Attachment 3 - Sec L_M 27 Oct 20.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offers

L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTICES

L-1.1. This section of the RFP provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the required proposal Volumes. Each proposal must include all data and information requested in the RFP. The Offeror shall comply with the solicitation requirements as stated in the PWS. The Offeror’s proposal must reflect a thorough understanding of the services required and display a logical development of the Offeror's plans to implement all PWS requirements as assessed by the RFP evaluation criteria. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain an

Offeror’s capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP and must address all evaluation factors for award. The exclusive responsibility for Source Selection will reside with the Government.

L-1.2. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation shall be clearly marked as such and will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of

Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. 423) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Any unmarked proprietary information will be considered releasable under the restrictions of the Freedom of Information Act.

L-1.3. Amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by all offerors by signing and dating Page 1 of each Standard Form (SF) 30, Amendments of Solicitation/Modifications of Contract. Failure to acknowledge any amendments to the solicitation may result in the Offeror being deemed nonresponsive.

Award CANNOT be made to a nonresponsive Offeror.

L-2 DEADLINE AND FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

L-2.1. Solicitation closing 11 December 2020, 1pm Eastern Standard Time

L-2.2. Exchanges of source selection information, after release of the solicitation, between the

Government and Offerors, will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Any formal communication such as requests for clarification, discussions, and information concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, by e-mail, to the Contracting Office at the following address:

ACC AMIC

ATTN: Mr. Charles Hertenstein: Solicitation No. FA4890-21-R-0002

E-mail: charles.f.hertenstein2.civ@mail.mil

Phone: 540-653-1422

L-2.3. All email correspondence must reference the solicitation number first in the subject line: Proposal

No. FA4890-21-R-0002. Questions or recommendations regarding this solicitation may be submitted within fifteen (15) calendar days after final solicitation release date.

L-3 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

mailto:charles.f.hertenstein2.civ@mail.mil

L-3.1. Proposals should be submitted via UNCLASSIFIED e-mail to charles.f.hertenstein2.civ@mail.mil, and john.t.seamon.civ@mail.mil or when appropriate classified proposals to SIPR at

Charles.hertenstein2.civ.@mail.smil.mil. In the event that a proposal cannot be submitted via email it can be submitted as electronic media (CD-R preferred) and shall be sent or hand delivered to the issuing office listed in Block 7 of the Standard Form 33 on/before the date/time specified on the front page. DOD

SAFE may be an acceptable resource for unclassified content when accompanied with direct written notification of upload to the email provided. For exceptions to electronic media submission contact Mr.

Charles Hertenstein at (540) 653-1422. Mark the front of the envelope/box with the following: “Proposal

No. FA4890-21-R-0002, Attn: Mr. Charles Hertenstein, ACC AMIC, DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL

ROOM.” If proposals are hand delivered, Offerors shall contact the Contracting Office at the numbers listed in L-2.2 above. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in an unacceptable proposal that the Government eliminates from consideration for award. The Government will not accept any changes to proposals after the closing date of this solicitation (see FAR 15.201 for further information regarding late proposals). NOTE: Electronic media WILL NOT be returned.

L-3.2. Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for 365 calendar days. Block 12 of the SF 33 shall be completed to read 365 calendar days.

L-4 DISPOSITION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS

L-4.1. In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one electronic copy of all unsuccessful proposals. All other electronic media of unsuccessful proposals will be destroyed. No destruction certificate will be provided.

L-5 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L-5.1. The instructions below prescribe the format of proposals. Proposals shall include all the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable.

L-5.2. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand and perform a thorough and fair evaluation. The Government may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision.

L-5.3. Proposal Format. A complete proposal consists of two (2) separate volumes: Mission Capability and Past Performance.

Volume I - Mission Capability

Volume II - Past Performance

L-5.3.1. Page Format. Type size for text shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 10-point font, single column, normal proportional spacing and one-inch (1”) margins (top, bottom, left and right). The text for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times

New Roman 8-point font, and used only when necessary. Text lines and table lines of text shall be single-spaced. This does not apply to the Past Performance Questionnaire.

mailto:charles.f.hertenstein2.civ@mail.mil mailto:john.t.seamon.civ@mail.mil mailto:Charles.hertenstein2.civ.@mail.smil.mil

L-5.3.2. Electronic Copies. Electronic copies of all proposal information for each volume shall be submitted on a CD-R (preferred), using Microsoft Office 2010 or higher, or Portable Document Format

(PDF) using Acrobat Adobe 9.0 or higher. Offerors shall NOT submit any documents in PDF that are copied as images. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots. Offerors shall name files in an unambiguous manner, using plain language text, which facilitates the evaluator’s ease of accessing the files for evaluation, using standard naming conventions (e.g., Offeror name-volume name). Each volume shall be in a single searchable file, with copy/paste capability, and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document. All electronic media shall be virus checked prior to submission. Replacement electronic media (CD-R preferred) shall be required to update the final proposal resulting from any discussions, should they occur.

L-5.3.3. Organization/Page Limit. Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each volume. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will be removed from the applicable volume and will not be considered as part of the evaluation. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

TABLE L-1: COPY REQUIREMENTS AND PAGE LIMITATIONS

Volume Title Electronic Copy Page Limit

1 Mission Capability Email or CD-R Three (3) pages per white paper

2 Past Performance Email or CD-R None

L-5.3.4. Cross Referencing: Offerors shall not cross reference between Volumes. Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other

Volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in designated

Volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

L-5.3.5. Page Count. An electronic page shall be configured as an 8 ¼” x 11” measurement. All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume, and all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count, with exception of items stated in L-5.3.5.

L-5.3.6. Pages Not Included in Page Count. The Organization Structure Change History (if applicable), acronym list, and exceptions (if applicable) will not be included in the page count. Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating pans/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

L-6 EXCEPTIONS

L-6.1. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, Offerors are advised that taking exception to any requirements specified in this solicitation may result in the

Government finding the proposal unacceptable. Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Clarification of Government requirements shall he handled by submitting questions/recommendations within fifteen (15) calendar days after final solicitation release date. If Offerors still find it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation (Sections A through M, to include the PWS and attachments), clearly identify each exception in the executive summary section of Volume 1 along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and the resulting benefit to the Government. Exception to solicitation requirements may render a proposal unacceptable or may require the Government to amend the solicitation to reflect a changed requirement. In the absence of exceptions, Offerors shall affirmatively state in the executive summary for Volume 1 that no exceptions are taken to the solicitation.

L-7 GENERAL INFORMATION

L-7. 1. Selection Approach. In accordance with FAR 35.007(a) the Government will use a qualifications-based selection approach for this R&D multiple award IDIQ contract. Cost/price is not an evaluation factor. All evaluation factors are equally important. In accordance with Public Law 114-328, Sec 825

“Exception to Requirement to Include Cost or Price to the Government as a Factor in the Evaluation of

Proposals for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts” cost or price will not be considered at the multiple award ID/IQ contract level.

Evaluation Factors for Award will be as follows:

Factor 1, Mission Capability

Sub-Factor 1, Facility Clearance

Sub-Factor 2, Experience/White Papers

Sub-Factor 3, Small Business Participation

Factor 2, Past Performance

L-7.2. Technical Requirement Areas. This solicitation contains 12 Technical Requirement Areas (TRA).

Offerors may propose on as few as one TRA and as many 11 TRA* listed in the PWS. .

*TRA #9 is not included in this source selection. Reserved for future use.

L-7.3. Fair Opportunity Ordering Procedures (FOPR). Offerors are invited to review the Ordering

Procedures attachment to gain an understanding of how CAPCON awardees will be considered for opportunities during the CAPCON ordering period.

L-8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I, MISSION CAPABILITY (FACTOR 1)

L-8.0. Volume I shall be submitted to include the Offeror’s Capability per the PWS. To facilitate evaluation, the Volume shall be structured so that each sub-factor is addressed for each category being proposed. The Volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the

Offeror has a thorough understanding of the CAPCON PWS requirements. The Offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the Offeror has requisite experience in each proposed TRA. Volume shall include sufficient detail that substantiates stated claims. Statements that an Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS; statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as

“standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” or “work will continue as it has in the past” will be considered unacceptable.

L-8.1. Contents. Offerors shall submit a Mission Capability Volume containing the following:

TABLE L-2: MISSION CAPABILITY VOLUME CONTENTS

Mission Capability Volume Contents

1 Cover Sheet One (1) page, provided in RFP.

2 Table Of Contents In Full.

3 Executive Summary Not to exceed two (2) pages.

4 Representations and

Certifications/Business

Information

No limit.

5 Facility Clearance Documentation No limit.

Experience/White Papers

Not to exceed three (3) pages per TRA. Each White Paper shall be preceded by a TRA cover page that clearly identifies the TRA for which the Offeror wishes to be considered resulting in a max of four (4) pages (including the cover page).

7 Acronym List No limit.

8 Small Business Subcontracting

Plan /SBPCD No limit.

L-8.1.1. Cover Sheet. Offerors shall fill out the provided cover sheet with company and contact information (i.e. names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses) and completed checklist as it pertains to the Offeror’s proposal.

L-8.1.2. Table of Contents. Provide a Table of Contents. A table of contents shall be included in Volume

I. Each subfactor should be clearly marked. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner.

L-8.1.3. Executive Summary. Offers shall include a two-page Executive Summary. It shall address how the Offeror meets the responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1, a) through g) (listed in section M). It shall also address any exceptions to the solicitation or affirmatively state there are no exceptions, as applicable.

Finally, it shall provide a summary of the Offeror’s experience.

L-8.1.4. Representations and Certifications. Offers shall include Representations and Certifications and other Business Information needed to facilitate the award of a contract such as size status, TIN number, DUNS number, beta.sam.gov registration, etc.

L-8.1.5. Facility Clearance Documentation (Subfactor 1). For each prime contractor and significant subcontractor (a subcontractor anticipated to provide 30% or more of the work in terms of cost or hours), provide CAGE code, beta.sam.gov registered entity name, facility address, and a description of appropriately accredited storage for classified information. This information should reflect actual status as of the date of proposal submission.

L-8.1.6. Experience/White Papers (Subfactor 2). Offers shall include white paper synopses of the

Offeror’s technical experience in each TRA for which an Offeror wishes to be considered. White papers should relate the proposed experience to the TRA. The white paper should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the TRA per the PWS.

L-8.1.7. Acronym List. An acronym list shall be provided as an attachment within the Mission Capability

Volume.

L-8.1.8. Technical Requirement Areas

L-8.1.8.1. TRA 1: Communications (Ref. PWS Section 3.1).

L-8.1.8.1.1. Telecommunication and Computer Networks.

L-8.1.8.1.1.1. The Offeror’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and provide industry access (site visits), and consultation and training.

L-8.1.8.2. TRA 2: Electric Power (Ref. PWS Section 3.2).

L-8.1.8.2.1. Electrical Power.

L-8.1.8.2.1.1. The Offeror’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and provide industry access (site visits), and consultation and training.

L-8.1.8.3. TRA 3: Industrial (Ref. PWS Section 3.3).

L-8.1.8.3.1. Industrial Systems.

L-8.1.8.3.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in industrial systems analysis, methodology development software support and tool development, vulnerability assessments of processes, process characterizations/templates, and verification/validation of models/approaches.

L-8.1.8.3.l.2. The Contractor’s white paper shalt describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and provide industry access (site visits), and consultation and training.

L-8.1.8.4. TRA 4: Logistics (Ref. PWS Section 3.4).

L-8.1.8.4.1. Logistics.

L-8.1.8.4.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.5. TRA 5: Space (Ref. PWS Section 3.5).

L-8.1.8.5.1. Space Systems.

L-8.1.8.5.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.6. TRA 6: See PWS Section 3.6.

L-8.1.8.6.1. Ref PWS Section 3.6.

L-8.1.8.6.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing; 1) general and specialized weaponeering support, solutions, data, and operational employment concepts in support of JWAC targeting efforts; 2) support in weaponeering analytical methods, supplemental analytical support, procurement of fragility data, failure Analysis Logic Tree, and identification and assessment of emerging damage mechanisms and weapons; 3) support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and provide industry access (site visits), and consultation and training.

L-8.1.8.7. TRA 7: See PWS Section 3.7.

L-8.1.8.7.1. Ref PWS Section 3.7.

L-8.1.8.7.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.8. TRA 8: Socio Political (Ref. PWS Section 3.8).

L-8.1.8.8.1. Political Analysis.

L-8.1.8.8.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.9. TRA 9: Business Operations (Ref. PWS Section 3.9).

L-8.1.8.9.1. RESERVED. At present, Government does not intend to accept proposals for this TRA.

Government may define this TRA in the future, in which onboarding procedures shall mirror public posting and solicitation requirements defined in this initial IDIQ solicitation.

L-8.1.8.10. TRA 10: Intelligence Methods and Sources (Ref. PWS Section 3.10).

L-8.1.8.10.1. Data Science Support.

L-8.1.8.0.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.11. TRA 11: Analytic Tools and Techniques (Ref. PWS Section 3.11).

L-8.1.8.11.1. Modeling and Simulation.

L-8.1.8.11.1.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support at all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and

L-8.1.8.12. TRA 12: IT Systems and Architectures (Ref. PWS Section 3.12).

L-8.1.8.12.1. Data Science Support.

L-8.1.8.12.2. Data Services.

L-8.1.8.12.2.1. The Contractor’s white paper shall describe its experience and knowledge in providing support in; 1) engineering and architectural services to develop and expand JWAC’s data services architecture to operate in our DevOps environment; 2) the creation of a sustainable data supply chain backend for the JWAC data science program that will aid in the identification of new sources of data, develop methodologies to work with structured and unstructured data, and inform computer environments; 3) all levels/scales of the networks to advance methodologies, develop software, obtain data, and provide industry access (site visits), and consultation and training.

L-8.1.9 Small Business Participation (Subfactor 3).

L-8.1.9.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Prime Contractors Only). Provide a

Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements (see attachment 3a of this solicitation for a checklist). Identify the percentage of intended business with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories: Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small

Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUB-Zone Small Business, Small

Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business. All small business subcontracting goals shall be expressed in terms of percentage goals. Small business subcontracting goals must be expressed in terms of percent of contract value in addition to percent of subcontracted amount (Ref AFFARS 5319.7)

L-8.1.9.2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). (All business sizes). Provide a SBPCD in the outline of the Attachment 3b sample.

L-8.1.9.3 Clarification of terms: “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” – applies to large businesses only. This document required by large businesses is NOT used as an evaluation factor for “selection” for award. Rather, once selected for award, it is used as part of the responsibility determination (required to complete the award process). “Small Business Participation”—applies to both large and small businesses.

This is a technical subfactor (in this source selection). It IS used as an evaluation factor for “selection” for award. In this source selection, it will not be evaluated as part of the Past Performance factor. “Small

Business Participation Commitment Document”—applies to both large and small businesses. If large business, it should complement, or “track to” offerors’ the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If small business, it should state the small business’ commitment to self-perform or subcontract to other small businesses. The offerors SBPCD (when approved) shall be made contractually binding.

L-9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II, PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2)

L-9.0. The Offeror shall submit thorough, accurate, and complete past performance information (PPI).

Offeror submitted PPIs, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) will be the primary sources used in evaluation. The Government may use additional sources of information in its evaluation, at its discretion. Additional information can come from any sources available to the Government.

L-9.1. Contents. Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

TABLE L-3: PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME CONTENTS

1 Cover page Note to exceed one (1) page

2 Table of Contents No limit

3 Executive Summary Not to exceed two (2) pages

4 Contracts Not to exceed three (3) pages per contract

Past Performance Questionnaire (to include self-assessment) No limit

6 Consent Form (if applicable) Not to exceed three (3) pages

7 Organization Structure Change History Not to exceed two (2) pages (bullet format, narrative not required)

L-9.1.1. Cover Page. A cover page clearly marked VOLUME II, PAST PERFORMANCE, shall contain the company name and contact information (i.e. names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses)

L-9.1.2. A table of contents shall be included in Volume II. Each PPI should be clearly marked. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner.

L-9.1.3. Executive Summary. Include a two-page (2) Executive Summary of their recent and relevant past performance. It should describe roles of Offerors, all subcontractors, and/or teaming partners included in the past performance information.

L-9.1.4. Past Performance Information. Offerors will include recent and relevant contracts . Offerors will also provide information pertaining to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQs) covering the contract performance. Offerors must provide information for a minimum of three (3) references and a maximum of five (5); three (3) of the references provided should be on the Offeror (prime), if available. The remaining two (2) references may be provided for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to successful performance of the requirement. If the PPI reference is an overarching Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order. If offerors would like assessment of an individual task/call/delivery/purchase order, the Offeror shall submit that as a separate PPI reference.

L-9.1.4.1. Offeror and (if applicable) Subcontractor, Proposed Partner, and/or Proposed Joint Venture

Partner - Past and Present Performance Contract References. If a teaming arrangement, partner arrangement, or joint venture is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of no more than three (3) past and present recent and relevant references. The Offeror and any subcontractors, proposed partners, and/or proposed joint venture partners shall submit the following under this section: 1. Submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include a summary of the work performed, what capacity they served under the reference (i.e. prime contractor, subcontractor, partner, etc.), Offeror’s assessment of how the contract reference is relevant to the Relevancy Criteria in Section

M of the RFP, and any additional significant details. 2. Submit completed CPARs or similar reports used to record past performance data. If a CPAR or another evaluation form has been completed for a contractor’s work, but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information to the

Offeror, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO and CM of this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide the contract number for the CPAR, and a name and telephone number of the POC from which the past performance information should be obtained. If the Offeror does not have Government past/present performance references, the Offeror shall provide references from commercial/private industry sources. If the Offeror is providing information for a contract with a non-Governmental organization, the information provided should be the same as that required on the CPAR form. The Offeror shall not alter in any way information provided by any other party (including extracting or paraphrasing portions of past performance). Past performance forms and reports shall be provided unaltered in their entirety.

L-9.1.4.2. Subcontractor Consent (Section L: Attachment 3d; if applicable) - Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor's or teaming partner's consent. Since past performance information is proprietary source selection information, the prime contractor must submit, with their proposal, subcontractor's/teaming partner’s consent for the Government to disclose its past performance information to the prime during exchanges and debriefs.

L-9.1.4.3. Recency. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this solicitation, Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the two (2) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than 6 months of performance will not be considered.

L-9.1.4.4. Relevancy. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. For this solicitation, offerors shall submit performance information on contracts they consider relevant to this effort. This information should include rationale supporting the Offeror’s assertion of relevance. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. When applicable, categorize and cross-reference the relevance of the information into the specific relevancy criteria as defined in Section M of this solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

L-9.1.4.5. For the prime contractor and each major subcontractor (a major subcontractor is one anticipated to provide 30% or more of the work effort in terms of cost or hours) identify recent and relevant contracts to demonstrate your past performance. Include the contract number, customer PM’s name and contact information, customer contracting officer’s name and contact information, type of contract, value of the contract in dollars, period of performance, summary of the PWS or SOW, and an assessment of the recency and relevancy of the contract. If the contracting agency (customer) was a DoD agency, state whether a CPAR report or reports was/were completed by the customer, and the dates of the PoP covered by the CPAR report. If a CPAR is available, a Past Performance Questionnaire is not required for the contract.

L-9.1.4.6. CPARS. The Government will conduct past performance verification by checking the Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS) for CPARS on the Prime Contractor.

The government reserves the right to use other sources and are not bound by an offeror’s determination.

L-9.1.4.7 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). If a submitted PPI does not have a CPARS, the

Government shall initiate a PPQ as a tool for evaluating. All PPQs shall be submitted to the Government by the POC identified in Section 3 of the PPQ. Any PPQs submitted by the Offeror will not be considered. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure the PPQ is received by the proposal deadline.

L-9.1.5. Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, have been acquired by, or have otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate the

Government’s past performance evaluation, Offerors shall include in this proposal volume a detailed

“roadmap” describing all such organizational changes (if applicable), to include specific names.

L-10 DEBRIEFING OF OFFERORS

L-10.1. Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying to unsuccessful offerors where changes can be made to improve future source selection participation. Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505 for pre-award debriefings and FAR 15.506 for post-award debriefings and Class Deviation 2018-O011 for enhanced postaward debriefings.

L-11 Appendices to Instructions – Small Business and Past Performance Documents

Attachment 3a / Section L Appendix 1 – Subcontracting Plan Support Information

Ref Section L-8.1.9.1.

Attachment 3b / Section L Appendix 2 – SBPCD Sample

Ref Section L-8.1.9.2.

Attachment 3c / Section L Appendix 3 – PPQ

Ref Section L-9.1.4.7.

Attachment 3d / Section L Appendix 4 – Letter of Consent

Ref Section L-9.1.4.2.

See table L-1, L-2 and L-3 for additional information and instruction

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016. The awards will be made to the Offerors deemed responsible, per M-1.7 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements. The Government intends to award the Capabilities Contract (CAPCON) via multiple award ID/lQ contracts.

M-1.2. There is no minimum or maximum number of awardees. ID/IQ contracts will be awarded concurrent with the first Task Order, which shall be a $3,000 task order for a kick-off meeting which will serve as the government’s minimum guarantee. The Government shall have a period of up to three (3) months from the date of award of the first ID/IQ contract to award contracts to qualifying Offerors.

M-1.3. An ID/IQ contract will be awarded to each offeror whose proposal is evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria below as “pass” (Facility Clearance), “acceptable” (Experience) AND

“satisfactory” (Past Performance), and meets all other eligibility requirements for award in accordance with the FAR.

M.1.4. Fair and Reasonable Price to be determined on individual task orders IAW the ordering procedures. Cost/price will not be evaluated at the ID/IQ level.

M-1.5. Offerors selected for award must have at least a Secret facility clearance and post-award will be assigned to one or more of four (4) security level pools based on the facility clearance level in which they qualify (see the Ordering Procedures).

M-1.6. Past Performance will be rated as one of the ratings found in Table M-5. See table for definitions of each rating.

M-1.7. To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements and be deemed responsible in accordance FAR Part 9. If an Offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, or is found unacceptable in any factor or subfactor, the Government will not make a final award to that Offeror.

M-1.8. The Government does not intend to evaluate using customary trade-off, performance/price tradeoff, or lowest price technically acceptable procedures. In accordance with FAR 35.007(a) the

Government will use a qualifications-based selection approach for this R&D multiple award IDIQ contract. Cost/price is not an evaluation factor. All evaluation factors are equally important. In accordance with Public Law 114-328, Sec 825 “Exception to Requirement to Include Cost or Price to the

Government as a Factor in the Evaluation of Proposals for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery

Order Contracts” cost or price will not be considered at the multiple award ID/IQ contract level.

M-2 DISCUSSIONS AND FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION

M-2.1. The Government intends to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the

Government determines it is necessary. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror's proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely based on the initial proposal submitted without discussion. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M-2.2 Evaluation Notices (ENs). If the Government holds discussions, the Government will issue ENs to

Offerors. Details regarding presentations will be provided in the EN letters. Formal responses to ENs will be considered in making the source selection decision for award. IAW FAR 15.102 Offerors will be required to provide written responses documenting any changes to their proposals as a result of oral discussions.

M-2.3 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). FPRs may be requested from each Offeror at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions.

Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-3.0 The Government does not intend to evaluate using customary trade-off, performance/price tradeoff, or lowest price technically acceptable procedures. In accordance with FAR 35.007(a) the

Government will use a qualifications-based selection approach for this R&D multiple award IDIQ contract. Cost/price is not an evaluation factor. All evaluation factors are equally important. Under

Factor 1, all subfactors are equally important. In accordance with Public Law 114-328, Sec 825

“Exception to Requirement to Include Cost or Price to the Government as a Factor in the Evaluation of

Proposals for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts” cost or price will not be considered at the multiple award ID/IQ contract level. The Mission Capability proposal will be measured against evaluation criteria at the subfactor level.

M-3.1. Proposals will be evaluated using two (2) evaluation factors: (1) Mission Capability and (2) Past

Performance.

M-3.1.1. Factor 1: Mission Capability. This factor has three (3) subfactors: (1) Facility Clearance Level,

(2) Experience White Papers and (3) Small Business Participation.

M-3.1.1.1. Subfactor 1 - Facility Clearance Level. Facility clearance level will be rated as “Pass” or

“Fail”. “Pass” is defined as “The Offeror can provide an appropriately accredited cleared facility, to include appropriately accredited storage for classified information, of at least SECRET, for the TRA being proposed on as of the date of proposal submission”. “Fail” is defined as “The Offeror cannot provide the appropriately cleared facility to include appropriately accredited storage for classified information, for the TRA being proposed on as of the date of proposal submission”. The Government evaluation team will use the JPAS code provided in the proposal to validate the facility clearance level proposed by the Offeror.

M-3.1.1.2. In order to be eligible for award each Offerors shall receive a “pass” rating in subfactor 1 -

Facility Clearance Level.

TABLE M-1: FACILITY CLEARANCE

Adjectival Rating Description

Pass The Offeror can provide the appropriately accredited cleared facility, to include appropriately accredited storage for classified information, of at least

SECRET, for the TRA being proposed on (validated by JPAS code) as of the date of proposal submission.

Fail

Fail is defined as “The Offeror cannot provide the appropriately cleared facility to Fail include appropriately accredited storage for classified information, as of the date of proposal submission”.

M-3.1.1.2. Subfactor 2 - Experience White Papers. After the tailored assessment the Government evaluation team will assign one of the following ratings: “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable. Acceptable is defined as “White paper provides one (1) example of services provided in the TRA (within the past twenty-four (24) months from date of solicitation) that is pertinent to the TRA and demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of the nature and scope of the TRA”. Unacceptable is defined as “White paper example of services provided for TRA was not pertinent to the TRA, was outside of twenty-four

(24) months from date of solicitation, service was provided for less than 12 months, or example does not demonstrate thorough knowledge of the nature and scope of the TRA”.

M-3.1.1.2.1. Tailored TRA criteria. Experience white papers will be assessed in accordance with the tailored TRA evaluation criteria below. Note: The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in a proposal.

M-3.1.1.3. TRA 1: Communications (Ref. PWS Section 3.1).

M-3.1.1.3.1. Telecommunication and Computer Networks.

M-3.1.1.3.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Telecommunication and Computer Networks.

M-3.1.1.4. TRA 2: Electric Power (Ref. PWS Section 3.2).

M-3.1.1.4.1. Electrical Power.

M-3.1.1.4.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Electrical Power

M-3.1.1.5. TRA 3: Industrial (Ref. PWS Section 3.3).

M-3.1.1.5.1. Industrial Systems.

M-3.1.1.5.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Industrial Systems.

M-3.1.1.6. TRA 4: Logistics (Ref. PWS Section 3.4).

M-3.1.1.6.1. Logistics.

M-3.1.1.6.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Logistics.

M-3.1.1.7. TRA 5: Space (Ref. PWS Section 3.5).

M-3.1.1.7.1. Space Systems.

M-3.1.1.7.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Space Systems.

M-3.1.1.8. TRA 6: See. PWS Section 3.6.

M-3.1.1.8.1. See. PWS Section 3.6.

M-3.1.1.8.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of PWS Section 3.6.

M-3.1.1.9. TRA 7: See PWS Section 3.7 for additional information.

M-3.1.1.9.1. See PWS Section 3.7

M-3.1.1.9.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of PWS Section 3.7.

M-3.1.1.10. TRA 8: Socio Political (Ref. PWS Section 3.8).

M-3.1.1.10.1. Political Analysis.

M-3.1.1.10.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Political Analysis.

M-3.1.1.11. TRA 9: Business Operations (Ref PWS Section 3.9).

M-3.1.1.11.1. Not evaluated.

M3.1.1.12. TRA 10: Intelligence Methods and Sources (Ref. PWS Section 3.10).

M-3.1.1.12.1. Data Science Support

M-3.1.1.12.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Data Science Support.

M-3.1.1.13. TRA 11: Analytic Tools and Techniques (Ref. PWS Section 3.11).

M-3.1.1.13.1. Modeling and Simulation.

M-3.1.1.13.1.1. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the Offerors knowledge and understanding of Modeling and Simulations.

M-3.1.1.14. TRA 12: Systems and Architectures (Ref. PWS Section 3.12).

M-3.1.1.14.1. Data Science Support.

M-3.1.1.14.1.1. Data Services.

M-3.1.1.14.1.1.1. The Contractor’s proposal shall describe its experience in providing support in engineering and architectural services to develop and expand JWAC’s data services architecture to operate in our DevOps environment JWAC envisions three separate areas of expertise to complete the data service support, data service engineering, cloud engineering, and data warehouse development.

M-3.1.1.14.1.1.2. The Contractor’s proposal shall describe its experience in providing support in the creation of a sustainable data supply chain backend for the JWAC data science program that will aid in the identification of new sources of data, develop methodologies to work with structured and unstructured data, and inform computer environments.

M-3.1.2. The Contractor’s offer is acceptable when it demonstrates the criteria in Table M-2.

M-3.1.3. After the tailored assessment the Government evaluation team will assign one of the following ratings: “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable. Acceptable is defined as “White paper provides one (1) example of services provided in the TRA (within the past twenty-four (24) months from 5 May 2020) that is pertinent to the TRA and demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of the nature and scope of the TRA”. Unacceptable is defined as “White paper example of services provided for TRA was not pertinent to the TRA, was outside of twenty-four (24) months from 5 May 2020, service was provided for less than 12 months, or example does not demonstrate thorough knowledge of the nature and scope of the

TRA”.

TABLE M-2. EXPERIENCE WHITE PAPERS

Acceptable

White paper provides one (1) example per TRA within the past twenty-four

(24) months from date of solicitation release and indicates thorough knowledge and understanding of the TRA.

Not Acceptable

White paper examples of services provided for TRA were outside of twenty-four (24) months from date of solicitation release. Service was provided for less than 12 months. Examples do not demonstrate thorough knowledge and understanding of the TRA.

M-3.1.4 Sub-factor 3. Small Business Participation

M-3.1.4.1 Subcontracting Plan. For this IDIQ-level qualification, offerors’ Small Business

Subcontracting Plans will not be evaluated as a criteria for selection. They will however be subject to evaluation for compliance with FAR using the checklist at Attachment 3a. Award of a task order beyond

T.O. 1 will not be made until an offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan has been reviewed by the

AMIC Small Business Procurement Center Representative and approved by the Contracting Officer.

Future Fair Opportunity Task Order Requests for Proposal (FOPRs) may include evaluation criteria to evaluate the contractor’s actual performance versus its planned performance stated in its approved Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

M-3.1.4.2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). For this IDIQ-level qualification, offerors’ SBPCD will not be evaluated as a criteria for selection. They will however be subject to evaluation for compliance with FAR using the checklist at Attachment 3a. Award of a task order beyond T.O. 1 will not be made until an offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment

Document has been reviewed by the Small Business Procurement Center Representative and approved by the Contracting Officer.

M-3.1.4.3: The following table shall serve as basis for evaluation of Sub-factor 3:

TABLE M-3. SMALL BUSINES PARTICIPATION

Acceptable Offeror provided clear and concise SBPCD and when a Large Business, provided a Subcontracting Plan.

Unacceptable Offeror did not provide clear and concise SBPCD or when a Large Business, did not provide a Subcontracting Plan.

M-3.1.5. Methodology. All proposals with FCL will be evaluated first. Those proposals that fail subfactor 1, will not have subfactor 2 or subfactor 3 evaluated.

M-3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

M-3.2.1 A performance confidence rating will be assigned to each Offeror based upon three aspects of the past performance evaluation. The Government evaluation team will evaluate each proposed contract for recency, relevancy, and quality. If a contract is not found to be both recent and relevant, it will not be further evaluated.

M-3.2.2 Recency and Relevancy. The Government evaluation team will evaluate each proposed contract for recency and relevancy per the tables below. If a contract is not found to be both recent and relevant, it will not be further evaluated.

M-3.2.3 Recency. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this solicitation, Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the two (2) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than 6 months of performance will not be considered.

M-3.2.4 Relevancy. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

M-3.2.5 Offerors’ past performance information shall comply with the following criteria for relevancy:

TABLE M-4: RELEVANCY CRITERIA

Relevant

Present/past performance effort (on Government or commercial contracts) involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and offeror performed as the prime contractor, or as a subcontractor, or as a member of a teaming arrangement or joint venture.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-3.2.6 Quality. The Government will review all the recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s past performance and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned, but rather the Offeror’s overall record of performance quality will be used to assign a confidence rating.

M-3.2.7. Past Performance Information from Other Sources. Past performance information for contracts not listed by the Offeror and/or past performance information for contracts of planned subcontractor(s) may also be evaluated. References other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the

Government and the information obtained during such contact may be used in the evaluation of the

Offeror’s past performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy and providing current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests solely with the Offeror.

M-3.2.8. For each recent and relevant contract evaluated, the…