Attachment 8 BCTE L and M PWS References.xlsx

Attachment L3

All of 1.6 and all of 5 All of 8 The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and a resource loaded Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that details the effective planning, scheduling, execution, monitoring and controlling of the work effort. The IMS shall cover the base period only (36 months). The Offeror's IMP shall be an event-driven plan that documents the significant accomplishments necessary to complete the work and ties each accomplishment to a key program event. The Offeror's IMS shall be an integrated and networked multi-layered schedule of program tasks required to complete the work effort captured in the IMP. The Offeror may reference Department of Defense, October 21, 2005, Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule: Preparation and Use Guide, version 0.9 as a guide.

The Offeror shall provide their organizational structure to manage the BCTE program that will meet the requirements of the effort. The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach for performing within cost, schedule and performance parameters, to include effective coordination with teaming partners and subcontractors. The Offeror shall describe their management approach in performing responsibilities as a Prime contractor and interacting with the Government Program Office (GPO). The Offeror shall describe their processes to facilitate socialization and integrated working relationships with the BCTE program and their respective contractors to achieve program objectives and to ensure excellent communication and thorough understanding of issues.

The Offeror shall describe how the Offeror’s organization will adapt to rapidly changing program requirements and provide the required agility, flexibility, and responsiveness to meet customer and technical requirements, constraints, and priorities.

The Offeror shall describe how the Offeror’s organization will adapt to rapidly changing program requirements and provide the required agility, flexibility, and responsiveness to meet customer and technical requirements, constraints, and priorities.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Scheduled (IMS) as they reflect understanding of the program requirements and the soundness of the Offeror's approach to meeting those requirements. Evaluation is based on the extent to which the IMP details an event-based technical approach to executing the program and identifies the key program events, significant accomplishments, and associated completion criteria. Events of particular interest to the Government include event-based activities, such assite survey schedules, refresh schedules, quarterly PMRs and annual RMF accreditation requirements. Of particular interest are the identification of risks identified by the Offeror, how they will be mitigated, and their relationship to the IMS.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s project team organization to ensure that the Offeror is organized in a manner that demonstrates an understanding of the BCTE requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed internal project team and subcontractors to meet these requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to interact with the GPO as well as their processes to facilitate socialization and integrated working relationships with the BCTE core systems programs and their respective contractors.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s requirements change process and their ability to adapt to rapidly changing program requirements and provide the required agility, flexibility, and responsiveness to meet customer and technical requirements, constraints, and priorities.

Program Management 1.2 Task Order 0001 L.3.1.b M.4.1.c 0001

All of 1.6 and all of 5 All of 8 The Offeror shall describe their approach to effectively and efficiently manage their Resources, Events/Tasks, Phase In activities and Time/Schedule regarding program performance and staffing profiles in support of multiple, simultaneous and complex efforts (i.e. exercises, test events, software version upgrades, held desk responsiveness, and technology/site refreshes), without negatively impacting development and activities.

The Offeror shall also address how this approach addresses software configuration management of multiple software baselines, assuming 2 fielded versions and 1 development version. The Offeror shall discuss in detail their proposed approach to meeting Army Cyber Security/OPSEC requirements to maintain cyber security accreditation. The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach to identify, collect, analyze, and present technical metrics to assess the OPSEC and RMF postures of BCTE.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's Resource, Event, Integration & Time Management approaches to effectively and efficiently manage multiple, simultaneous and complex efforts, to include during peak times, without negatively impacting software development and PDSS activities. The Government will also evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's approach for software configuration management of multiple software baselines. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to align Army Cyber Security/OPSEC requirements with BCTE future technological innovations, upgrades, and enhancements. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's approach to identify, collect, analyze and present technical metrics to provide visibility into the OPSEC and RMF posture of the BCTE.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s processes and methodology for meeting Army RMF/Cyber Security/OPSEC requirements for sustaining both site-based and centrally managed BCTE.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's approach to maintain CDS authorization.

0011 5.1.7

8.1.7, 11, 12, 23, 24

The Offeror shall provide an initial Configuration Management Plan (CMP). The Offeror shall describe their approach to effectively and efficiently manage their Resources, Events/Tasks, Integration activities and Time/Schedule regarding program performance and staffing profiles in support of multiple, simultaneous and complex efforts (i.e. exercises, test events, software version upgrades, held desk responsiveness, integration events and technology refreshes), without negatively impacting activities. The Offeror shall also address how this approach addresses software configuration management of multiple software baselines.

0012 5.1.7.1

8.1.8

The Offeror shall provide an initial Risk Management (RM) plan. This plan shall address at a minimum: overall risk approach; methods; top BCTE risks; risk levels; mitigations; and tracking measures relative to cost, schedule, and performance.

The Offeror may reference Department of Defense Risk, issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs, January 2017, as a guide. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed the initial Risk Management Plans (RMP)s. These plans shall demonstrate at a minimum: process, implementation, and maintenance that includes identification, analysis, mitigation planning, mitigation plan implementation and tracking of risks, issues and opportunities, using the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs as a guide, for management of technical, programmatic, business and cyber risks.

0011 The Offeror shall describe their past examples of hardware procurement, software licensces, methadologies, processes and technical approach to meet the BCTE requirements.

The Offeror shall discuss their proposed process and documentation developed to reproduce, operate, maintain, install and control total system support and operation.

The Offeror shall discuss their proposed training support package plan for New Equipment Training, Instructor/Operator Training, and ESS Maintenance Training.

The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach to control, secure, inventory, record and audit procured property. The Offeror shall describe their experience with procuring Information Technology hardware through Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS).

The Offeror shall describe how they will support connections to core systems at multiple test sites concurrently, for both JLCCTC site and MTC site.

The recency of the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated first. Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Past Performance within the three (3) years prior to the solicitation closing date will be considered recent past performance for the purposes of this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the clarity, completeness and feasibility of the Offeror's approach in meeting the PWS requirements related to procurement, integration and testing.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the Offeror's approach to interoperability testing with BCTE and core systems' technical, scheduling and facilities requirements, for both development and PDSS efforts.

Relevant efforts are defined as follows:

• Similarity of service/support (for example: Ability to reach out and surge resources, when needed; ability to effectively and efficiently manage resources across multiple, simultaneous and complex efforts to include test events, exercise support, fielding an upgrade, help desk support and integration events without impacting performance).

• Complexity (for example: experience with integration of complex standalone systems into an integrated-type training/operational environment through a common and open architecture and infrastructure; Enterprise Management and Services; related Cybersecurity and Risk Management Framework (RMF) experience.)

Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 Contract Description, describing the general description, abbreviated scope, and objectives achieved; detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation and are similar in scope and magnitude of effort and the complexities of BCTE. How relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this source selection will be evaluated second. Relevant efforts are defined as managing a multifaceted contract which includes conducting tradeoff analysis and maintaining configuration management, designing and fielding of COTS hardware/software/licenses products, furniture layout for a multifunctional facility containing office space, classrooms, conference rooms, work cells and a tech control area; procurement and installation of furniture, network hardware (which includes servers, switches, routers, firewalls), audiovisual and video teleconferencing equipment, universal power supplies and cabling similar in scope and size contained in PWS Addendum 2, small, medium and large MTCs.

If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Offeror shall limit the records of Past Performance to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. If an Offeror is utilizing past performance information of affiliate/subsidiary/parent company, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. The Offeror shall clearly identify and describe the work that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company will be performing under the effort. Furthermore, Offerors shall explain how the past performance work specifically relates to the work that will be performed under the effort. The description of the work performed by the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company will be considered in determining the relevancy of the past performance information provided for the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company. If the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company’s meaningful involvement in the performance of the resultant contract, the contract or effort will not be considered relevant and will not be considered in the evaluation of Past Performance.

Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 Contract Description, describing the general description, abbreviated scope, and objectives achieved; detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation and are similar in scope and magnitude of effort and the complexities of BCTE. The Quality of Products or Services is the third aspect of the past performance evaluation and is done to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition; therefore, the offeror is not required to provide certified cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the offeror shall provide certified cost or pricing data as requested by the Contracting Officer.

Offerors shall submit the basis of estimates and include other than cost or pricing data (CLIN-by-CLIN) in support of all CLINs. In addition, Offerors shall submit a summary of the proposed cost for each CLIN, as well as the total price including profit or fee. Details of the cost proposal will be submitted separately in the cost proposal section below. Since the preponderance of this contract is CPFF, each Offeror shall show their rationale for fee percentage for those applicable CLIN’s. No fee shall exceed FAR guidelines for maximum fee IAW FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(C).

The Offeror shall ensure that all Major Subcontractors Cost/Price Volumes are also appropriately marked with the Prime Offeror’s name and address, volume identification, solicitation number, and distribution restrictions. All major subcontractors (Reference L.1.11 & L.1.12) proposals, shall be submitted in the same level of detail as the prime proposal, to include labor build-up, indirect rate information and material/other direct costs compositions, when required.

Prime and Major Subcontractors files contained in the Cost/Price Volume shall not be password protected and all cell formulas and cell references shall be intact and the worksheet shall be unprotected, not locked. All Excel workbooks shall include formulas that are executable and traceable to allow the Government to test and evaluate the Offeror’s and supporting Major Subcontractor’s proposed costs. Offeror’s shall provide cost-element breakdowns for each proposed line item. Offerors shall not submit unstructured “flat files” where calculations are not supported by rate tables or formulas.

The cost no-fee CLINs shall not include fee. Offerors shall prepare and submit a Cost/Price Volume containing the following information. The Government’s cost/price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. In addition to Attachment L5-Cost-Pricing Workbook, the Offeror shall provide a separate workbook showing the breakdown of the cost elements by labor category, labor hours, material, travel, subcontracts, overhead, other direct and indirect costs, etc, by CLIN, contract period, and in total. This information shall be submitted utilizing the requirements of FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and shall be submitted unprotected and include all formulas.

If there is a discrepancy between the amounts in Attachment L5-Cost-Pricing Workbook and the amounts in the Offeror’s cost/price proposal workbook, the amounts in Attachment L5-Cost-Pricing Workbook shall prevail. Each major subcontractor, defined as members of an offeror’s overall team whose contribution will account for more than (15) percent or more of the Total Proposed Cost/Price, shall provide a separate cost/price volume, which follows the same format as described in these instructions. The subcontractor must mark these submissions to clearly indicate the name of the prime contractor that it is partnering with. The offeror’s subcontractors may provide their information directly to the Government POCs listed in paragraph L.2. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Cost/Price Volume for completeness, price reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing for the base ID/IQ. The table listing of all Labor Categories, skill mix, hours, and job descriptions provided in the Program Management/Technical Volume shall match those provided in the Cost/Price Excel workbooks for both the Base ID/IQ.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to controlling program costs at both the contract and CLIN levels. The Government will evaluate the compliancy and effectiveness of the Offeror’s EVMS implementation and approach, including its flow-down to primary subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror's approach for resolving negative trends.

W900KK-18-R-0007

Attachment L5