ATSP5 Solicitation ATT 03- ATSP5 Instructions for Proposal Preparations (Section L).pdf

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION (IFPP)

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(a) The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Offerors are prohibited from engaging in exchanges with DMEA technical personnel regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP). Offerors shall address any questions or concerns regarding this acquisition to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the address located in the solicitation. Questions and comments will be addressed via the SAM.GOV posting, with the offeror’s identity removed. Most questions and comments will be generalized to apply to a broader audience.

(b) Offerors shall provide their proposals in electronic format (Adobe Acrobat Document (PDF) with fully searchable text. Hypertext links shall be used to facilitate navigation within electronic documents. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted via DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. The proposal shall not contain compressed, or password protected files. The Government shall have the right to load the offeror's proposed electronic data on a secure server within an approved Government source selection facility. The DoD SAFE program does not guarantee a delivery time. File size, customer network connection, connection type, and number of files are factors in the total upload/download time of files. DoD SAFE allows up to 25 files (up to 8 GB total file size). In the event ambiguities or conflicts exist between the written description and/or approach and the numeric data or figures, the numeric data or figures shall take precedence.

(c) This acquisition will be performed in a phased approach and as such there will be submissions at different intervals. More information is detailed below and throughout the solicitation. ATSP5 proposals submitted shall consist of Volumes 1-5, soft copy forms, as delineated in Table 2.1 below. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the proposal's completeness. Each volume shall be delivered in a separate file via https://safe.apps.mil/. Pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially. Government evaluators are not responsible for discerning the intended significance of information contained in the non-narrative data. Pages that are intentionally left blank shall state, "Page intentionally left blank.” Furthermore, the Government will not assume that an offeror possesses any resources unless specifically addressed in the proposal. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, resources, facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Information from Volume 3 will be submitted in Phase 1 but will also be utilized in evaluations in Phase 2 if elected to move forward. Offerors will not be required to resubmit information from Phase 1 in Phase 2.

From date of posting the solicitation the offeror will have 10 days to provide Phase 1 proposal submissions in accordance with Section L instructions. Evaluations for Phase 1 submittals will be completed on or about 25 days.

Offerors not meeting the established criteria will then be excluded from further evaluation and will be sent an unsuccessful offeror letter in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1). Pre-Award debriefs will be available in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors whose evaluated criteria have met the minimum requirements will be allowed to proceed to Phase 2 where the Past Performance factor, Resources factor, Management factor, and Small Business factor volumes will be submitted and evaluated. Information submitted in Phase 1 does not need to be resubmitted in Phase

2. Offerors will be contacted directly via E-Mail notifying of advancement to Phase 2 and for proposal submissions for Phase 2. Phase 2 submissions will be due 35 days from date of request from Procuring Contracting Officer.

(d) The ATSP5 proposals must be valid for 365 days from the due date of the proposal.

(e) The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions as necessary.

https://safe.apps.mil/

(f) Offerors shall use a paragraph numbering system that correlates with the section L & M throughout all documents in the proposal.

(g) The proposal shall include all data and information requested in Section L and shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions. In developing the proposal, Offerors shall comply with all the requirements contained in the ATSP5 RFP. The contract types specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Alternative proposals will not be accepted for this acquisition.

(h) Classified information shall not be presented in proposals. Technical experience obtained from currently classified performance shall not be cited or referenced in proposals. Proposals containing classified information will be forwarded to the cognizant security organization for investigation and may result in a determination that the proposal is non-responsive to the solicitation. All proposed technical experience shall be summarized at a non-classified component level.

(i) If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale.

1.1 Basic Principles

The results of the DMEA engineering task risk analysis have been used to develop the evaluation criteria. The ATSP5 prime contractors are expected to have a significant technical role in all task orders issued under the ATSP5 contract. Therefore, DMEA is strongly interested in the resources and program organization of the prime offeror.

The prime offeror is the entity with which DMEA could have a resulting contract. As such, the prime would be held fully responsible for the contract performance, regardless of any arrangements between the prime offeror and its proposed subcontractors, team members, vendors or other associates. In addition, the in-house experience level of the prime offeror has a direct bearing on their ability to select, manage, and control any required subcontractors/team members. Therefore, the resources and management of the prime offeror versus any proposed subcontractors/team members is an important part of the technical evaluation.

1.2 Definitions

(a) For the purposes of this source selection, proposed subcontractors, vendors, companies without team arrangements, or other associates who are not the “prime offeror” nor considered “in-house” to the prime offeror.

In-house efforts are those performed by the prime offeror only. The evaluation team will use the following definitions for the source selection evaluation:

(1) A single company with its own CAGE code (CAGE code as defined by DFARS 204.7202-1) – This includes:

(A) Parent companies proposing to use their wholly owned entities in the performance of the ATSP5, and

(B) Offerors who are wholly owned entities proposing to use other wholly owned entities of the parent company in the performance of the ATSP5.

(C) Offerors proposing as a prime in the performance of the ATSP5 as a separate entity possessing a unique CAGE code and who are wholly owned entities of a parent company.

(2) Two or more companies which form a “contractor team arrangement” to act as a potential prime contractor in accordance with FAR 9.601(1). This action will form a new, separate entity that will have its own CAGE code. Sufficient documentation must be provided as evidence of the arrangement between the parties.

Typically, this would be a copy of the actual agreement. This new entity (the contractor team arrangement) will have the power to speak for and to contractually commit specified resources of the parent companies or will have their own resources to commit.

(3) Sufficient documentation must be provided as evidence of the arrangement within the company. Typically, this would be evidenced by the proposal response regarding Program Organization (Volume 2) and the level of corporate signature on the proposal. Subcontractors, vendors, companies without team arrangements, or other associates which are proposed to fulfill the ATSP5 requirements are defined as and will be evaluated as a classical prime-subcontractor relationship.

(b) Subfactor Definitions – The evaluation factors used in the ATSP5 solicitation are mission based. They are a combination of process and technology that are used successfully by the DMEA to accomplish its mission. For purposes of this solicitation, they are defined as follows:

(1) Analysis/Studies – Includes, but is not limited to, assessment of current conditions or capabilities and contributing factors, development of preliminary solution approaches, feasibility of proposed changes including advanced technology insertions, trade-offs in design and development, selection of appropriate methodologies and the analysis of impacts on reliability, maintainability, testability, interface and packaging/assembly.

(2) Integrated Circuit Development – Development of analog, mixed-signal or digital electronic microcircuits with significant production for the application. Development requires use of hardware description languages and/or Integrated Circuit Computer Aided Design (IC CAD) tool suites resulting in a physical realization of the part. Integrated circuit technologies include, but are not limited to, Bipolar junction transistor (BJT), Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET), Metal Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors (MESFET), High Electron Mobility Transistor (HEMT), and Heterojunction Bipolar Transistor (HBT) families hosted to Bipolar, Complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS), or Bipolar Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (BiCMOS) junction isolated, dielectrically isolated, bulk, or silicon on insulator processes. Production can include developments that are implemented with a Field Programable Gate Array (FPGA) or related programmable device, metal maskable array fabrication, or a custom integrated circuit fabrication.

(3) Board/Module Development – Development of printed circuit boards or electronic modules that use at least one of the following: electronic microcircuits, application specific integrated circuits, hybrid microcircuits, multi-chip modules, charge coupled devices, and signal processors.

(4) Subsystem/System Development – Development of subsystems or systems that contain multiple printed circuit boards and/or electronic modules and use many of the following: electronic microcircuits, application specific integrated circuits, hybrid microcircuits, multi-chip modules, charge coupled devices, and signal processors.

(5) Hardware/Software System Development – Development of hardware systems containing embedded software. These may contain commercial off the shelf (COTS) and must contain non-COTS hardware and require significant software engineering. Hardware/software systems may be stand-alone systems, integrated systems, embedded systems, and systems of systems.

(6) Development – As used in this solicitation, development means the systematic application of engineering and technical knowledge and integrated tool sets (e.g., Computer Aided Design (CAD), Hardware Description Language (HDLs), etc.) in executing studies, analysis, design, code, simulation, fabrication, packaging/assembly, prototyping, integration, installation, testing, producibility, and limited production to meet specific performance requirements or objectives.

(7) Resource – Expertise, facilities, and equipment.

(8) Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

(9) Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(10) Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(11) Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

(a) The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 2.1 below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified. The contents of each ATSP5 proposal volume are described in paragraph 4.0 below.

Table 2.1 – ATSP5 Proposal Organization/Breakdown

Phase 1

Volume

Title

Section L

IFPP

Paragraph

Section M

BFA/EFFA

Paragraph

Electronic Copies Page Limit

3 DCMA Approved Business Systems 5.1.3 6.3.3 1 1

3 Facility Clearances

5.1.4 6.3.4

1 1

Phase 2

Volume

Title

Section L

IFPP

Paragraph

Section M

BFA/EFFA

Paragraph

Electronic Copies Page Limit

1 Past Performance Volume 3.0 7.0 1 20 Past Performance Factor 3.1 7.1

2 Technical Volume 4.0 6.0 1 20

Resources

4.1 6.1

3 Management Volume 5.0 6.3 1

Management Factor 5.1 6.3

Teaming/Subcontracting Agreements

5.1.1, 7.0(h) 6.3.1

None

4 Small Business Utilization 6.0 8.0 1 10

Subcontracting Plan 6.1(c) 8.1(c), 9.0 None

5 Contract Documentation 7.0 9.0 1 None

Completed SF33 7.0(c) 9.0 1 Completed Section K – Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors 7.0(d) 9.0 None

Exceptions to Solicitation 7.0(e) 9.0 None OCI Issues and Mitigation Plan 7.0(f) 9.0 None DCMA form 640 7.0(g) 9.0 None Teaming/Subcontractor Agreements 7.0 (h) 9.0 None

(b) Pages containing text shall be typewritten on 8½ x 11-inch paper format, with no less than single line spacing.

The type of font shall be Times New Roman and the type size for text shall be no smaller than ten (10) point, with proportional spacing permitted. Type size for Figures and Tables shall be no smaller than eight (8) point, with single spacing permitted and no restriction on lines per page. Margins on all four (4) edges of each sheet will be at least one inch.

(c) Proposals shall not be supplemented by reference documents. Mandatory attachments shall be in the format provided in the solicitation attachments. Deviations from the instructions will be reviewed by the PCO to ensure that no contractor receives a competitive advantage. Deviations resulting in a competitive advantage for an offeror will result in the proposal being returned to the offeror as noncompliant with the solicitation requirements.

Proposal pages in excess of the maximum will be removed by the PCO starting from the back of the proposal volume and returned to ensure that they are not evaluated. Cover sheets, dividers, blank pages, table of contents, glossaries, lists of tables and/or figures, acronym lists and consent letters (e.g. PCO authorization for rent-free, non-interference use of Government-owned property) are not included in page count.

(d) Cost/Price Evaluation. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) price or cost will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level.

2.1 Identification

(a) The prime offeror’s company name, logo or other identifying marks may be used as required in any volume.

(b) The proposal shall clearly identify the proposed subcontractors by name and location.

(c) Each volume shall be a separate .PDF format document and the volume number, title, and offeror’s identity shall be printed in the middle of the first page (cover page).

2.2 Cross-Referencing

(a) Each proposal volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within proposal volumes is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

2.3 Labeling

(a) Each proposal shall clearly indicate ATSP5 and the offeror's name.

(b) The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate markings, including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information, are contained within their proposal.

2.4 Electronic Offers

(a) As addressed in paragraph 1.0(b) above, offerors shall submit all proposal volumes in a READ ONLY format via https://safe.apps.mil/. The file structure for each proposal shall be saved as a separate directory and shall be named accordingly (Volume 1-5). Identify the following data in the DOD SAFE submittal

(1) Offeror (Company Name):

(2) Proposal Title: ATSP5

(3) Date (Prepared/Submitted):

3.0 VOLUME 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME

3.1 Factor 1: Past Performance

(a) This volume shall provide information on the prime offeror’s performance under prior Government contracts considered relevant by the offeror. Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume containing performance history information in accordance with the below requirements, including history of small business utilization in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii). Only efforts performed for agencies of the U.S. Government shall be submitted. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume as well as data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. In an effort to expedite the assessment of the past performance criteria, each prime offeror shall complete the ATSP5 Past Performance Questionnaire.

(b) While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing adequate data to determine performance risk rests with the offeror. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. Offerors are cautioned that DMEA will use data provided in this volume and data obtained from other government sources in the past performance rating.

(c) Proposals are limited to a combined total of 20 pages for the Past Performance Volume. Responses shall include 1-2 relevant past performance examples from each of the categories in the table below as required in the PWS that are recent, defined as less than 5 years old:

Category PWS Paragraph Reference

(1) Hardware Design 1.2.2

(2) Hardware Testing 1.2.2

(3) Hardware Integration 1.2.2

(4) Software Design 1.2.2

(5) Software Testing 1.2.2

(6) Software Integration 1.2.2

(7) Advanced Electronics Manufacturing Technologies

1.2.3

(8) Extended Limited Production 3.1.1

(9) Logistics Support 3.1.2

(10) Training 3.1.3

Past performance submittals can cover multiple categories but must detail in the submittal which category it is covering. For each non-classified effort identified, submit a completed ATSP5 Past Performance Questionnaire or a reasonable facsimile. Do not submit questionnaires for classified performance.

ATSP5 PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (To be completed by the offeror)

1. Contract Number: ___________________________________________

2. Contractor (Name, Address and Zip Code):

3. Type of Contract: Negotiated _______ Sealed Bid _______ Fixed Price _____ Cost Reimbursement _______ Hybrid (explain) ______________________________________________________________

4. Complexity of Work: Difficult _______ Routine _______

Description, location: & relevancy of work

6. Contract Dollar Value: __________________ Status: Active _______ Complete _______

7. Date of Award: _____________ Contract Completion Date (including extensions): __________

8. Were subcontracting goals met? Provide DCMA Form 640, if available.

9. Name, Address, Tel. No. & e-mail of the Procuring Contracting Officer and/or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) (and other references, e.g., Administrative Contracting Officer, if applicable):

4.0 VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL VOLUME

4.1 Factor 2: Resources

(a) Proposals are limited to a combined total of 20 pages for the Resources factor and subfactors.

(b) For the DMEA mission-based evaluation subfactors, describe your Resources. For each subfactor, discuss the resources being proposed and identify the sources (currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.) of these resources. To facilitate proposal preparation, judicious use of categorized resource lists and matrices is recommended. If teaming/subcontracting is necessary to provide a proposed resource, provide adequate evidence of the agreement. Specifically address the following evaluation subfactors:

(1) Subfactor 2.1: Analysis/Studies Resources

(2) Subfactor 2.2: Integrated Circuit Development Resources

(3) Subfactor 2.3: Board/Module Development Resources

(4) Subfactor 2.4: Subsystem/System Development Resources

(5) Subfactor 2.5: Hardware/Software System Development Resources

(c) A rating will be assigned at the factor level. Subfactors will be evaluated for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties and a combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to the overall factor based on sub-factor assessments. If an offeror does not submit information for one of the subfactors that subfactor will be assessed with significant weakness.

4.1.1 Subfactor 2.1: Analysis/Studies Resources

(a) The proposal shall illustrate that sufficient resources are available for this subfactor in each of the following technologies: integrated circuits, boards/modules, subsystems/systems, and hardware/software systems.

(b) The proposal shall identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.). DMEA favors current in-house capabilities the most.

(c) The proposal shall demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2.2: Integrated Circuit Development Resources

(a) The proposal shall illustrate that sufficient resources are available for this subfactor in the following development phases: design, simulation, fabrication, packaging/assembly, integration, and testing.

(b) The proposal shall identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.). DMEA favors current in-house capabilities the most.

(c) The proposal shall demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

4.1.3 Subfactor 2.3: Board/Module Development Resources

(a) The proposal shall illustrate that sufficient resources are available for this subfactor in the following development phases: design, simulation, fabrication, packaging/assembly, integration, and testing.

(b) The proposal shall identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.). DMEA favors current in-house capabilities the most.

(c) The proposal shall demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

4.1.4 Subfactor 2.4: Subsystem/System Development Resources

(a) The proposal shall illustrate that sufficient resources are available for this subfactor in the following development phases: design, prototyping, integration, testing, and production.

(b) The proposal shall identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.). DMEA values currently in-house capabilities the most, however, these capabilities may be tempered with consideration of the quality and quantity for the source.

(c) The proposal shall demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

4.1.5 Subfactor 2.5: Hardware/Software System Development Resources

(a) The proposal shall illustrate that sufficient resources are available for this subfactor in the following development phases: design, prototyping, integration, testing, and production.

(b) The proposal shall identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.). DMEA favors current in-house capabilities the most.

(c) The proposal shall demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

5.0 VOLUME 3 – MANAGEMENT VOLUME

5.1 Factor 3: Management

(a) Proposals are limited to a combined total of 10 pages for the Management factor and subfactors, unless otherwise noted.

(b) Specifically address the following evaluation sub-factors:

(1) Subfactor 3.1: Program Organization

(2) Subfactor 3.2: Task Implementation Approach

(3) Subfactor 3.3: DCMA Approved Business Systems

(4) Subfactor 3.4: Facility Clearances

(c) A rating will be assigned at the factor level. Subfactors will be evaluated for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties and a combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to the overall Technical factor based on sub-factor assessments. If an offeror does not submit information for one of the subfactors that subfactor will be assessed with significant weakness.

5.1.1 Subfactor 3.1: Program Organization

(a) The proposal shall demonstrate a complete, flexible, cost effective and efficient program organization which corresponds to the technical resources proposed in factor 2. The program organization should minimize the layers of management and have a short chain of command.

(b) The proposal shall include an organization chart detailing the position of the ATSP5 program office as it relates to the overall corporate structure.

(c) The proposal shall describe the lines of corporate authority necessary to obtain and manage task resources, to obtain contractual document signature, and which connect the contracts personnel with the program/technical personnel.

(d) The proposal shall describe the role and authority of the program manager. The program manager shall have clear and appropriate lines of authority and responsibility to obtain and manage task resources.

(e) The proposal shall describe how performing resources proposed in factor 1 are selected and managed for each task. The proposal shall describe the relative economic relationships between each of the entities, including distribution of sales and profit.

(f) The proposal shall describe the program organization’s business development methods.

(g) The proposal shall describe how the program organization manages the normal problems that are associated with programs of this nature with regard to risk.

(h) Offeror's electing to team with other companies shall provide clear delineation of responsibilities and authority among the companies and shall show the capability of the offeror/prime contractor to provide adequate management oversight of and direction to team members.

5.1.2 Subfactor 3.2: Task Implementation Approach

(a) Task Implementation Approach.

(1) The proposal shall demonstrate a sound task implementation approach/process that is complete, flexible, cost effective and efficient. The approach/process shall fit the program organization proposed and be capable of meeting all program requirements with a minimum of risk to the government.

(2) The proposal shall describe the steps necessary to process a new opportunity through award of a task order, to include the necessary timeframes for each step.

(3) The proposal shall identify who is responsible for proposals, negotiations and final approval/commitment of the offeror.

(4) The proposal shall identify the time frames required to achieve each step in the process and clearly show the plan will minimize the time and effort required to process a task order.

(5) The proposal shall describe a normal proposal preparation process that is achievable within the cited allotment of days

5.1.3 Subfactor 3.3: DCMA Approved Business Systems

(a) The proposal shall identify the status of their organization’s DCMA Reviewed Business Systems, Provide their Systems Status Date and Next Review Date in the table format below.

System Status (approved/unapproved)

System Status Date Next Review Date

Accounting Cost Estimating

Material Management and Accounting System

(MMAS)

Property Management Purchasing System

EVMS

5.1.4 Subfactor 3.4: Facility Clearances

(a) The proposal shall identify the level of the organization’s Facility Clearances to the highest active level (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret). Information validating the active facility clearance(s) must be submitted. Facility clearance(s) will not be accepted via a subcontracted arrangement for evaluation purposes.

6.0 VOLUME 4 – SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION VOLUME

6.1 Factor 4: Small Business Utilization

Proposals are limited to a combined total of 10 pages for the Small Business Utilization response for (a) and (b).

(a) Collection and Reporting.

The proposal shall describe the process and systems used for how the subcontracting dollars for each small business category will be collected and reported to the DMEA Contracting Office on a monthly basis.

(b) Small Business Participation

(1) The proposal shall identify, in terms of percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work the offeror will perform as the prime contractor.

(2) The proposal shall identify, in terms of percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of participation of small businesses to include small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUB Zone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in performance of the contract. The recommended small business participation goals for ATSP5 are as follows:

Total Small Business – 7.00% Small Disadvantaged Business – 0.51% HUB Zone – 0.25% Women-Owned – 1.50% Veteran-Owned – 1.25% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned – 0.50%

(3) DMEAs small business objective is to maximizing small business opportunities. The proposal shall identify the plan to achieve the recommended small business participation goal percentages. If the proposed goals do not meet the above ATSP5 small business participation goal percentages, the proposal shall include a detailed justification for the proposed goals along with the offeror’s plan of action to improve the small business participation to meet the ATSP5 small business participation goals.

(4) The proposed approach shall describe the nature and extent of participation of small business and outline the process to manage, implement, and integrate the entire team to ensure successful performance of contract requirements.

(5) The total dollars planned for small businesses, other than those of a small business prime, by definition, are equal under the participation plan and subcontracting plan.

(6) This subfactor applies to small business offerors (such offerors may count the percentage of work they perform themselves toward the small business utilization percentage).

(c) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not applicable for small businesses).

(1) The offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with clause 52.219-9.

(2) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan has no page limitations.

The proposal shall identify, in terms of percentage of the subcontracted effort, the extent subcontracted to small businesses to include small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUB Zone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in performance of the contract. DMEAs small business objective is to maximizing small business opportunities.

The recommended small business subcontracting goals for ATSP5 are as follows:

Total Small Business – 46.00% Small Disadvantaged Business – 3.35% HUB Zone – 2.35% Women-Owned – 9.20% Veteran-Owned – 5.30% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned – 4.25%

(3) The proposal shall identify the plan to achieve the proposed small business subcontracting goal percentages.

If the proposed goals do not meet the above ATSP5 small business subcontracting goal percentages, the proposal shall include a detailed justification for the proposed goals along with the offeror’s plan of action to improve the small business participation to meet the ATSP5 small business subcontracting goals. Offeror is allowed to submit a DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan if applicable.

7.0 VOLUME 5 – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION VOLUME

(a) There is no page limit for this volume.

(b) Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

(1) Based on IFPP 6.1(c), provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan proposal in Volume 4.

(2) For further instructions on preparation of this volume, refer back to IFPP 6.1(c)(1)

(3) The format of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall follow the instructions as identified in IFPP 2.0(b) and (c).

(4) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan has no page limitations.

(c) Standard Form 33 (SF33).

(1) The offeror must complete the front page of the solicitation, the SF33. Any amendments to the RFP must be signed by offeror.

(2) The offeror must fill in blocks 12 through 18.

(d) Section K – Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors.

(1) The offeror must complete the listed provisions in Section K of the proposal.

(2) All provisions should be certified and submitted as a part of volume 5.

(e) Exceptions to Solicitation.

(1) If necessary, the offeror may provide any exceptions to the solicitation. For each exception, the offeror must provide the exact location within the RFP that applies to the exception.

(2) The exceptions to solicitation have no page limitation.

(3) The format of the exceptions to solicitation shall follow the instructions as identified in IFPP 2.0 (b) and (c).

(f) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Notices.

(1) Technology, Automation & Management, (TeAM) Inc. (TeAM) provides information technology (IT) support and system administration. TeAM manages contract administration software and limited users have access to all source selection information. TeAM has executed a non-disclosure agreement.

(3) Identify any offeror OCI issues and provide a mitigation plan per 52.209-9000.

(4) The OCI Issues and Mitigation Plan has no page limitation.

(5) The format of the OCI Issues and Mitigation Plan shall follow the instructions as identified in IFPP 2.0

(b) and (c).

(g) DCMA Form 640 – DCMA Review of Contractor’s Subcontracting Program.

(1) Based on IFPP 5.1(c), ATSP5 Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire, provide DCMA Form 640, DCMA Review of Contractor’s Subcontracting Program if available.

(2) The DCMA Form 640 shall be provided as a part of volume 4.

(3) If the form is not available, please indicate such response in the IFPP 3.1(c), ATSP5 Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire.

(h) Teaming/Subcontractor Agreements

(1) Based on IFPP 5.1.1(h), please provide a copy of any applicable teaming or subcontracting agreements.

(2) There is no page limitation for the teaming or subcontracting agreements.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION (IFPP)