Attch 2 - Additional Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Factors.pdf

FA8601-21-R-0058

RFP Attachment 2

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8601-21-R-0058

Attachment 2

Instructions to Offerors & Evaluation Factors/Subfactors for Award

1. SECTION I: ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1. Purpose

This addendum to the solicitation tailors some of the terms and conditions contained in the provision at FAR 52.212-1—Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items and provides additional instructions to offerors. Except as specified in this solicitation addendum, the offeror must submit all data and information required by 52.212-1 and this addendum. Non-conformance with the instructions provided herein or in any other part of the solicitation may result in elimination of the offer from consideration for award or an otherwise unfavorable offer evaluation.

1.1.1. Multiple Offers

FAR 5.212-1(e), Multiple Offers is hereby deleted from this solicitation and that paragraph is marked RESERVED.

1.1.2. Offer Acceptance and Validity Dates

Paragraph (c) of the provision at

FAR 52.212-1 regarding the period during which the offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm is amended to read 60 days vs. 30 days. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the Price

& Offer Documentation Volume that the offer is valid for 60 days after the proposal due date.

1.1.3. Point of Contact

The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) and Contract Specialist are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Offerors shall address any questions or concerns they may have to the PCO and Contract Specialist. Written requests for clarification may be emailed to the PCO and Contract

Specialist at the address listed below:

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) Contract Specialist

Attn: MSgt Michael Solo Attn: 2Lt Hampton Floyd

Telephone: (937) 522-4509 Telephone: (937) 522-2277 michael.solo.1@us.af.mil hampton.floyd.1@us.af.mil

Every effort will be made to respond to requests for information in as timely a manner as possible.

However, in order to guarantee a response prior to the proposal submission due date, the clarification request must be received no later than 2 weeks prior to the proposal due date.

1.1.4. Discrepancies

If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the PCO to consider as related to the omission or error.

1.1.5. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management

(SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov/. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

1.1.6. Communications

Exchanges of source selection information and/or any communication between the Government and Offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Email may be used to transmit such information to

Offerors only if the email includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line. Source selection information may also be transmitted via the DoD SAFE website

(https://safe.apps.mil/). The Government reserves the right to communicate with some, none, or all Offerors.

1.2. Proposal Due Date and Preparation Instructions

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale and evidence to address how the offeror meets the requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Proposals shall be delivered electronically to the PCO and Contract Specialist (See paragraph

1.2.1) no later than 1200 noon Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Wednesday, 08/25/2021.

1.2.1. Proposal Organization and Page Limits

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits as specified in Table 1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the table below:

1.2.1.1. Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to exchanges. The specified page limits for exchange response will be identified by the PCO at a later date. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information and, therefore, when

TABLE 1 - Proposal Organization Table

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMITS

Volume 1 Executive Summary 5 pages

Volume 2 Technical 15 pages

Volume 3 Past Performance 10 pages

Volume 4 Price No limit

Volume 5 Contract Documentation / Other Business Documents No limit https://safe.apps.mil/ both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Each page shall be counted except for cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries.

1.2.1.2. Page Size & Format

The proposal may contain written and visual material. It must be succinct, well written and presented in a clear straightforward manner.

The submission should be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume should be clearly identified and should begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume should be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Submissions shall conform to the following guidelines:

Type Font: Times New Roman, no less than size 10

Orientation: Portrait

Spacing: Single-spacing between lines of text

Margins: 1.0 inches on all sides

Page Size: 8.5” x 11” (exceptions for Graphics & Tables)

Acronyms: Spell out all acronyms the first time when they are used. Additional pages shall be inserted following the proposal body to spell out acronyms, abbreviations and symbols that will not be included in the total page count.

Language: English

Format: MS Office Applications (i.e. Word, Excel, Project, PowerPoint) and Adobe

Acrobat.

Graphics & Tables: Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.

These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches in size.

1.2.1.3. Pricing Related Data

All pricing information shall only be addressed in Volume 4 – Price.

1.2.1.4. Abbreviations and Acronyms

All abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the proposal shall be spelled out when first used.

1.2.2. Proposal Specific Content

The proposal shall be organized into five (5) separate volumes in accordance with paragraph 1.2.1 above and shall contain all required content as specified herein.

1.2.2.1. Volume 1 – Executive Summary

In Volume 1, Executive Summary, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

1.2.2.1.1. Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the proposal shall be concise, to include highlighting any key or unique features to be provided by the Offeror, excluding price. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting any of the requirements of the solicitation.

1.2.2.1.2. Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

1.2.2.1.3. Specific Content

1) Names & Addresses: Offerors shall provide their company name and address and the names and addresses of all subcontractors.

2) CAGE Codes: Offerors shall provide their CAGE code and CAGE codes for all subcontractors.

3) DUNS numbers: Offerors shall provide their DUNS number and DUNS numbers for all subcontractors.

4) Affirmative Statement: Offerors shall provide an affirmative statement that their company fully understands the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and all terms and conditions as specified and/or referenced in this solicitation.

5) Exceptions: Offerors shall provide a statement that their company does or does not take exception to any of the solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. In the event that an Offeror takes exception, the exception should be provided in accordance with paragraph 1.2.2.5.2

- Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements.

6) Authorized Offeror Personnel: Offerors shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company and/or division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

7) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Administration Office: Offerors shall provide the contact information for the DCMA office responsible for administering

Department of Defense (DoD) contracts awarded to their company.

8) Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Office: Offerors shall provide the contact information for the DCAA office responsible completing defense audits of their company.

1.2.2.2. Volume 2 – Technical

1.2.2.2.1. General

The Technical Volume should be specific, complete, and clear. Offeror responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in paragraph 2.7.1 below. Using the instructions provided below, explain as specifically as possible how you would accomplish/satisfy the requirements of these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your company will contractually satisfy all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The PM Academy is a developed course with an established curriculum. Current course material for the contractor led portion of the PM Academy is available to Offerors for the purpose of developing a proposal, however, due to the number of documents and size of the files this material is not posted with the solicitation on SAM.gov. Offerors must request this material from the POCs listed in section 1.1.3 and it will be provided via the DoD SAFE application at https://safe.apps.mil/. The POCs will make every effort to respond to requests immediately, but https://safe.apps.mil/ please allow up to two (2) business days to receive instructions on how to retrieve the documents from DoD SAFE.

1.2.2.2.2. Subfactor 1, Key Personnel

In order to determine whether or not the Offeror will provide Key Personnel with the appropriate experience and credentials to meet stated requirements, the Offeror shall provide resumes or staffing plan for proposed instructors who meet both the experience and diversity requirements of

PWS paragraph 2.1.2 and 2.2.4.

1.2.2.2.3. Subfactor 2, Application Development Approach

In order to support a comprehensive and appropriate evaluation of this subfactor, the Offeror shall describe their approach to case study development IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.1, while addressing the following elements: (1) Use of at least 3 Adaptive Acquisition Pathways

(https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/aaf-pathways/); (2) types of weapon system(s) or modernization program(s) Offeror intends to use; (3) how the Offeror will obtain the case study information. The

Offeror’s proposal will not simply rephrase or restate the PWS, but provide specific details in how the Offeror will meet this requirement.

1.2.2.3. Volume 3 – Past Performance

In order to assess the Offeror’s past performance relative to the type and scope of requirements of this solicitation, the Offeror shall provide specific details of at least one (1) past performance example demonstrating (1) the development of defense acquisition educational content, and (2) course delivery and instruction on a defense acquisition topic to Department of Defense (DoD) students. The Past Performance requirements identified may be demonstrated by providing multiple examples (i.e. both not necessarily done in the same effort).

1.2.2.4. Volume 4 – Price

Volume 4, Price, shall consist of a narrative document and pricing proposal in Microsoft Excel format that contains all formulas and supporting rationale utilized in the buildup of the Offeror’s price to support the Government evaluation. Proper presentation and adequate supporting documentation shall ensure that the Price proposal is evaluated fairly and that the Government is able to understand all assumptions concerning the Price presented in the proposal. The burden of proof for Price credibility rests with the Offeror. Any Price information not submitted in the Price proposal volume shall not be evaluated. All pricing information shall be addressed only in the

Price Proposal.

1.2.2.4.1. General Instructions

1) The Price proposal shall be submitted in its entirety by the prime Offeror, although proprietary data to support the price may be submitted separately by the subcontractor to the PCO and Contract Specialist, via email to the address identified in Paragraph 1.2.1 if desired by individual subcontractors. Any data submitted separately by the subcontractor must be received by the PCO by the due date specified in the solicitation. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory. Failure to comply may result in rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/aaf-pathways/

2) Provide unit prices for CLINs X001 – X003 for each ordering period. PM Academy instructor support, Application Course offerings, and Application course update ordering periods are separated by fiscal years over the base IDIQ’s 5 year period of performance.

The quantities listed on the schedule are estimates only to be used in evaluating the offers

TEP, and does not obligate the Government to order these quantities.

3) The Government will perform a price analysis to determine completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

4) The burden of proof for price credibility rests with the Offeror; therefore, the Offeror shall submit pricing information that is fully responsive to the requirement.

5) The period of performance for the basic IDIQ award shall be five (5) years from contract award.

1.2.2.4.2. Price Reasonableness and Balance

This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and balance of your proposed Price. Compliance with these requirements are mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.

Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror.

1.2.2.4.3. Price Data

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless the Offeror considers it essential to document or support the price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated in the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

1.2.2.5. Volume 5 – Contract Documentation / Other Business Documents

Volume 5 of the proposal shall contain all of the following information/documentation.

1.2.2.5.1. Representations & Certifications

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to submit with its offer all required representations, certifications, acknowledgements, and statements required by this solicitation even if they are not reiterated in this paragraph. The Government’s preference is that representations and certifications, required by the solicitation, are completed online at SAM.gov. However, if Offerors have not completed representations and certifications required by the solicitation online, they must submit a copy of the applicable representations and certifications with their proposals in the same form as incorporated into the solicitation.

1.2.2.5.2. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken.

Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of table below. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exception unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the

Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Solicitation Exceptions Template

Solicitation

Document

Page/

Paragraph

Requirement/

Portion Rationale

PWS, Solicitation, etc. Applicable Page and Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

1.2.2.5.3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Unless the Offeror is a small business concern, or an exception provided at FAR 19.702(b)(1) applies, the Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(Alternate II); DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business; and AFFARS 5319.704, Subcontracting

Plan Requirements. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for responsibility.

If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFARS 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), the Offeror shall provide a copy of the approved comprehensive plan that shall suffice for its Small Business

Subcontracting Plan. IAW FAR 52.219-9(c), failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the PCO shall make the offer ineligible for award of a contract.

2. SECTION II: EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. Basis of Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) subpart 13.5, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items, and in conjunction with

FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at Acquistion.gov. The

Government will select the best overall offer, based upon a comparative analysis of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are equally important.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than the

Price Factor.

The contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the

FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation), and is evaluated based on the factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the PCO reasonably determines the technical proposal of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The PCO will base the decision on a comparative analysis of the proposals against all criteria in the solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Program Management Academy and Application Course including award of Task Order

01: Application Course Development; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

2.3. Exchanges with Offerors

The Government intends to award a contract without conducting exchanges with Offerors.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct exchanges if deemed in its best interest with some, none, or all Offerors.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct exchanges, Offeror responses to exchanges and any proposal updates as approved by the

CO will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time exchanges are complete, any proposal changes or exceptions after the completion of exchanges may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined

Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

2.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.5. Proposal Factors and Subfactors

This competition consists of the following Factors and Subfactors to be evaluated in the determination of best-value.

2.6. Factors and Subfactors

The Offeror’s proposal will be fully evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel

Subfactor 2: Application Development Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.7. Evaluation Factors

2.7.1. Technical

The Technical factor assesses the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Each technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 2, Technical Ratings, below. The rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical subfactor requirements. The ratings for each technical subfactor contribute equally in the best value decision.

Table 2 – Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Does Not Meet The Offeror’s proposal does not meet all minimum requirements of the solicitation and is unawardable.

Unclear The Offeror’s proposal is unclear as to whether it meets all of the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Meets The Offeror’s proposal clearly meets all minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Exceeds The Offeror’s proposal clearly meets, at a minimum, all requirements of the solicitation and exceeds one or more minimum requirements to the benefit of the Government.

2.7.1.1. Subfactor 1: Key Personnel

This subfactor will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets and/or exceeds the

Key Personnel requirements as outlined in PWS paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.2.4.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides documentation demonstrating the credentials and experience of Key Personnel available to the offeror (whether through direct employment of the Offeror or available as contracted labor in support of this effort) meet the Key

Personnel requirements and is exceeded when the Offeror exceeds one or more of the minimum requirements to the benefit of the Government.

2.7.1.2. Subfactor 2: Application Development Approach

This subfactor will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets and/or exceeds the

Application Development Approach requirements as outlined in PWS paragraph 2.2.1.

This subfactor is met with the Offeror’s proposal provides a sound and logical approach to meeting the Application Development requirements and is exceeded when the Offeror exceeds one or more of the minimum requirements to the benefit of the Government

2.7.2. Past Performance

Past Performance will receive one of the ratings provided in Table 3, Past Performance Confidence

Ratings, below. The Past Performance rating will be based on documentation submitted by the

Offeror and in accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) (e.g. customer surveys, CPARS, etc.).

Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Confidence The Offeror’s past performance examples provided in response to this solicitation and/or identified and reviewed separately by the Government demonstrates minimal experience or poor performance with the type and scope of work required by this effort.

Unknown Confidence The Offeror’s past performance examples provided in response to this solicitation and/or identified and reviewed separately by the Government does not demonstrate any clear experience with the type and scope of work required by this effort. An offer receiving this rating will not be automatically rendered ineligible for award. This is a neutral rating and an offer receiving this rating will not be viewed either favorably or unfavorably.

Confident The offeror’s past performance examples provided in response to this solicitation and/or identified and reviewed separately by the Government demonstrates adequate experience and quality with the type and scope of work required by this effort.

Highly Confident The offeror’s past performance examples provided in response to this solicitation and/or identified and reviewed separately by the Government demonstrates substantial experience with the type and scope of work required by this effort.

2.7.3. Price

The Price Factor evaluation will assess the Offeror’s proposal for (1) Completeness, (2)

Reasonableness, (3) Unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

In evaluation of the Price factor, the Government will determine whether or not the proposed price is Fair and Reasonable based on the alignment with the Technical factor and subfactors and a comparison of labor categories/prices proposed to the Government Services Acquisition (GSA)

Contract Awarded Labor Category (CALC) tool (https://calc.gsa.gov/).

As a result of the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed price, the Price factor will be given either an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. To be rated Acceptable, an Offeror’s price must be complete, reasonable, and not unbalanced.

2.7.3.1. Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with paragraph 1.2.2.4 above.

2.7.3.2. Reasonableness

The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable in accordance with FAR

13.106-3(a). 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. For additional information see FAR

31.201-3. Any proposal that is determined to be unreasonable may be rejected.

2.7.3.3. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether it contains unbalanced pricing.

The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.7.3.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will add the total price for all line items to the total price for the contract to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated by adding the sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4003. The quantities listed on the schedule are estimates only to be used in evaluating the offers TEP, and does not obligate the Government to order these quantities.

https://calc.gsa.gov/