B08.02 Instructions to Offerors - W912HQ26RA010 dated 2026.08.10.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – SOLICITATION W912HQ26RA010

1.0 Introduction

This solicitation is to award a contract for commercial services and is solicited using full and open competition. The solicitation and source selection will be conducted in accordance with RFO Part 12 and 15, supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures as applicable. Source selection will use the Best Value Tradeoff process. Submission requirements are detailed below.

In general, the services to be performed are described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in the solicitation. The base period of performance is from date of contract award through 30 September 2027. The period of performance will be extended to 31 January 2028 if any optional items under Task 5 are exercised and extended to 30 April 2028 if any optional items under Task 6 are exercised. Training Facilitation for USACE Districts will continue over the course of the period of performance as the CMP system is deployed in phases.

The contract will be firm fixed price (FFP), however Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be on a cost reimbursable basis. No fee or profit may be assessed against Travel and ODCs.

1.1 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure. The Offeror shall fill in the disclosure statement in Volume IV of their proposal which describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present organizational conflicts of interest relating to this solicitation. In the same statement, and if applicable, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the Government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Officer will decide whether to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating no conflicts of interest exist.

1.2 Access to the Solicitation

The solicitation is available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the Contract Opportunities section of SAM.gov. All amendments to the application (if any)will be posted to SAM.gov. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments or updates. The Offeror shall submit in its proposal all required information specified in the Request for Proposal solicitation.

1.3 Questions and Clarifications

Any questions or comments regarding this solicitation must be submitted via email to Mr. David A. Kaplan, Contract Specialist, at email David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil with a copy furnished to the Contracting Officer, Mr. Douglas Pohlman at email Douglas.E.Pohlman@usace.army.mil. These are the only individuals to whom questions and proposal documents should be addressed. Questions and comments relating to the solicitation shall be submitted no later than 14 AUG 2026 at 430PM Eastern Daylight Time so they may be given adequate consideration, or appropriate actions taken, prior to receipt of proposals. Email subject line shall read: “Solicitation No. W912HQ26RA010 Questions”. Questions shall be submitted in Microsoft Word or in plain text within the body of the email. No questions will be accepted via phone. Individual meetings with firms will not be scheduled. Voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response. Questions received after the above date and time may or may not be answered.

For questions or comments regarding this solicitation, no means of communication other than email will be accepted. Oral exchanges between Offerors and the Government prior to award of the contract will not be binding.

Any additional information concerning this solicitation will be furnished to all Offerors as an amendment posted to the SAM.gov website.

1.4 Proposal Submission Address and Due Date/Time

Offerors shall submit proposals no later than 27 AUG 2026 at 430PM EDT electronically to Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Pohlman (See section 1.3 above for email addresses) The file name should contain the solicitation number W912HQ26RA010. Electronic submission of documents is required. Failure to submit proposals by the closing time and date designated in the Standard Form 33 (SF33) may result in the proposal being deemed “late” and not considered for evaluation. See RFO 15.107 for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals) but will be retained by the Government for official record purposes.

NOTE: Offerors’ proposal must be received by the Government at the time proposals are due. Merely transmitting prior to the time proposals are due can potentially result in a proposal arriving “late” thus ineligible for evaluation.

1.5 Period of Acceptance for Proposal

Offerors shall agree to hold the prices in its proposal firm for a minimum of 90 calendar days from the date specific for receipt of offers, as identified in the solicitation.

More follows on the page below.

2.0 Proposal Submission Requirements

To effectively and equitably evaluate proposals, the Government must receive information sufficiently detailed and, in the order described below, that clearly demonstrates an Offeror's capabilities. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit complete proposal information and documents that are fully responsive to the submission requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for organizing submitted material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages to facilitate evaluation.

Submit proposals in the format and quantities as indicated below. Proposals shall be comprised of three volumes, and submitted in electronic form, as indicated below.

2.1 Organization

Offerors shall organize their proposal into volumes as follows:

• Volume I – Technical

- Technical Capability

- Key Personnel

• Volume II – Past Performance

• Volume III – Small Business Participation Plan

• Volume IV – Price

• Volume V – Administrative Requirements

2.2 Format

Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the Offeror’s business name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word or similar.

Documents shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Font Size – 12-point except for tables and illustrations Font Style – a font with Serifs is preferred for body text (Times New Roman is preferred) and a font without Serifs is preferred for headings/headers (Arial is preferred)

• Spreadsheets, table, charts, etc. may be 11” x 17”, but will count as two pages. Tables and illustrations may be landscape, and may use a reduced font size of no less than 10-point.

• No Price Information is to be submitted in Volumes I, II, III or V The following additional restrictions apply File Packaging. Files must be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide price evaluation must be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 365) in addition to the PDF. Each file must be labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

Content Requirement. The proposal must be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of the Past Performance evaluations. When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating the solicitation reference in parenthesis, (e.g., Sec C, para 4.0). Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments). The penalty for making a false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. §1001. Offerors should submit their best proposal initially as the Government intends to make awards without negotiations in accordance with RFO 52.215-1 (except clarifications, as described in RFO 15.202). The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations, if deemed necessary. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. Title pages and table of contents are not included in page counts. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

More follows on the page below.

3.0 Evaluation Factors (Submission Requirements)

3.1 Volume I – Technical

Volume I shall not exceed 20 pages. The page count does not include the title page, table of contents, or a definitions page. The page count does not include resumes, however resumes are limited to no more than 2 pages each.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability – Offerors shall submit a technical proposal which demonstrates their ability to successfully perform all of the required tasks within the PWS.

Factor 2 – Key Personnel – Offerors shall propose Key Personnel for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating appropriate education (including certifications) and experience of the Key Personnel proposed.

3.2 Volume II – Past Performance

Volume II shall not exceed 5 pages plus 3 pages for each major subcontractor. Page counts do not include the Past Performance Questionnaire Forms and CPARS.

Factor 3 – Past Performance. The Offeror that signs the SF33 shall provide its past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform and accomplish the effort required by this RFP. There are three aspects to the past performance information to be submitted: (a) Recency, (b) Relevancy and (c) Quality of Past Performance which then lead to the rating which is assessed as Confidence.

3.2.1 Recent Past Performance

Past performance is considered “Recent” if the performance occurred within the last three (3) years prior to the date of the solicitation.

3.2.2 Relevant Past Performance

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) examples of its most “recent” and “relevant” project efforts performed to demonstrate the Offerors’s accomplishments on contracts similar to the effort required in this solicitation. If Offeror has major subcontractors (defined as performing more than 15% of the total effort), past performance must be submitted for each major subcontractor. For each “recent” and “relevant” project example, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. If the Offeror is submitting “task order type projects”, each single task order project shall be submitted on a separate project data sheet. Do not combine tasks orders and present them as one entire project. As a minimum, provide the following information:

Required Information

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project

(3) Location of Project

(4) Owner’s Name and Owner's Point of Contact, (telephone, e-mail)

(5) General Scope of Project/Contract Work as it relates to the PWS of this solicitation, including project size, complexity, and any distinctive and/or unique features of the project)

(6) Offeror’s Role (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner, etc.) and the type of work your firm self-performed

(7) Contract Type (e.g., performance based, Firm-Fixed-Price, etc.)

(8) Contract Award Date (Month/Year); Completion Date of the Base Year: (Month/Year); Completion of option years (Month/Year)

(9) If this contract is being performed under an option year the completion date of the current option being performed: (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Contract Dollar Value - Base Year Price and Total Price (Base Year and all Options)

(11) Type and Extent of Work Subcontracted

(12) The Approach to the Operational Services

(13) How the Project was Managed (e.g., oversight, schedule, quality, property management, safety, etc.)

(14) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information (comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions)

(15) Contract Number (if providing information from a US Government contract) The references should be provided in descended order, with the most relevant contracts appearing first.

3.2.3 Quality of Past Performance

3.2.3.1 The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance on the projects submitted in paragraph 3.2.2. The Offeror shall provide a completed Contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (www.cpars.gov). If a completed Contractor performance evaluation does not exist in CPARS (example, non-U.S. Government projects), the Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (see Attachment 3). If, at time of evaluation, a completed Contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation will govern.

3.2.3.2 Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than CPARS or the PPQ form provided at the end of this section, are unacceptable submissions by the Offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

3.2.3.3 Completed CPARS or PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate any CPARS or PPQs by merely referencing other proposals. A copy of the CPARS or PPQ must accompany the company effort submitted under Past Performance in paragraph 3.2.2. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

3.2.3.4 If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

3.2.3.5 It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the project owner submits the PPQ and/or CPARS before the proposal due date. PPQ’s and/or CPARS received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. Offeror shall submit PPQs and/or CPARS with their proposals.

3.2.3.6 Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a SAM Unique ID number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as the offering Joint Venture. The Offeror must provide up to five (5) “recent”, “relevant” projects either performed by the JV or by any partners in the joint venture that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work as required by Paragraph 3.2.2. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance necessary to perform the contract. The total submitted by the J/V will not exceed 5.

3.2.4 Verification of Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects (or other recent projects not submitted) by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), or other Government appraisal systems, or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

3.3 Volume III – Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

Volume III includes both a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) and a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SubK Plan), if applicable, and has no page limits.

3.3.1: General. All Offerors are required to submit a SBPP. Only other than small businesses are required to submit both a SBPP and a SubK Plan (described below). All other than small businesses must submit an acceptable SubK Plan in accordance with RFO 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. This is in addition to the SBPP.

The following mandatory goal is applicable to Small Business Subcontracting Plans: Small Businesses – 25% of total contract value (TCV).

3.3.2: Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP). All offerors are required to submit a SBPP document that demonstrates how small US business concerns, as defined in RFO Part 19, will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance and will be evaluated based on the criteria detailed below in section 5.9. The SBPP must contain all elements described below:

3.3.3: Small Business Participation Goals. Offerors shall use the following table format to provide the small business participation percentage for the contract in its entirety based on the Offeror’s total proposed price, inclusive of all options. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation:

3.3.4: Subcontractor Table. Offerors are to identify the extent to which US small business concerns would be utilized as first-tier subcontractors in the performance of the proposed contract. Small US business concerns are defined in RFO 19.001. Small business concerns may include SBs, SDBs, HUBZone SBs, WOSBs, VOSBs, and SDVOSBs. Offerors shall provide the information required under each column header using the following table format to support the overall goals proposed in paragraph (a) immediately above:

Offerors shall provide information that identifies and supports the extent of commitment for use of proposed subcontractors that addresses enforceability and signed copies of teaming agreements with subcontractors listed in the Subcontractor Table above. Supporting documents will not be incorporated into any resulting contract.

3.3.5: Past Performance in Subcontracting Plans. Offerors which are both (1) other than US small business concerns as defined by the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation and (2) have had prior contracts requiring the submission of a subcontracting plan in accordance with RFO (or FAR) 52.219-9 shall also provide documentation and information that illustrates compliance with the requirements of RFO (or FAR) 52.219-9 for the offeror’s last five completed subcontracting plans that is consistent with the submitted FINAL ISR for the subcontracting plan in the below table format:

Signed copies of the Individual Subcontracting Report shall be submitted in support of data provided in the past performance compliance table. If the offeror is a member of a Joint Venture (JV), the offeror shall only submit five (5) ISR reports total. If the offeror has reported accomplishments against a Commercial or Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan or both, in lieu of or in addition to Individual or Master Plans, the Offeror shall submit a copy of the Plan to document the goals and the latest Summary Subcontract Report (SSR/SF 295) to document the goals and accomplishments.

If reports for a contract are not being submitted to eSRS, signed copies of the SF 294s can be submitted. If the Offeror has not performed a contract that contained RFO (or FAR) 52.219-9 or DFARS 252.219-7004 within the prior three years from the RFP release date, the Offeror shall so state.

If the Offeror is itself a US small business concern under the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation (to include US small business concerns who are proposing as part of a joint venture or teaming arrangement), the Government will consider the Offeror‘s own portion of the work to be performed as Small Business Participation for purposes of this evaluation.

3.3.6: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All other than US small business concerns as defined by the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation shall submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with RFO 52.219-9 using the template included with this solicitation. SubK Plans will be incorporated into the contract if award is made to an other than US small business concern.

3.4 Volume IV – Price

Factor 5 – Price. Offerors shall submit a price sheet which includes hourly rates and details the proposed levels of effort and labor rates for each labor category proposed. A column is required per each task in the PWS. The labor rates must reflect differences in skills, complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. The price sheet must include the grand total price of the contract, assuming all options will be exercised.

3.5 Volume V – Administrative Requirements

Volume V has no page limits and is evaluated on a compliant/not compliant basis.

The Offeror shall submit the following in the manner indicated in the Proposal Submission Requirements:

3.5.1 Signed memorandum acknowledging any and all amendments to the solicitation.

3.5.2 Offeror’s affirmation that their representations and certifications in their SAM registration are up to date.

3.5.3 Agreements (if applicable)

3.5.3.1 Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable): If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, a copy of the fully executed Joint Venture Agreement must be provided. When submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, each member of the Joint Venture must complete the Representations and Certifications unless the Joint Venture Agreement designates one firm with the authority to bind the Joint Venture.

3.5.4 Bank Information: Offeror, or responsible party of the JV if applicable, shall provide the following information regarding its current Banking Institution:

• Name of institution

• Address

• Point of Contract

• Phone Number

4.0 Basis for Award

The Government will award a contract to a responsible Offeror whose proposal is compliant with the RFP, has a fair and reasonable price, and is determined to be the best value to the Government based on a tradeoff analysis using the five evaluation factors listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Key Personnel Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Factor 5 – Price Factor 1 is the most important and is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. The non-price factors when combined are equally important to the price factor.

As the differences in technical ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in prices between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in prices become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination of best value.

Minimum Ratings: To receive consideration for award, an offeror must receive a rating of no less than “acceptable – green” for the technical factor and small business factor; and a past performance confidence rating of no less than “neutral confidence”; and propose a fair and reasonable price.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price proposal. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.

5.0 Evaluation Factors (Basis for Award)

5.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Offerors shall demonstrate their technical capability to perform the required services in the PWS.

5.2 Factor 2 – Key Personnel

Offeror’s key personnel will be evaluated to determine their technical and managerial qualifications (experience, expertise and education) of the key personnel relative to the technical requirements of the PWS. Offerors shall propose Key Personnel for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating appropriate education (including certifications) and experience of the Key Personnel proposed. The resume and information should clearly establish the individual’s educational achievements and specific past experience in performing work similar to that anticipated under the solicitation and more specifically described in the PWS.

5.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated by the Government to assessment the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements in the PWS. The Government will assess a maximum of five (5) prior or current contracts performed within the past 3 years from the date the solicitation is posted.

5.4 Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the Solicitation.

5.5 Factor 5 – Price

Price will not be rated or scored. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness using price analysis techniques at RFO 15.404-1, based on a comparison of competitive prices received in response to the solicitation and a comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

5.6 Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factor (Factor 1) is as follows:

Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven methodologies and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete future Task Orders as required by the mission. The Technical Factors Rating Scheme: The Technical Factors Rating Scheme, excerpted below, focuses on consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical factors’ requirements. Factors 1 and 2 will be rated using the following combined technical/risk adjectival ratings:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

5.6 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 – Technical

Technical Capability A. Demonstrated capability to fulfill training delivery requirements, including providing the proper number of trainers at the time they are needed.

Offerors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated capability to deliver training in accordance with the requirements of the PWS. The following capabilities should be detailed: the number of personnel to be trained in each train-the-trainer session; the number of trainers that will be available during each week of the period of performance; approach to ensuring sufficient personnel to accommodate unscheduled trainer absences; and strategy to delivering in-person training in locations where trainings are in the same location week-to-week or where training is delivered in different locations each week (including OCONUS). List any flexibilities offered that the Government may be able to utilize without impacting the cost or duration of the contract.

B. Demonstrated capability to provide a suitable training registration platform and virtual training platform.

Offerors shall demonstrate capability to provide a training registration platform that meets or exceeds the requirements of the PWS. Offerors shall demonstrate the virtual training platform will provide a suitable platform for student learning.

C. Demonstrated capability to manage trainee registration and training completion actions Offerors shall demonstrate capability with registering trainees for sessions, providing proper communications to trainees leading up to the training session, managing waitlists and trainee cancelations, management of a trainee database reflective of PWS requirements, and management of session completion documentation and communication to trainees.

D. Demonstrated capability to perform instructor quality control and provide required reports Offerors shall demonstrate capability with providing quality control oversight of the trainer group to ensure satisfactory performance and successful student learning. Offerors must also demonstrate an ability to generate and provide required reports with the content and frequency specified in the PWS.

5.7 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 - Key Personnel

Offeror’s key personnel will be evaluated to determine their technical and managerial qualifications (experience, expertise and education) relative to the technical requirements of the PWS. Offerors shall propose Key Personnel for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating appropriate education (including certifications) and experience of the Key Personnel proposed. The resume and information should clearly establish the individual’s educational achievements and specific past experience in representing similar credit programs to those anticipated under the solicitation and more specifically described in the PWS.

A. Demonstrated Technical and Managerial Qualifications of the Program Manager (PM) and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) The Program Manager shall provide program management and oversight for the contract. As identified in their resume, the PM shall have no less than ten years of experience in both leading and supervising teams on projects and managing staff with various work assignments. The PM shall ensure that qualified personnel are assigned to the required tasks. Additionally, the PM shall answer Government staff questions regarding the contract. Only one PM should be identified as the primary PM for the purpose of this contract.

B. Demonstrated Technical Qualifications of Five or More Trainers Qualified and proficient trainers are critical to the successful outcome of this contract. Trainers will be required to undergo train-the-trainer training, prepare to deliver CMP training, and perform instructor-led training delivery.

5.8 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance Factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to complete the services specified in the PWS, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Offeror’s performance history and references to demonstrate satisfactory performance will be evaluated for a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) prior or current contracts performed within the last three (3) years. References should also be provided for any anticipated subcontractor to be used. Offerors should provide the following:

• Reference: Name, Address, POC and phone numbers

• Contract Number, Value and Dates

• Description of the Contract Effort Relevant to this Solicitation Each Offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior efforts for similar services. The offerors may include an overall narrative explaining what aspects of the contract effort are deemed relevant to the proposal effort, as well as significant accomplishments and difficulties. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all information, and the government does not assume the responsibility for conducting research because of incorrect reference information of any kind.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance within the last three (3) years to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform fifteen (15) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating (See the table below) and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 611420 — Computer Training. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP.

Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this 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. Evaluators will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjective Rating Description

high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5.9 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 4 – Small Business Participation The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the Solicitation. All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the contract. All offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which small businesses, as defined in RFO Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than unenforceable ones). Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they identify complex and varied work small firms are to perform. Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of past performance in compliance with RFO 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” and RFO 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of small business participation as prime contractors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the mandatory goal of 25% of the total contract value (TCV) for the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP). This goal must be met by all offerors.

The following supplemental goals are applicable to the SBPP. Offerors who meet or exceed goals in these subcategories will receive a higher rating for Factor 4.

HUBZone – greater than 5% of TCV;

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)– greater than 5% of TCV;

Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) – greater than 5% of TCV;

Woman Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) – greater than 5% of TCV.

5.10 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 5 – Price

Price analysis of both the proposed labor rates and the price per each task in the PWS will be conducted using the techniques found in RFO 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate the proposed price of the contract against the competitive proposals received and against the IGE for award purposes. Evaluation of the proposed price schedule will not oblige the Government to exercise any option. The Government will also evaluate all Offeror’s proposed price for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in RFO 15.404-6. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see RFO 15.404-6) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Total Evaluated Price: In accordance with RFO 52.217-5, the Total Evaluated Price will include the price for the base tasks and all option tasks.

More follows on the page below.

6.0 Negotiations

6.1 In accordance with solicitation provision RFO 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without negotiations with Offerors (except clarifications as described in RFO 15.202. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for price and non-priced technical submission with their initial offers. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest.

6.2 If negotiations are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated with a reasonable chance of award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive negotiations and major revisions such as allowing an Offeror an unfair advantage over those having competitive offers.

6.3 Upon conclusion of negotiations, those Offerors still within the competitive range may be afforded an opportunity to submit their final revised proposal.

More follows on the page below.

7.0 Definitions

Clarifications - Means limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without negotiations is contemplated. An Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information/ adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes result in a revision. Clarifications do not require negotiations or submission of additional proposal information.

Communications - Exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range - See RFO 15.204-1 Exchange with Offerors after receipt of proposal, competitive range.

Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Refer to RFO 15.001. A deficiency will preclude award action to that Offeror.

Evaluation Notice (EN) - The Contracting Officer's written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of negotiations.

Major Subcontractor - A subcontractor who performs 15% of more of the work.

Requirements Documents - All aspects of the solicitation that convey the needs of the Government to Offerors, including the PWS, and any technical requirement documents (as applicable).

Source Selection Authority (SSA) - The official designated to make the source selection decision. The Contracting Officer is the SSA for this solicitation.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) - A group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation factor, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength – Any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciable advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror (See RFO 15.001) Subjective Trade-off – A source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror but is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements.

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Instructions to Offerors) image1.png image2.png image3.png