Attachment 01 Addendum to 52.212-1 & 52.212-2 (CAO 5 Sep 25).pdf

Attachment 1 – FA701425Q0048

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY AND WILL BE REMOVED

FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Sep 2023)

1. General Instructions:

1.1. Offerors are responsible for submitting complete quotations, including revisions and amendments, so as to reach the designated Government personnel by the date and time specified in this Request for Quote (RFQ).

1.2. Electronic Submission Only. Paper copies will not be accepted. All offers shall be submitted electronically in PDF format via to the Government Points of Contact (POC):

blakeley.powell.1.ctr@us.af.mil & eric.moss.3@us.af.mil, or submitted via DoD SAFE

(https://safe.apps.mil/), to the same Government POCs. Each file shall include the volume number and the offeror’s CAGE code (e.g., “Vol I – Price – CAGE XXXXX”).

1.3. All offers shall be complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for evaluation.

Proposals shall be neat, indexed, and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork or expensive presentations are not desired.

1.4. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Non-responsive quotes will not be evaluated.

2. Quotation Organization:

2.1. The quote shall consist of the following four (4) parts:

2.1.1. Cover Page

2.1.2. Volume I – Price (no page limit)

2.1.3. Volume II – Technical (15-page limit)

2.1.4. Volume III – Past Performance (2 pages per contract reference, max 5 references)

Note: Information submitted in excess of stated page limits will not be evaluated.

mailto:blakeley.powell.1.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:eric.moss.3@us.af.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

3. Specific Instructions

3.1. Cover Page

3.1.1. Include: solicitation number, due date/time, company name, address, point of contact(s), email, phone, CAGE, UEI, SAM expiration, NAICS confirmation

(611420), and acceptance period.

3.2. Volume I – Price (No Page Limit)

3.2.1. Statement of compliance with solicitation terms and conditions, or identification of any exceptions with rationale.

3.2.2. Acknowledgment of all solicitation amendments.

3.2.3. Proposed unit and extended prices for all CLINs, including options, rounded to two decimals.

3.2.3.1. Pricing shall be provided for each course module (with the number of hours of instruction), and the Labor Category for the proposed personnel.

3.2.4. Completed FAR 52.212-3 (Reps & Certs) and any other fill-in provisions.

3.2.5. Teaming or joint venture documentation, if applicable, including signed agreements and role delineations.

3.2.6. A statement acknowledging the prime contractor’s responsibility for contract performance, regardless of subcontractor or teaming arrangements.

3.3. Volume II – Technical (15 Page Limit)

3.3.1. The Technical Volume shall demonstrate the offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors shall not simply restate, rephrase or resubmit verbiage directly from this solicitation as your submission.

3.3.2. Submissions shall include:

3.3.2.1. Training Program

3.3.2.2. Proposed Program of Instruction (POI), syllabus, and training schedule.

3.3.2.3. Sample breakdown of course modules, labs, and capstone event.

3.3.2.3.1. Provide an outline of red-team (offensive) and blue-team (defensive) cyber operations curriculum.

3.3.2.3.2. The Capstone Event shall cover a minimum of 100 hours working through red-team and blue-team activities.

3.3.2.4. Location of the facility within the Continental United States where in-residence instruction take place.

3.3.2.4.1. Remote delivery will not be considered.

3.3.3. Instructor Personnel

3.3.3.1. Resumes for all proposed instructors. Resumes shall not be included in the total page count for the Technical Volume.

3.3.3.1.1. Resumes shall demonstrate compliance with the PWS qualifications, including certifications (CCNP, CEH, OSCE3, GIAC Exploit Researcher, GXPN) and relevant teaching/operational experience.

3.3.3.2. The government reserves the right to formulate their own decision if personnel proposed meet the required qualifications based on positions or experience requirements and is not bound by the interpretations of the offeror.

3.3.4. Course Accreditation

3.3.4.1. Documentation demonstrating that the proposed courses are accredited by a recognized academic institution, or evidence of a signed partnership agreements with an accredited university. Accreditation information shall not be included in the total page count for the Technical Volume.

3.3.4.2. Management Plan

3.3.4.2.1. Execution plan for meeting schedule requirements (training start NLT 29

September 2025; completion within five (5) months).

3.3.4.2.2. Approach for scalability and sustainability of the program.

3.3.4.3. Description of existing or proposed partnerships with academic or DoD institutions (e.g., Space Force University Partnership Program).

3.3.4.4. Mandatory Compliance: Failure to submit instructor resumes and course accreditation documentation will result in the proposal being ineligible for award.

3.4. Volume III – Past Performance (2 Pages Per Reference; Max 5 References)

3.4.1. Provide recent and relevant contract references (within the past three (3) years) for similar training services.

Include:

Customer name and point of contact (email/phone)

Contract number and dollar value

Period of performance

Description of services provided and relevance to the PWS

Role of the offeror (prime, sub, joint venture) and percentage of effort

3.4.2. Offerors with no relevant past performance shall state “No Relevant Past

Performance.”

3.4.3. If subcontractor past performance is provided, include a signed consent letter authorizing release of that information to the Government.

3.4.4. The Government reserves the right to use information from other sources, including

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), in evaluating past performance.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) MITIGATION PLAN

4.1. Organizational Conflicts of Interest. If there are any OCIs for the prime, any team member and/or subcontractor in performance of the RFQ, identify those issues and provide an analysis of the situation and a plan to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate potential conflicts. If, prior to award, the Offeror enters into any activity that creates an actual or potential conflict of interest, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer of the conflict. The Offeror shall then submit a plan for mitigation and cease work until specifically notified by the CO to proceed or recommend to the CO an alternate approach to avoid the conflict.

4.2. If applicable, please complete the OCI Disclosure & Analysis Form, Attachment 6, and submit with questions and answers if you believe there will be a potential or actual OCI.

If no OCI issues are applicable, please include a statement to that effect in your quote.

4.3. If a conflict of interest exists, the OCI Mitigation Plan must be submitted along with Q&A

(attachment 4) no later than 1:00 PM EST, 4 September 2025. Send Attachment 3, OCI

Disclosure & Analysis Form, mitigation plan and all other OCI documents via email to eric.moss.3@us.af.mil.

5. USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

Use of Non-Government Advisors. Offerors are advised that technical and cost/price data submitted to the Government in response to this quote may be released to non-Government advisors for quotation review and analysis. All non-Government advisors have signed non-disclosure statements. The non-Government advisors support will be provided by Wits

Solutions, Inc. Offerors shall complete paragraph (2) below or provide written objection to disclosure as indicated in paragraph (1) below, if the Offeror objects to disclosure of a portion of the proposal, the consent in (2) should be provided for the remainder of the proposal. Include either paragraph (1) or (2) below, completed as applicable, within the proposal cover letter.

1. Any objection to disclosure:

i. Shall be provided in writing to the CO within three (3) calendar days of RFQ issuance;

and

ii. Shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to

Non- Government advisors.

mailto:eric.moss.3@us.af.mil

2. I understand technical and cost/price data submitted to the Government in response to this RFQ may be released to Wits Solutions, Inc., as Non-Government advisors. I consent to release of any (unless objection is provided in (1) above) proprietary, confidential, or privileged commercial or financial data provided by the firm(s) named below in response to this solicitation, to non- Government advisors for review and analysis:

Firm:

Name (individual authorized to commit firm):

Title:

Date of Execution:

Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items (Nov 2021)

Responses to this RFQ will be evaluated against the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Step 1: First, the Government will evaluate Technical Capability (Volume II) for all

Offerors. Each Subfactor will receive an adjectival rating.

A. Technical Capability

Subfactor 1 – Program Management Plan

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

The quote demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

The quote demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

The quote demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are balanced. The risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

The quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding. Weaknesses outweigh strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable The quote fails to meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Not awardable

Risk & Strength/Weaknesses

Definition Description

Low Risk

The quote 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 Risk

The quote 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 Risk

The quote 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 Risk

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

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s quote with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance

Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s quote with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance

Weakness A flaw in the Offeror’s quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the Offeror’s quote that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

B. Past Performance

Step 2: The Government will then review Factor 2 – Past Performance for each of the proposals rated Acceptable or higher in Technical Capability. Offerors will receive ratings for Recency, Relevancy, and Confidence (all described below).

Recency: Past Performance that is ongoing or completed, within the past three (3) years from the date of issue for this RFQ. Prior experience examples reflecting no performance during the established Recency period will not be considered. Offerors will receive a rating of Recent or Not Recent.

Relevance Assessment

The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the Federal, State, or Local Government and commercial customers. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. Each offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which they obtained similar or otherwise relevant experience on contracts or subcontracts performed for services similar in scope, magnitude, complexity, and coverage as listed in the table below.

Relevancy

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Performance involved in-residence, hands-on cyber training covering both red-team and blue-team operations, with at least 300+ hours of instruction. Included domains such as ethical hacking, vulnerability management, Python scripting, and use of a cyber lab or range. Contractor provided certified instructors (CCNP, CEH, OSCE3, GIAC, GXPN) and issued completion certificates.

Relevant

Performance involved cyber training or education services with partial alignment to PWS scope (e.g., covered some but not all content domains, or used online vs. in-residence training). May have included lab-based training or partnerships with accredited institutions but not all requirements were met.

Somewhat Relevant

Performance involved general IT or cyber services/training but lacked significant elements (e.g., limited lab use, shorter duration, fewer domains covered, or non-certified instructors).

Not Relevant

Performance did not involve cyber training or was in an unrelated field

(e.g., general IT support, software development, or unrelated technical services).

Confidence Assessment

Under the Past Performance Factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an offeror’s past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to provides services that meet users’ needs. The Past

Performance evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent, relevant past performance. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

As a result of the relevancy assessment of the recent contracts, offerors will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in the table below for Factor 2.

Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on recent/relevant performance, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the Cyber

Training and Education Pilot. Prior efforts included in-residence red/blue team training, 300+ hours of instruction, certified instructors

(CCNP, CEH, OSCE3, GIAC, GXPN), and accreditation.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on recent/relevant performance, the Government has a reasonable expectation of successful performance. Prior efforts included most PWS elements (e.g., hands-on labs, multiple content domains, some accredited instruction), but with minor gaps.

Limited Confidence

Based on recent/relevant performance, the Government has a low expectation of successful performance. Prior efforts show shortfalls

(e.g., limited duration training, non-certified instructors, poor scalability, accreditation not provided).

No Confidence

Based on recent/relevant performance, the Government has a very low expectation of successful performance. Past performance indicates failure to deliver cyber training of comparable complexity or repeated quality issues.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or offeror’s record is too limited to allow a meaningful confidence assessment. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

A neutral rating shall be considered satisfactory.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the offeror.

C. Price.

Step 3: Adequate price competition is anticipated and exists if two or more responsible

Offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirements. Therefore, Offerors’ total evaluated prices (TEPs) will be evaluated for price completeness and reasonableness.

The Government may determine price reasonableness by comparing quoted prices to each other, to the Independent Government Estimate, or through other techniques identified in

FAR 13.106-3. If only one quotation is received, the Government will evaluate the offer for technical acceptability and determine whether the price is fair and reasonable using available price analysis methods. FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) permits award to a single source when only one source is reasonably available.

Completeness: The Government will evaluate Offerors’ price quote for completeness. 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 and to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFQ requirements.

Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate Offerors’ price quote for 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. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 13.106-3.

I. Trade off.

Step 4: The Government shall consider a subjective tradeoff where Non-Price Factors

(Factor 1 Technical Capability and Factor 2 Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than Factor 3 - Cost/Price.

Offers will be arranged from lowest-priced to highest-priced. Tradeoff consideration will begin with the lowest Priced Quotation.