions provided in this RFP will result in the proposal being ineligible for award.

1.4.2 Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this RFP and include the Offeror’s approach to provide services in support of the “AF/A2 Publicly Available Information (PAI) Alerting Service” requirement. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish all requirements and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but instead shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the stated requirements.

1.4.3 Elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response to the RFP are not unnecessary and not desired. Similarly, for product demonstrations, elaborate productions are unnecessary and not desired.

1.4.4 Period for acceptance of offers. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

1.5 RFP DISCREPANCIES/AMBUIGITIES

If an Offeror believes that any portion of this solicitation contains a perceived error, omission, or is otherwise unclear, the Offeror shall immediately contact the CO and CS via e-mail, clearly describing the portion of the solicitation in question and the impact the discrepancy or ambiguity has on the Offeror’s ability to prepare their proposal.

1.6 COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without negotiations in accordance with RFO Part 15.203. If the Government determines it is necessary to negotiate, the rationale and procedures in doing so will be conducted in accordance with RFO Part 15.204. Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be used by the Contracting Officer for Clarification of an Offeror's proposal in accordance with RFO Part 15.202(a)(2), and if determined necessary, negotiations. Offeror's responses to ENs for the price and technical factors will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein.

Failure by an Offeror to respond to ENs by the prescribed date and time, will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

1.7 COMMUNICATIONS

All exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the CO and CS. E-mail will be used to transmit such information to Offerors. The Government intends to send answers to questions by amendment to the solicitation and posting them to SAM.gov. Question submission due date will be provided on SAM.gov.

The CO and the CS are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Written questions and/or inquiries must be received in accordance with the RFP. Please consolidate questions into as few requests as possible. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all questions submitted by Offerors;

however, the Government may consider questions received by the RFP questions submission due date and time, and at the Government’s discretion, consolidate them and provide responses to all parties through SAM.gov. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted.

1.8 ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

All referenced documents for this solicitation can be found on SAM.gov, the authoritative source for Government Contract Opportunities. Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. Offerors may contact the CO if they are unable to locate any of the referenced material.

1.9 PROPOSAL RECORDS

In accordance with RFO Subpart 4.7, the Government will retain one copy of each Offeror’s proposal.

1.10 DEBRIEFINGS

Offerors desiring a debriefing shall make their request in accordance with the requirements of RFO

15.206 or 15.301, as applicable. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing. Post-award debriefings shall follow the debriefing guidance of R-DFARS 215.301.

1.11 PAGE FORMAT

1.11.1 Page Limitations.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the Offeror as soon as practicable. Each page shall be counted except the following: title pages, cover pages, table of contents, tab indexing, glossaries, and list of tables and figures.

1.11.2 Page Size and Format

1.11.2.1. General Page Instructions.

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Proposal pages must be in English and legible, if illegible, the Government reserves the right to exclude Offeror.

1.11.2.2 Table and Chart Instructions.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures may be used to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.

1.11.2.3 Submission Format.

The Offeror shall submit each volume in electronic format. The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Adobe PDF and/or MS Office Suite (i.e., Excel, Power Point, Word, etc.), as applicable.

Offerors shall use separate electronic files for each proposal section listed in Table 1 to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal.

1.12 PROPOSAL VOLUME ORGANIZATION/PAGE LIMITATIONS

1.12.1 The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The cover letter shall be a separate document and will not be counted in the page limitations.

Only proposals submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The following are further descriptions of the information that shall be provided with the proposal.

1.12.2. Proposal Due Date: The proposal due date and time for this solicitation is identified in the SAM.gov announcement. OFFERORS ARE INSTRUCTED TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE

GOVERNMENT POCS REGARDING ANY REQUESTS TO EXTEND THE RFP DUE DATE.

OFFERORS MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH REQUEST.

Proposals received after the due date and time will be considered late and will not be considered in the evaluation/validation process. Proposal submission for this solicitation will be electronic via email to the CO and CS. The transmittal of large files >10Mb or CUI documents (proposal documents) must be submitted via DODSAFE. Email the CO and CS to request a DODSAFE link.

Table 1 - Proposal Organization Table 1 – Proposal Organization

PROPOSAL SECTION TITLE PAGE LIMIT

Volume I - Administrative

File name: CompanyName_PAI_I_Executive Summary CompanyName_ PAI_I _1449 CompanyName_ PAI_I_Reps

CompanyName_ PAI _I_FinancialResources CompanyName_ PAI _I_COI

CompanyName_ PAI_I_Affordability Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter No Limit

Signed SF1449 and SF30, if applicable No Limit Representations and Certifications No Limit

Financial Resources No Limit Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan (if applicable) 10 Pages

Affordability 5 Pages Volume II – Technical

File name: Company_ PAI_II_Technical Technical Solution 25 Pages

Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration 3 .csv Files Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation 60 minutes/45 Slides

Volume III – Price File name: Company_ PAI_III_Price

Price Template and supporting documents 5 Pages

2. PROPOSAL VOLUMES

The following details the specific instructions for each volume:

2.1 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

This volume shall be organized according to Table 1 above. Each Offeror shall complete and submit the documents in this section, which must be submitted by the date and time specified for receipt of proposals. Failure to provide the information will result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

2.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary /Cover Letter.

The Offeror shall provide a cover letter with all the following information: Name, Address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), SAM.gov registration/expiration date, proposal validity statements, Contracting Point of Contacts (POCs) (name, email address and phone number), Socio-economic status, and Executive summary of the proposal. The proposal validity statement shall be valid through 180 calendar days from the proposal due date. The Offeror shall be registered in the SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition. If the Offeror’s SAM.gov registration expires prior to the proposal validity date, the Offeror shall assert its intent to renew the registration in the Executive Summary.

2.1.2 Completed SF1449 and Amendments (if applicable)

Offerors are to acknowledge the solicitation SF1449 and any amendments by signing the cover page and returning it with its proposal.

2.1.3 Representations and Certifications

Offerors shall provide their Representations and Certifications from SAM.gov.

2.1.4 Financial Resources.

In accordance with RFO 9.104-1(a), the Offeror shall provide a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements. The Offeror shall also provide evidence to support the explanation. Evidence may include official letter(s) from (a) financial institution(s) demonstrating that the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitment.

2.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan.

Offerors shall submit an assessment of potential or actual Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues, if any, as related to this contract vehicle and future work. Initial notification shall be made to the PCO and CS as soon as they become known. OCI issues include, but may not be limited to, the inability to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, the inability to objectively perform contract work, or the unfair competitive advantage created by current or previous contractual efforts with the Government. If an actual or potential OCI exists, the Offeror shall submit a mitigation plan with the proposal. The Contracting Officer will review the submitted mitigation plan and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government. Submission of mitigation plans are only required if the Offeror is aware of potential or actual OCI issues related to this procurement. If the Offeror believes no potential or actual OCI issues exist, this shall be so stated. Offerors are to use RFO 9.5 for more information on OCI. If an OCI mitigation plan is deemed to be unacceptable or an OCI is not mitigable then the Government will deem the Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1.6 Affordability

Offerors are advised that excessively high proposed price will be considered unaffordable and receive no further consideration. Any proposal that is over $321M (total contract value) will be considered unaffordable.

2.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

The Technical Volume shall consist of the following:

Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) Factor 2: Technical Demonstration Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation)

Offerors Technical Solution (Narrative), Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submission), and Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation) shall address the following topics and demonstrate the Offerors ability in all objectives:

Table 2 – Objectives/Delivery Method

Objectives Delivery Method

1 Offerors submission of completed Atch 3 Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAI Template detailing Offerors proposed solution to the SOO

Narrative

2 Compliance with Offeror's Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

Narrative

3 Offerors alerting capability to users via a web-browser user interface, API, mobile application, text message, or e-mail, as selected by the user.

Narrative, Presentation

4 Compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information.

Narrative

5 Offerors low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use. Narrative, Presentation

6 Offerors detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

Presentation, .csv

7 Offerors scalability to support the full operational requirements and user base across all elements of the DoW enterprise.

Presentation

8 Offerors delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria Presentation, .csv

9 Offerors comprehensive data coverage across all geographic locations critical to DoW operations by leveraging a wide variety of social media, news, and other publicly available information sources, including the most popular regional social media and news platforms.

Presentation

10 Offerors translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

Presentation, .csv

11 Offerors map display interface with event locations. Presentation

12 Offerors search capability by user for events by text and location. Presentation 13 Offerors source attribution in alerts and notification to the user before they leave the service’s web interface.

Presentation

14 Offerors data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

Presentation, .csv

15 Offerors pre-configurability of Common Interest Profiles. Presentation 16 Offerors custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

Presentation, .csv 17 Offerors comprehensive help desk service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Presentation

18 Offerors solution design for intuitive use, minimal required training for basic operations, and comprehensive training support for users.

Presentation

19 Offerors process for seeking DISA approval for mobile app delivery on government devices, if not already approved.

Presentation

20 Offerors enrollment of existing users into their product (if applicable) to ensure uninterrupted to existing DoW PAI users.

Presentation

2.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Solution

Offeror’s technical solution shall be provided in narrative format using Adobe PDF and/or MS Office Suite (i.e., Excel, Power Point, Word, etc.), as applicable. The Offeror’s technical solution shall be a narrative on how the Offeror will meet the needs of the applicable objectives in Table 2 above.

2.2.2 Factor 2: Technical Demonstration

2.2.2.1 Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Offerors are instructed to submit three (3) .csv files capturing the alerts generated by their product for the following topics or regions, demonstrating their ability to meet the objectives listed in Table 2, over the specified 72-hour period below.

Offerors are instructed to use the following 72-hour period; 12am 15 April 2026 to 11:59pm 17 April 2026.

• North Africa geographic area. This area is defined as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara disputed area (.csv file 1)

• Cybersecurity area (.csv file 2)

• Global area for high urgency alerts (.csv file 3)

2.2.2.2 Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation Product Demonstration/Oral presentations shall be provided using Microsoft PowerPoint. The number of slides should not exceed 45. Offerors are instructed to submit their PowerPoint presentation with their proposal. Offerors will not have an opportunity to revise the PowerPoint after the submission due date has closed.

Offerors will be contacted about scheduling the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation. The Government anticipates the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation to take place within two (2) weeks from the proposal submission due date. The Government reserves the right to reschedule the Product

Demonstration/Oral Presentation at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Government attendees will be identified at the time of the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation. If an Offeror fails to schedule the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation as instructed, the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated and will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

The location for the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation will be at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland or Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC. The Government reserves the right to change the site at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Offerors may not present any classified information in either their proposals or their Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation.

Price Proposal and Contract documentation will NOT be included in the oral presentations. All pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal.

During the Offeror’s Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation, they will be given time to set up and then be allowed 60 minutes to demonstrate the live capabilities of their product. Offerors are instructed to demonstrate the objectives labeled ‘presentation’ in Table 2 above.

The Government will provide a TV and/or monitor in order for the Offeror to present. Offerors are instructed to bring: a laptop to present their product, a range of laptop to TV/monitor cables to ensure proper hookup, some form of Wi-Fi hookup (Wi-Fi at the Government location cannot be guaranteed so Offerors must bring a backup), and any power cables for their equipment.

Base access is required. All guests 18 and over are required to have a state or federally issued REAL-compliant photo ID. The CO and CS will reach out to the Offeror contract POC to set up base access.

Presentations must be done in person and no more than two presenters per Offeror.

Offerors shall not use any type of video during the oral presentation, whether as pre-recorded presentations or as part of the Offeror’s briefing materials. No external consultants will be allowed to represent an Offeror in the product demonstration.

Note 1: The Government reserves the right to ask questions after the 60-minute presentation following a break for consultation. The Questions & Answers (Q&A) session will be considered in the Offeror’s technical evaluation. Q&A does not constitute formal discussions.

Note 2: IAW RFO 15.202(a)(3), Oral Presentations will be recorded. If an Offeror refuses to have their Oral Presentation recorded, they will be determined Unacceptable and not further evaluated. Offerors are advised to follow RFO 15.202(a)(3) regarding any terms or conditions presented in the Oral Presentation as they must also be incorporated in the Offeror’s written proposal.

2.3 VOLUME III - PRICE

The price Volume shall consist of the following:

Price Template (see Attachment 4 Price Proposal Template)

2.3.1 Price Template (Attachment 4)

Attachment 4 is provided to ensure the Government is able to evaluate all price elements appropriately.

The Price Template shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format and include all cell formulas. Please ensure there are no protected/locked cells. Offerors are required to submit prices for their enterprise PAI alerting tool for the base period + four option periods.

Offerors may submit any supporting documents along with their price template.

ADDENDUM FOR RFO PROVISION 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with RFO 15.2 as supplemented. The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors. Selections may be made to compliant proposals with the best rated technical capability with price that is complete, reasonable, and balanced. Non-price factors are defined as Technical, in which Technical is considered significantly more important than Price.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government will use a best value tradeoff where technical is significantly more important than price. Subject to the Government's evaluation of proposals IAW the steps outlined below, if it is determined an offeror is ineligible from moving onto the next subsequent step, they will not be informed they have been eliminated from consideration for award until after the final award decision has been made. Doing so accounts for the Government's intent to not conduct negotiations IAW RFO 15.203, therefore negating establishment of a competitive range subject to RFO 15.204. If, however, the Government determines negotiations will be conducted, and a competitive range established, offerors will be informed they have been eliminated from consideration for award IAW RFO 15.204.

The Government evaluation methodology is as follows:

Step 1. Review all proposals for compliance, via evaluation of Volume I Administrative. All compliant proposals will proceed to step 2. Non-compliant proposals will not move to Step 2.

Step 2. Evaluate Technical Factor 1: Technical Solution. Only acceptable technical solutions will move onto Step 3.

Step 3. Evaluate Technical Factor 2: Technical Demonstration, Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic

Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions). Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher will move onto Step 4.

Step 4. Evaluate Technical Factor 2: Technical Demonstration, Subfactor 2b: Product

Demonstration/Oral Presentation. Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher will move onto Step 5.

Step 5. Evaluate Price. Only prices determined to be fair and reasonable, balanced, and complete are awardable.

Step 5. Conduct tradeoff, determine Awardee.

3. PROPOSAL VOLUME EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 2.1. The Government will evaluate the factors as outlined below:

Volume I - Administrative Volume II - Technical Volume III - Price

3.1 VOLUME I - ADMINISTRATIVE

This volume will be evaluated for compliance of submitted information required to be considered eligible for award. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offerors whose proposals are determined to be compliant will be further considered.

3.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the Offeror’s Company Executive Summary/Cover letter to ensure the following information is provided:

• Name

• Address

• CAGE Code

• UEI

• SAM.gov registration/expiration date. The Offeror shall be registered in SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition. If the Offeror’s SAM.gov registration expires prior to the proposal validity date, the Offeror shall assert its intent to renew the registration in the Executive Summary.

• Proposal validity statements. The proposal validity statement shall be valid through 180 calendar days from the proposal due date.

• Contracting POCs (name, email address and phone number)

• Socioeconomic status

• Executive summary of the proposal.

If the Offeror fails to provide any of the above, the Offeror will be determined noncompliant and will not advance to the next step.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides all information in paragraph 3.1.1

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide all information in paragraph 3.1.1

3.1.2 Completed SF1449 and Amendments (if applicable) (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the SF1449 and all amendments (if applicable) for the Offerors signature.

If the Offeror fails to provide a signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable), the Offeror will be determined noncompliant and will not advance to the next step.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides the signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable)

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide the signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable)

3.1.3 Completed Representations and Certifications (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the submitted representations and certifications from the Offeror.

If the Offeror fails to provide their representations and certifications, the Offeror will be determined noncompliant and will not advance to the next step.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides completed representations and certifications from SAM.gov

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide completed representations and certifications from SAM.gov

3.1.4 Financial Resources (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

Based on the Offerors written submission, the Contracting Officer will determine if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with RFO 9.104-1(a). Offerors determined nonresponsible are not eligible for award in accordance with RFO 9.103 and will not be further evaluated.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements. The Offeror shall also provide evidence to support the explanation.

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements and/or the Offeror fails to provide evidence to support the explanation.

3.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan (if applicable) (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the submitted mitigation plan (if applicable) and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government. If an OCI mitigation plan is deemed to be unacceptable or an OCI is not mitigable then the Government will deem the Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Compliant Definition Offeror stated no OCI exists or Offeror adequately provides a response that resolves the actual or potential OCI and/or provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government.

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror did not specify whether an OCI exists or Offeror’s response does not resolve the actual or potential OCI and/or does not provide adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government.

3.1.6 Affordability (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

Offerors are advised that excessively high proposed price will be considered unaffordable and receive no further consideration. Any proposal that is over $321M (total contract value) will be considered unaffordable.

Compliant Definition Offerors proposal does not exceed $321M Non-Compliant Definition Offerors proposal exceeds $321M

3.1.7 RFP Compliance (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review Offeror’s proposal for compliance to paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12.

Compliant Definition Offerors proposal meets the requirements stated in paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12

Non-Compliant Definition Offerors proposal does not meet the requirements stated in paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12

3.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) Factor 2: Technical Demonstration Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation)

3.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Each of the below objectives of the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on an acceptable/unacceptable evaluation criterion. Any objective assigned an unacceptable rating is not eligible for award. To note, these objectives must also be addressed in the Offeror’s Product Demo/Oral Presentation as prescribed by Table 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum.

• Offeror’s submission of completed Atch 3 Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAI Template detailing Offeror’s proposed solution to the SOO. (Table 2, Objective 1) *Note, the PWS submitted by the apparent awardee will become property of the Government.

Acceptable Definition Offeror utilized Atch 3 PWS template. Offeror incorporated quality control measures, deliverables, and tasks in the PWS to meet the needs of the RFP and SOO Unacceptable Definition Offeror failed to utilize Atch 3 PWS template.

Offeror failed to incorporate quality control measures, deliverables, and tasks in the PWS to meet the needs of the RFP and SOO

• Compliance with Offeror's Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18.

(Table 2, Objective 2)

Acceptable Definition Offeror certified, in writing, their compliance with all Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

Unacceptable Definition Offeror did not Offeror certify, in writing, their compliance with all Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

• Ability to send alerts to users via a web-browser user interface, API, mobile application, text message, or e-mail, as selected by the user. (Table 2, Objective 3)

Acceptable Definition Offeror’s solution provides push alerts through web-browser user interface, API, mobile application, text message, and email

Unacceptable Definition Offeror’s solution does not provide push alerts through web-browser user interface, API, mobile application, text message, and email

• Compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information.

(Table 2, Objective 4)

Acceptable Definition Offeror certifies, in writing, their compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD

3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information

Unacceptable Definition Offeror fails to certify, in writing, their compliance with the Privacy Act, IC

Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD

Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information

• Ability to provide a low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use. (Table 2, Objective 5)

Acceptable Definition o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that transfers data over low-throughput links (i.e., simulating 10-20 seconds to send a CCTV snapshot) o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that can capture data while disconnected and immediately sync essential information once a link is re-established o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that reduces visual quality, disables non-essential data transfers, and switched to text-based communication when bandwidth is low

Unacceptable Definition o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that transfers data over low-throughput links (i.e., simulating 10-20 seconds to send a CCTV snapshot) o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that can capture data while disconnected and immediately sync essential information once a link is re-established o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that reduces visual quality, disables non-essential data transfers, and switched to text-based communication when bandwidth is low

3.2.2 Factor 2: Technical Demonstration

During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating as shown below. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or higher on Subfactor 2a to be able to present a Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation in Subfactor 2b. A rating of unacceptable in either subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 2 Technical Demonstration.

The Government intends to perform a combined technical/risk evaluation using the following adjectival ratings:

Table 3 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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

Significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 15.001.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 15.001.

Uncertainty is any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency is any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a

RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO 15.001.

Technical risk is defined as follows:

Table 4 – Risk Definitions Risk Definitions Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) The Government intends to evaluate Offerors on Subfactor 2a on the following objectives via the Offeror’s .csv submissions IAW paragraph 2.2.2.1, using the above technical/risk rating method in Table 3.

• Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Offeror’s custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher in Subfactor 2a will be notified by email of the date and time of their Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation.

The Government intends to evaluate Offerors on Subfactor 2b on the following applicable objectives using the above technical/risk rating method in Table 3:

• Offeror’s alerting capability to users via a web-browser user interface, API, mobile application, text message, or e-mail, as selected by the user.

• Offeror’s low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use.

• Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Offeror’s scalability to support the full operational requirements and user base across all elements of the DoW enterprise.

• Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Offeror’s comprehensive data coverage across all geographic locations critical to DoW operations by leveraging a wide variety of social media, news, and other publicly available information sources, including the most popular regional social media and news platforms.

• Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Offeror’s map display interface with event locations.

• Offeror’s search capability by user for events by text and location.

• Offeror’s source attribution in alerts and notification to the user before they leave the service’s web interface.

• Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Offeror’s pre-configurability of Common Interest Profiles.

• Offeror’s custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

• Offeror’s comprehensive help desk service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

• Offeror’s solution design for intuitive use, minimal required training for basic operations, and comprehensive training support for users.

• Offeror’s process for seeking DISA approval for mobile app delivery on government devices, if not already approved.

• Offeror’s enrollment of existing users into their product (if applicable) to ensure uninterrupted to existing DoW PAI users.

3.3 VOLUME III - PRICE

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. Only proposals determined to be fair and reasonable, balanced, and complete will be eligible for award.

3.3.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by using the total of the base period plus four option periods plus the 52.217-8 Extension of Service clause.

3.3.2 Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will determine prices fair and reasonable using one or more of the price analysis techniques at RFO 15.404- 1(b)(2). An Offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, if the cost information is needed by the Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the Offeror shall submit the other than certified cost or pricing data as requested.

3.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) is significantly over or understated. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between CLIN proposed prices from year to year above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for escalation. A proposal will be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3.4 Completeness

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

3.3.5 Option to Extend Services

Evaluation of RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The award for this acquisition contains the clause at RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The option to extend the contract term will be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

The Government will evaluate the possible prices for RFO 52.217-8 through its evaluation of the base and option prices. If conditions warrant the exercise of this option, the price(s) for continued performance under this clause shall be at the same price(s) as awarded for the base period or the option period (whichever is being extended). As such, if the base and option prices are considered fair and reasonable then the cost of the possible extension of services under RFO 52.217-8 shall be considered fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).