Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

HQ085020R0002 Attachment 2

Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

1. QUESTIONS REGARDING RFP

All unclassified questions regarding this RFP shall be sent via email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-sn-20-0002@mail.mil. All classified questions regarding this RFP shall be sent via email OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil. The subject line must state, “RFP HQ085020R0002 Questions.”

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Proposals submitted in response to the RFP are due no later than 6 July 2020 12:00 PM Eastern. Proposal submissions shall be sent via email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-sn-20- 0002@mail.mil. Classified proposals shall be sent to OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil. The subject line must state, “RFP HQ085020R0002 Proposal Submission.” Proposal submissions must contain all sections required under the RFP. Proposals will be used for evaluation and contract formation purposes. The Government will not evaluate incomplete proposal submissions.

3. USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

Offerors are advised that technical and price data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors that have signed non-disclosure agreements for review and analysis. Offerors shall complete and submit the written statement below or provide written objection to disclosure. If the Offeror objects to disclosure of a portion of the proposal, consent should be provided for the remainder of the proposal. Any objection to disclosure shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer within 10 days of RFP issuance and 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.

4. REQUIREMENTS

See Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 3 – Technical Requirements Document.

mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-sn-20-0002@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-sn-20-0002@mail.mil mailto:OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil mailto:OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil

5. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors are to prepare technical and price proposals in accordance with following:

Proposal submission shall consist of a Cover Page and two separate volumes, Technical (Vol. I) and Price (Vol. II). No price information (including the total proposed contract value) for the effort resulting from this RFP shall be provided in any parts of the Cover Page or Volume I.

For the Cover Page and Volume I, the format shall be a Microsoft Word format document or portable document format ( PDF), 8.5”x11” pages using 1” margins, single line spacing, and 12-point Times New Roman font. A smaller font size may be used for graphics and tables so long as the text is fully legible. If a PDF is submitted, the Offeror shall be prepared to provide a Microsoft Word format version upon request. No video/audio files or hyperlinked information will be considered in the review process.

Cover Page must include the following information (shall not exceed one (1) page):

1) Solicitation number;

2) Prime Contractor and any Subcontractors;

3) Date proposal is submitted, proposals shall be valid for at least 120 days from the date of submission;

4) Acknowledgement of all solicitation amendments (if any);

5) Business Size and Socioeconomic Status;

6) Contractor and subcontractor DUNS number(s), CAGE Code(s), and Taxpayer ID number(s);

7) Other team members (if applicable) and type of business for each;

8) Contractual and Technical Points of Contact information (name, phone number, and email address);

9) Signature of person with the authority to commit the organization.

Volume I – Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business

The technical volume shall contain the following elements:

Technical Approach - (not to exceed 20 pages)

The Offeror shall provide a technical proposal that describes the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all aspects of Attachment 1 - Statement of Work (SOW). Any exceptions to the approaches or requirements laid out in the SOW shall be clearly identified. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a schedule, with accompanying explanatory verbiage, which shows the sequence of events leading up to, and following, launch. This should include planned dates for each of the Data Deliverables listed in Section 8 of the SOW, as well as other key tasks and milestones required to complete the Attachment 1 - SOW. Dates for any required data or hardware deliverables from the Government shall be clearly identified, along with descriptions of those deliverables.

Past Performance – (not to exceed 10 pages)

The proposer shall provide evidence (up to three instances) of successful performance within the past 5 years of similar or related work. This work may include Government or commercial contracts, as well as internally or externally funded development and test work. For any contracts cited, please provide a customer point of contact (name, phone, email). The proposer should discuss its technical and schedule performance on these efforts compared against initial projections or requirements.

Small Business Participation – (No page limit)

The Offeror shall provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) in accordance with the instructions provided in Attachment 4. This document focuses on the Offeror’s performance in the utilization of small business concerns. Its evaluation will be included within the rating of the Small Business Participation Factor. The SBPCD will be incorporated by reference into the final contract.

The Offeror shall also provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR

19.704. (Note - the requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not apply to small businesses concerns as defined in FAR 2.101.) The plan must reflect the level of small business participation commitment specified in the SBPCD.

Volume II – Price (no page limit)

Offerors shall submit a price proposal to perform the services outlined in the Attachment 1 - SOW. The price shall be based on the Offeror’s understanding of the SOW and any other requirements in the solicitation. In this volume Offerors may propose a payment schedule comprised of performance-based milestones. Each payable milestone event will be included in the final Contract as a separately priced Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). These payable milestones shall not be “progress payments based on cost” as described in FAR 52.232-16, but instead must reflect the completion of defined technical events that can be traced back to the Attachment 1 - SOW.

6. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award of a FFP contract will be made on a competitive basis, using Best Value Tradeoff among price and non-price factors as described in FAR 15.101. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract on the basis established in this solicitation. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the best interest of the Government; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation factors shown in Section

7. The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS

Award of this contract will be made on a competitive basis, using the evaluation factors listed below. Factor 3 - Past Performance and Factor 4 - Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Proposals must be deemed Acceptable for both of these factors to be eligible for an award. Factor 1 - Schedule is more important than Technical 2 - Technical. When combined, Factors 1 and 2 are approximately equal to Factor 5, Price.

• Factor 1 – Schedule

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all aspects of Attachment 1, SOW, including the Offeror’s ability to meet the launch date specified in the SOW. The Offeror will be evaluated on the explanatory text provided to assess its understanding of the tasks and milestones required to accomplish this work. Risk associated with meeting the schedule will also be evaluated.

• Factor 2 – Technical

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all aspects of Attachment 1, SOW and Attachment 3, TRD. The Offeror will be evaluated on the explanatory text provided to assess its understanding of the tasks and milestones required to accomplish this work. Risk associated with meeting the technical objectives will also be evaluated.

• Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate this factor based on information provided with the proposal as specified in Section 5 – Proposal Instructions. Additionally, the Government may use the following sources to evaluate past performance:

o Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) o Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) o Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) o Interviews with Government Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee

Determining Officials

The Government will evaluate the performance and quality of the Offeror’s recent (within 5 years) and relevant record of past performance as a means of ascertaining its ability to accomplish the Attachment 1, SOW. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any formal rating system (i.e. CPARS) or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list shown in Section 8. Offerors must receive a Past Performance Confidence rating of Acceptable to be eligible for award.

• Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

This factor will result in Offerors receiving a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include service-disabled, veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is 5% of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors must receive a Small Business Participation rating of Acceptable to be eligible for award.

• Factor 5 – Price

Prices submitted by each Offeror will be evaluated to determine if the price proposed is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). The proposed price will be evaluated to ascertain consistency with the services described in the Offeror’s technical approach. Proposals that are determined to be “not reasonable” will be Ineligible for award. Lower reasonable prices will be evaluated more favorably under this Factor.

8. EVALUATION RATING TABLES FOR NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1 – Schedule

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one of more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

Factor 2 – Technical

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one of more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

• Relevancy Rating

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in the Attachment 1 – SOW.

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve similar scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work Somewhat Relevant

Past or ongoing efforts involve some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Not Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

• Past Performance Confidence Rating

Adjectival Rating Description ACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can reasonably be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Therefore the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or “neutral” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

Adjectival Rating Description ACCEPTABLE The proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE The proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation