B08 - W15P7T-27-R-A001- DRAFT RFP - SETA PSC_20Aug2026_ Final.pdf

CUI

W15P7T-27-R-A001

1 | P a g e

C U I

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (SETA) SUPPORT FOR

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS (PSC)

20 August 2026

The Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG), on behalf of U.S.

Army, Capability Program Executive Command and Control, Information Network (CPE C2IN) intends to award a Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) Term single award contract for Systems

Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) services in support of the Army’s Public Safety

Communications (PSC) for the Project Manager Integrated Enterprise Network (PM IEN)/Product

Director Base Emergency Communications System (PD BECS). The Period of Performance for this contract is three (3) years; Base period of one (1) year, with two (2) one-year option periods, and a six (6) month option period. The Government may exercise the Option periods in accordance with

FAR Revolutionary Far Overhaul (RFO) 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services.” The award of this contract is subject to the receipt of adequate and proper funding In Accordance With (IAW) FAR

52.232-18 entitled, “Availability of Funds” and FAR RFO 52.232-22 entitled, “Limitation of

Funds.” The Government reserves the right to cancel this requirement without incurring any proposal fees.

This solicitation is set aside for Small Businesses under NAICS 541330 and a small business size standard of $25.5M.

2 | P a g e

A. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Questions and Clarifications: Submit all questions, including notifications of suspected RFP errors or omissions, via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist, utilizing the RFP

Industry Question Sheet (Attachment 0007), NLT 28 August 2026 @4:00 PM Eastern Time.

Notifications of errors must be in writing and include supporting rationale and proposed changes.

2. If a Contractor chooses to submit a proposal, the proposal package shall be received by

Contracting Officer Katia Lacoste (katia.lacoste.civ@army.mil) and Contract Specialist Rosa

Acevendo (rosa.m.acevedomedina.civ@army.mil) no later than (NLT) 1200 Noon Eastern Standard

Time (EST) September 30, 2026. The submission size per email shall not exceed 9MB and shall include all necessary supporting documents. Any proposal not received in its entirety by the above-mentioned closing time will not be considered for award. It is each Offerors responsibility to ensure that their proposal is received by the Government by the above listed date/time. If an Offeror does not receive confirmation of receipt of proposal from the Government, then it is their responsibility to contact the Contract personnel identified above to confirm that their proposal has been received.

Offerors shall provide with their proposal the name, title, address, email address and telephone number of the company point of contact(s) regarding business decisions made with respect to the proposal who can contractually obligate the company. Offerors shall identify those individuals as authorized to negotiate with the Government regarding the proposal. Offerors shall submit a

Technical Capability, Past Performance, Pricing Volume(s), and Organizational Conflict of Interest

Declaration/Mitigation Plan in response to the BECS SETA solicitation.

3. Communications: All communications concerning this acquisition must be in writing and directed exclusively to the designated Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Contacting any other Government personnel may result in an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and the

Offeror’s exclusion from the competition.

4. Assumptions and Exceptions: Offerors must not include any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions in their proposals. All concerns must be addressed and resolved during the

Questions & Answer period. Any caveats submitted with a proposal will be rejected and will not be incorporated into the awarded contract.

5. File Security and Classification: Proposals must not contain classified information. Offerors may encrypt or password-protect proprietary information; however, proposals that the Government cannot access will not be evaluated. Proposals must consist of separate files, formatted and named as specified below.

3 | P a g e

6. Formatting: Each proposal volume must be clearly identified, numbered, indexed, and logically assembled into distinct sections. Every page must be numbered and include the Offeror’s complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header or footer.

7. Price Information Isolation: Price information must not appear in the Technical proposal.

Failure to strictly separate price data from technical content may result in the proposal not being considered for award. Subcontractor price proposals must be submitted electronically directly to the

Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist by the proposal due date. Submissions must not exceed

9MB per email and must include all necessary supporting documentation and narrative.

8. Proposal Validity: The entire proposal must remain valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days from the date of receipt by the Government. Proposals offering a shorter validity period will not be considered.

9. Evaluation and Pricing Data: The Government anticipates adequate price competition;

therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not currently required. However, the Contracting Officer may request this data if adequate price competition is not established after receipt of proposals. If an

Offeror's Technical proposal is evaluated as "Unacceptable," the Government is not obligated to conduct a price analysis. Any Offerors and subcontractors that fail to follow these instructions or omit required submission elements may be deemed "Unacceptable" and excluded from award consideration.

10. File Structure and Page Limits: The electronic submission must consist of separate, correctly named files as outlined in the table below. All proposal information must be confined to its corresponding volume. The Government will not evaluate any pages exceeding the stated limits.

Text must be formatted with at least one-inch margins and a minimum 12-point Times New Roman or Arial font. Tables and graphics must use a minimum 10-point font. Drawings or graphics may be reduced in size, provided they remain fully legible.

B. PROPOSAL VOLUMES:

Table 1:

Volume Document File Name Notes

I: Past

Performance

Past

Performance xxxx_PASTPERF

ORMANCE_xxxx.

docx or (PDF)

Minimum three (3) contract references. Three (3) page limit.

Attachment 0003.

II: Technical Technical

Approach xxxx_TECH_xxxx.

docx or (PDF)

20-page limit - Page limit established in the Technical

Approach Factor applies to the body of the technical volume, but does not apply to Title Pages, Table of Contents, and Acronym

4 | P a g e

Index. Pages that exceed the 20-page limit will not be evaluated.

Three (3) page limit for each Key

Personnel resume. Pages that exceed the limit will not be evaluated. Resumes will not be included in the overall 20-page limit for the Technical Approach.

III: Technical Corporate

Experience

Information xxxxTECH1Dxxxx

.docx (or PDF)

Three (3) page limit for

Corporate Experience

(Attachment 0005) Information.

Pages that exceed the limit will not be evaluated.

IV: Cost/Price Cost

Narrative xxxx_COSTNARR

_ xxxx.docx or

(PDF)

No Page Limit

IV: Cost/Price Cost

Proposal xxxx_

COST_xxxx.xlsx

Cost Proposal – The Cost

Proposal (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx)

MUST be submitted in Excel format (.xlsx) with all formulas visible in each cell with a value.

Proposals submitted which do not adhere to the format or cell requirements may not be further considered for award. Please adhere to the instructions on the

Cost Price Proposal Workbook

(Attachment 0006).

V: OCI

Declaration/Mi tigation Plan

OCI

Declaration/

Mitigation

Plan.

Xxxx_OCI_xxxx.d ocx (or PDF)

No Page Limit. See Volume IV proposal instructions and RFP

Attachment 0004.

VI:

Solicitation, Offer, and

Award

Documents and

Certification/R epresentation

Solicitation, Offer, and

Award

Documents and

Certification

Representati on xxxxSBCertxxxx.d ocx (or PDF)

Solicitation, Offer, and Award

Documents and Certification/

Representation.

Offeror must replace “xxxx” with the Offeror’s name and the date of the proposal. For example:

OfferorA_TECH_070626.pdf

5 | P a g e

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

VOLUME I: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 1 - Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an

Offerors ability to supply products and services that meet its Mission needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. In accordance with FAR RFO 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractors performance shall be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). These aspects are considered by the

Government in establishing one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

The Offeror may submit up to three (3) past performance examples for the Prime, and up to two (2) past performance examples for each proposed significant subcontractor. The Offerors past performance may include experience with the Department of Defense, other Federal Government

Agencies, State Agencies, Local Governments, Tribal Governments and Commercial Customer contracts, task orders, or delivery orders. If the significant subcontractor(s) have no recent and relevant past performance, the Offeror must state as such. The Offeror and subcontractor(s) shall not submit an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a Past Performance example: but rather, underlining order or delivery order should be submitted. Each Task Order and/or Task Order under an IDIQ contract that an Offeror provides as Past Performance will count as one (1) Past Performance example. The Offeror shall submit a one (1) page summary of the Past

Performance examples as part of their Past Performance Volume.

Recency (within the last 3 years) - A Past Performance example is recent if any portion of the period of performance of the contract, task order, or delivery order occurred within three years of the date of issuance of this proposal.

Relevance (scope, size, and complexity) - The degree in which a past performance example is similar to this effort to include but not limited to similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming. For significant subcontractors, the relevancy shall be limited to the areas that they are performing within this contract.

Quality of Product / Service (using standard rating scales from Contract Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) (Exceptional to Unsatisfactory) - The quality of a contractor's performance on a past effort. The Government considers the quality of the contractor’s performance by examining past performance information, which may be obtained from any sources available to the Government including, but not limited to, Past Performance Questionnaires, the CPARS and other databases, and interviews.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cpars.gov/&ved=2ahUKEwjG5Oi94piWAxXkkIkEHVlxB9IQy_kOegoIAggACAAIDRAC&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw2STcHDyCdPgJ7k4xZhgGoQ&ust=1786544353546000

6 | P a g e

For each Past Performance example, the Offeror, including all of its teaming partners, all of its significant subcontractor(s), identified in the proposal are required to provide the following information:

a. Contract Number (and task order number if applicable) and the Commercial and Government

Entity (CAGE) code, Data Universal Number System (DUNS) Number and North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

b. Contract Type (Fixed-Cost/price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.) and if providing a task order as an example of past performance, then specify the base Contract

Type (definite quantity, indefinite quantity, or requirements).

c. Total Value of the Contract. If the contract noted within Offerors past performance was a cost type contract, the Offeror shall state whether performance cost was above, at, or below the proposed amount within its proposal.

d. Contract Performance Schedule and Actual Dates of Contract Performance.

e. Government or Commercial Contracting Activity Address, Telephone Number, and Email.

f. Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO) Name, Telephone Number, and Email.

g. Contracting Officers Representative (COR) Name, Telephone Number, and Email.

h. Any Prime or significant subcontractor (as defined above), joint venture or teaming agreements.

For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror shall list each time that the schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions.

For each contract listed, including those listed for a proposed significant subcontractor, the Offeror shall state whether or not a Cure Notice or Show Cause Letter was received. The Offeror shall follow the procedures listed below to provide this information.

- If a Cure Notice or Show Cause letter was received on a listed contract, then the Offeror shall provide a copy of the Cure Notice or Show Cause Letter for each contract where it was received.

The Offeror shall also provide a description of any corrective action implemented. If there were no corrective actions implemented, the Offeror shall include a statement and explanation as to the reason.

- If a Cure Notice or Show Cause Letter was not received on a listed contract, then the Offeror shall affirmatively state that no Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters were received for that contract.

7 | P a g e

- The Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated, the type of termination, and reasons for the termination.

The Offeror shall briefly describe the specific work that was performed by itself or proposed significant subcontractors or joint venture or teaming agreement, noting whether the work was completed as the prime or subcontractor, in addition to providing the CAGE code for each contract or task order. A CAGE code is a five-character alpha-numeric, unique identifier assigned by the

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). CAGE codes are assigned to businesses, organizations, etc. that wish to pursue contracts or grants from the United States federal government.

The factors listed below shall be made into a table and used when providing a summary of the past performance information:

a. Contract/TO#

b. Contract Type

c. Total Value

d. Period of Performance

e. Description of Service and Supplies

f. Primary Contracting Officer (PCO)

g. GOV'T POC

h. Joint Venture/Teaming

i. % Performed by Subs

Offerors and proposed significant subcontractors may ask customers to submit Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQ) for the same or similar work directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract

Specialist(s). These do not count toward the total past performance submissions referenced above.

Contractors may include PPQs for contracts entered into with the Federal Government, State/Local

Governments, Tribal Governments and/or commercial customers. The Offeror shall first complete

Part I of Attachment 7 and email the questionnaire (with a cover letter that provides the e-mail addresses of the Contracting Officer, Katia Lacoste, (katia.lacoste.civ@army.mil) and Contract

Specialist, Rosa M. Acevedo, (rosa.m.acevedomedina.civ@army.mil), to the Contracting Activity

POC Respondent with email copy to the POCs above, who will complete Part II and Part III of the form and return it to the Government. Offerors are encouraged to submit PPQs at least one (1) week prior to the proposal due date and time to ensure an efficient evaluation of the Offerors past performance. It is up to the Offeror to confirm that the Government has received all PPQs.

8 | P a g e

Corporate Entities - If any contract, listed as part of the Past Performance submission, was performed by a corporate entity or division other than the corporate entity or division that would perform work under this solicitation, then the Offeror shall identify that entity or division and indicate which entity will perform this effort. The Offeror shall also provide this information for any significant subcontractor, for which the Offeror submits past performance information.

Predecessor Companies - If an Offeror or its subcontractor(s) only have recent and relevant performance history as a part of a predecessor company, then the Offeror may submit the recent and relevant past performance of that predecessor for evaluation. The Offeror shall also provide the historical evolution of the current company from the predecessor company.

It is the Offerors responsibility to provide clear, thorough, and complete past performance information so that the Government can conduct an evaluation of Past Performance. The

Government reserves the right to consider any recent/relevant past performance efforts and data obtained from external sources other than the proposal, such as from the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), but the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Offeror shall sanitize any classified information related to classified contracts.

VOLUME II:TECHNICAL APPROACH (20-Page Limit)

Offerors must include the following in the xxxxTECHxxxx.docx (or PDF) file only. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Volume to assess feasibility, completeness, and risk of their proposed approach to meeting the Performance Work Statement PWS (Attachment

0001) The Offeror must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the PWS by providing the following details:

PD BECS Program-Level Enterprise Architecture Support (PWS 5.1)

a) Define your process to assess the current architecture, identify capability/integration gaps, and develop recommendations to meet operational needs.

b) Provide a detailed outline of your robust approach for developing Enterprise and System-level technical roadmaps that address performance, security, and scalability requirements.

PD BECS PSAP Modernization (CAD, NG-911 CHE, LIS) (PWS 5.2)

a) Demonstrate approach to providing comprehensive engineering expertise to design, implement, install, configure, and test legacy/modernized Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), legacy enhanced and Next Generation 9-1-1 Call Handling Equipment (CHE), and modernized Location Information Systems (LIS).

b) Identify approach to ensuring seamless integration and full operational capability between modernized PSAP systems and existing Army Enterprise Infrastructure (including regional

9 | P a g e hubs and local area networks), as well as external federal, state, and local stakeholder PSAP systems requiring secure, cross-boundary data sharing.

NG-911 Infrastructure (LIS, NG-911 GIS, Next Generation 9-1-1 Circuits and Services)

(PWS 5.3 & 5.4)

a) Demonstrate programmatic and engineering methodologies for implementing NG-911

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data management, integration, and implementation risks.

b) Provide an approach to establishing robust low-latency interoperability interfaces linking the LIS with CHE, CAD, and the Army’s Voice Modernization (VMOD) Infrastructure.

c) Provide a detailed engineering approach to integrate localized GIS datasets and CHE platforms into a commercial, state-level Emergency Services IP Network (ESINet). This must include providing National Emergency Number Association (NENA) compliant GIS data standards (e.g., NENA-STA-006) to define and govern provisioning and routing boundaries with Mutual Aid Partners.”

Land Mobile Radio (LMR) (PWS 5.5)

a) Describe your implementation plan to transition the existing Land Mobile Radio (LMR) system to an Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Project 25

(P25) Phase 2 standard. The Contractor's proposed engineering approach must account for compliance with interoperability and security standards.

b) Detail your process to integrate, test, and validate critical system interfaces, specifically;

Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI), Radio over IP (RoIP) Gateways, and Location Tracking

System.

c) Describe your ability to define a reliable process for reviewing and validating a standardized, repeatable Quality Assurance (QA) process to include; review, validate, and verify technical design documents, system-acceptance test plans, and performance verification reports delivered by third-party integrators. Describe continuous process improvement methods and techniques that will be implemented on this contract.

Resumes:

Key Personnel (Not Included in the Technical Proposal Page Limit. The Key Personnel are as follows:

The Offeror must identify and propose the following Key Personnel:

10 | P a g e

• Engineering Program Manager

• Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG-911) PSAP Engineer - Principal

• Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG-911) PSAP Voice Engineer - Principal

• Land Mobile Radio Engineer - Principal

For each proposed Key Personnel, the Offeror must submit the following:

1. Resume not to exceed three (3) pages.

2. Educational qualifications, including degree(s) earned and awarding institution(s).

3. Applicable professional certifications relevant to the proposed labor category.

4. Summary of relevant experience, including the total number of years of experience and experience supporting efforts of similar scope, size, and complexity.

5. Security clearance status or the ability to obtain a Secret security clearance.

6. A statement confirming the individual's availability to perform at contract award.

Resumes must clearly demonstrate that the proposed Key Personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualification requirements identified in the PWS Appendix A, “Labor Category Descriptions and

Minimum Qualifications.”

The Government will evaluate the qualifications, experience, and demonstrate capability of the proposed Key Personnel to determine the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS. Failure to propose qualified Key Personnel or failure to provide the required information may adversely affect the Government's evaluation of the proposal.

VOLUME III: EXPERIENCE

Offerors must submit a summary of Corporate Experience Information Form Attachment 0005.

Refer to this form for requested information to demonstrate Offerors experience relevant to this requirement. Offerors must demonstrate three (3) years of experience (within the past five years) within the Experience factor for each functional area listed below in their proposal.

• Program Level Enterprise Architecture Support

• PSAP Modernization (CAD, NG-911, CHE)

• PSAP Modernization Infrastructure (LIS, NG-911 GIS, NG-911 Commercial Emergency

Services IP Network (ESINet) Circuits and Services

• Land Mobile Radio (LMR)

• Enterprise Mass Warning & Notification

In order for a contract to be considered under this factor, the proposal must confirm that the prime or subcontractor that has experience in the areas identified in the Experience form will support the same competency areas if the Offeror receives the resultant award. Additionally, Offerors shall provide a description of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the prime and any subcontractors.

11 | P a g e

VOLUME IV: COST/PRICE

1. This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices.

Competition is anticipated therefore Certified Cost and Pricing Data are not currently required in accordance with RFO FAR 15.403-2(b); however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award if none of the exemptions in RFO FAR 15.403-2(b) apply. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with the cost element format FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There is no page limitation for this volume.

2. Offeror and subcontractor proposals will be evaluated based on the cost/price reasonableness and realism criteria contained in RFO FAR 15.404 (a)1. The manner and degree of the criteria used will be determined by the contracting officer based on competition and other factors. A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror's best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

3. Contractor shall provide proposed cost and/or fee as required for all CLINs in Section B.

4. Each Offeror's cost/price proposal shall contain sufficient quantitative and narrative documentation necessary to adequately support and explain the reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost/price proposed in proposal Section B. Offeror proposals shall conform to the reporting criteria in FAR RFO 15.408, Table 15-1. FAR RFO 15.408-8, Table 15-1 prescribe the

FAR’s generally accepted format for cost proposals. More specifically, each Offeror's cost/price proposal shall be broken out by cost element as specified in Table 15-1, II Cost Elements. To help ensure this requirement, a Microsoft Excel workbook titled “Cost Price Proposal Workbook” has been provided as Attachment 0006 to this solicitation. Instructions for completing Cost Price

Proposal Workbook are contained in that file. RFO FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) allows the Contracting

Officer to specify the format of other than cost or pricing data or data other than cost or pricing data to facilitate and enhance cost/price and cost realism analysis. These spreadsheets will help facilitate a more efficient, consistent, and fair evaluation of each offeror's proposal, and aid in post-award contract administration. Offerors are permitted to alter the format of the spreadsheet (i.e. add and subtract rows, columns, and formulas as necessary, etc.) to conform to the nuances of the Offeror's accounting and estimating systems. However, it is requested that the general format be maintained as much as possible for Government evaluation purposes. Offerors are required to fill in rates for all labor categories included in the Cost Price Proposal Workbook, regardless of whether or not projected LOE hours are associated with the labor category. However, only those labor categories with projected LOE hours will be used in calculating each Offeror’s total evaluated cost/price.

Offerors must not deviate from the stated LOE hours provided in the Cost Price Proposal

Workbook, or their proposal will be considered unawardable.

5. Offerors are encouraged to provide whatever supplemental information necessary to help the government understand why the proposed costs are reasonable and realistic. Supporting narrative shall be submitted in Microsoft Word or Excel (2007 or later) compatible format. Any supporting schedules shall be submitted in a Microsoft Excel (2007 or later) compatible readable format.

12 | P a g e

6. Since this requirement is for a Cost Reimbursable (CR) type contract, each Offeror shall provide documentation necessary to demonstrate that the Offeror’s accounting system is adequate in accordance with the requirement in RFO FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) with respect to cost type contracts.

This requirement also applies to subcontractors if subcontractor costs are proposed on a cost reimbursable basis.

7. Information shall also be provided with respect to the adequacy of the Offeror’s purchasing system. In accordance with RFO FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), the Offeror must have an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract to be awarded. To substantiate this, the Offeror shall provide evidence of an adequacy review from DCAA (i.e. audit reports) or DCMA if available. Additionally, submission of Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs, FPRRs, etc.)

or other agreements should also be submitted to substantiate the reasonableness and allowability of the Offeror's direct and indirect rates/costs if this information is available. If such agreements do not exist, Offerors shall provide their forward pricing indirect expense rate forecast for each rate, to include expense pool by expense account as well as allocation base details. Offerors shall also provide three years’ historical pool and base detail (same information as provided for forecasted rates) for each indirect expense rate.

8. In accordance with FAR RFO 15.404-8(b) each Offeror shall conduct appropriate price and/or cost analysis to establish the reasonableness and realism of proposed subcontractor cost/prices.

Evidence of their review shall be submitted as part of the Offeror’s cost/price proposal. Any subcontractor’s proprietary information can be submitted under separate cover to contracting officer if the subcontractor declines to provide documentation to the Offeror.

9. If any of the Offeror or subcontractor labor rates contain "uncompensated overtime" as defined in

FAR 52.237-10 the Offeror and/or subcontractor shall so indicate the existence of uncompensated overtime and its cost/price impact on the offeror's or subcontractor's proposal to the Offeror as part of the Offeror's cost/price proposal.

10. In support of the proposed Direct Labor Rates, Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide documentation of the most recent Direct Labor Rates, to include at least one of the following (A, B, C, or D): A. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA) with Defense Contract Audit Agency

(DCAA) or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); or Forward Pricing Rate

Recommendations (FPRR) from DCAA or DCMA; or DCAA/DCMA approved Compensation

Rate Tables mapped to the Labor Categories proposed B. Letter(s) of Intent (LOIs), which include, at a minimum, the following:

a. Position;

b. Direct hourly rate;

c. Submitted on Offerors or subcontractors letterhead;

d. Signed by the employer and prospective employee; and

e. A statement that the LOI is for W15P7T-27-R-A001

C. Payroll records and/or paystubs showing Rate of Pay and referenced to the Labor Category in the

Proposal.

13 | P a g e

D. Salary Survey data that includes, but is not limited to:

a. Source of data to include copies of the surveys;

b. Job title and description;

c. Geographic location;

d. Range of salary amounts with reference to applicability of amounts

11. In support of the proposed Indirect Expense Rates, Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide documentation of the most recent Indirect Expense Rates, to include at least one of the following (A, B, C, or D):

A. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA) with DCAA or DCMA; or

B. Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR) from DCAA or DCMA; or

C. Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP), Approved Provisional Rates Proposal or other statements of current rates. If FPRP, Approved Provisional Rates Proposal, or other statement of current rates is submitted as supporting documentation, the Offeror shall also include three

(3) years of Incurred Cost Submissions to DCAA detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations or three (3) years of historical actuals detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations.

Forecasted pools and bases for the current year (by expense account) shall also be submitted.

D. If an entity cannot include A-C above because it restructured or is a new entity, that company shall provide proof to include the date it restructured or the date the new entity was formed and include the pools and bases as well as all historical data detailing pools and bases information (by expense account) which validates the calculation from the date of the restructuring.

NOTE: The rates reflected in the FPRA, FPRR, FPRP, Approved Provisional Rates Proposal or other statements of current rates should directly match the rates proposed by the Offeror or subcontractor. If the rates proposed do not match, the Offeror or subcontractor shall provide sufficient detail explaining how the proposed rates are realistic.

COST:

1. The Offeror must include the exact Government-provided estimates for Travel and Other Direct

Cost (ODC) associated with travel and ODCs in its price proposal (see table below). The

Government estimates are the total cost for Travel and ODC exclusive of the Offeror’s associated indirect charges. The Offeror must propose any applicable indirect charges to the Travel and ODC estimates in accordance with its disclosed accounting practices.

Table 6:

14 | P a g e

Do NOT CHANGE THE ABOVE PLUG NUMBERS

VOLUME V: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)

In accordance with FAR RFO 2.101, an Organizational Conflict of Interest means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage.

The Contracting Officer will perform an OCI evaluation for all functional areas of the PWS in accordance with FAR RFO 9.504. However, this factor will not be assessed a rating. The

Government has provided Offerors with OCI (Attachment 0004) to be completed. An offeror for which an OCI ultimately exists (cannot be mitigated) will NOT be eligible for award.

VOLUME VI – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

The Contracting Officer will perform a Cert/Rep evaluation; however, this factor will not be assessed a rating. Certifications and Representations – Offerors shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award

Section G – Contract Administration Data

Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Contract Period Travel and ODC

Estimate

Base Period $168,740.00

Option Period 1 $168,740.00

Option Period 2 $168,740.00

-8 Option to Extend $74,360.00

15 | P a g e

AWARD AND EVALUATION INFORMATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M):

The Government will award a contract based on the proposal that represents the best overall value and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. This determination will be made by evaluating four (4) factors: Past Performance, Technical Approach, Experience, and Cost/Price.

The Government intends to award a contract to an Offeror with no unresolved or unmitigated

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs), or whose OCIs can be successfully mitigated through an approved OCI Mitigation Plan. To be eligible for award, Offerors must achieve a rating of

"Acceptable" or “Somewhat Relevant” in all non-cost factors, and a rating of "Acceptable" or better in the Technical factor.

Award will be made to the eligible Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the

Government after conducting a tradeoff between Volume II – Technical Approach and Volume III -

Cost/Price. The proposal offering the best overall value will be determined by using the tradeoff process described in FAR RFO 15.101-1, which allows the Government to conduct tradeoffs between non-cost factors and price and allows the Government to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal.

➢ All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

➢ The Technical Approach factor is more important than Cost/Price.

Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the Offeror who submitted the lowest priced offer.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a stand-alone contract without asking any questions, clarifications, or having discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to ask for clarifications, and/or establish a competitive range, if the Contracting Officer determines that doing so is in the best interest of the Government. Each Offerors initial proposal shall contain the Offerors best terms.

An Offeror shall not assume that the Contracting Officer will independently obtain information necessary to evaluate its proposal. Therefore, Offerors shall supply all information required to evaluate its proposal. Proposals that have an omission, or that fail to follow the instructions of this

RFP, or that are unclear or inconsistent, may result in the Offeror receiving an unacceptable rating in the corresponding Volume or the proposal being found ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to contact third parties for past performance information, and the

Government reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

16 | P a g e

OFFERORS SHALL ENSURE THAT THEIR PROPOSAL MEETS ALL OF THE SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS SOLICITATION.

The following Non-Government advisor will be assisting with evaluations of Organizational

Conflict of Interest Assertions.

Ms. Carla Boney-Palmer iNovate Solutions, INC.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the

Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Volume 1 - Factor 1: Past Performance.

Each Offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated based on an assessment of the relevancy of the

Offeror’s past performance. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation. The

Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the services outlined in the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate how well the Offeror performed on the contracts detailed in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government will focus evaluation on the forms and questionnaires 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 government contracts for same or similar services that are relevant and recent.

Under this factor, the Government may evaluate third party references provided as to each Offerors and major subcontractors relevant and recent efforts, to verify the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 541330) required by the RFP. Recent efforts are defined as those performed during the last three years, from the issue date of this RFP.

Offerors shall be deemed to satisfy requirements in the area of Past Performance when ALL references providing feedback as to recent and relevant efforts by the Offeror and each of its major subcontractors indicate that the firm’s performance was acceptable in all of the areas evaluated by reference. Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings in CPARS for relevant contracts may cause the proposal to be considered unawardable. Areas where third party reference information will be sought are indicated on the Past Performance Questionnaire attached to this Solicitation. Where a reference indicates that an Offerors performance was unacceptable in a particular area, the

Government will consider any information provided by the Offeror to explain or rebut any unacceptable performance in a particular area. The burden is on the Offeror to identify in its

17 | P a g e proposal any and all extenuating circumstances which may bear on the Governments evaluation of unfavorable reference information.

For the past performance factor, Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Factor 1 ratings are defined as follows:

Definition Chart – Table 3: Ratings for Past Performance:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

ADEJECTIVAL

RATINGS

DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires..

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires..

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Definition Chart – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

RATINGS

DESCRIPTION

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance 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.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

18 | P a g e

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see RFO FAR 15.202 (a)(1)(c)(1)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Volume 2- Factor 2: Technical Approach. The volume shall be organized into the following sections.

The Technical Approach proposal will be evaluated through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks. One combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned to the overall Technical Approach Factor.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for the Technical Approach factors are:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the

Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately 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.

b. 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 devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Offerors shall address each of the following areas within their technical proposal. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or better in each of the technical areas to receive an Acceptable rating for this factor.

Each area within Factor 2 (Technical Approach) will be rated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable and are of equal importance. The ratings will then be summarized, and one overall rating will be given for Factor 2 of either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or

Unacceptable. If an Offeror receives a rating of Unacceptable or Marginal for any of the individual area(s), the entire factor will be rated as Unacceptable. All Offerors must receive a rating of

Acceptable or better in the Technical factor in all areas to receive award.

Factor 2 ratings are defined as follows:

19 | P a g e

Definition Chart – Table 3: Ratings for Technical Approach:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

RATINGS

DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Definition Chart – Table 4:

CRITERIA DEFINITION

Significant

Strength

An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

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

Significant

Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases risk to an unacceptable level.

Factor III – VOLUME 3: Experience:

The Government will determine if the Offeror as an entity (Prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors) clearly meets minimum requirements of the solicitation for experience in each of the functional areas utilizing the form set forth in Attachment 0005. All major subcontractors identified in the Offeror’s proposal are considered as part of the entity. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of experience as it relates to all

20 | P a g e solicitation requirements. Key personnel will be evaluated separately under Factor 2. The

Experience factor will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Experience Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Offeror meets the minimum requirement of 3 years’ experience (occurring within the past 5 years) performing all of the following functional areas:

• Program Level Enterprise Architecture Support

• PSAP Modernization (CAD, NG-911, CHE)

• PSAP Modernization Infrastructure (LIS, NG-911 GIS, NG-911 Circuits and

Services)

• Enterprise Mass Warning & Notification (EMWN)

Unacceptable

Offeror does not meet the minimum requirement of 3 years’ experience

(occurring within the past 5 years) performing all of the following functional areas:

• Program Level Enterprise Architecture Support

• PSAP Modernization (CAD, NG-911, CHE)

• PSAP Modernization Infrastructure (LIS, NG-911 GIS, NG-911 Circuits and

Services)

• Enterprise Mass Warning & Notification (EMWN)

Volume IV - Factor 4: Cost/Price

1. Proposed cost/price will not be adjectively rated. A total price will be evaluated for each Offeror.

The total evaluated price will be the summation of the Section B CLINs, including any probable cost adjustments made by the Government. Each Offeror must propose manpower identical with the levels stated in the Cost Price Proposal Workbook.

2. Each Offeror’s Cost Price Proposal Workbook will be evaluated in accordance with the price and cost criteria in RFO FAR 15.404-1 as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer based on competition and other factors. The objective of price/cost proposal analysis is to ensure that all proposed costs are fair, reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures described in RFO FAR 15.404 (a)1 may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair and reasonable. Cost realism analysis IAW RFO FAR 15.404-3(a) will be performed only on cost reimbursable CLINs and SLINs in accordance with RFO FAR 15-404-3(b).

Price Analysis will be conducted in accordance with RFO FAR 15.404-1(b) for Firm Fixed Price

CLINs specified in the solicitation.

3. As noted above, the Offeror's proposed costs will be evaluated by using cost realism analysis in accordance with RFO FAR 15.404-3(a) to determine what the Government expects the Offeror's

21 | P a g e probable cost when the work performed under the contract is completed. To the degree that the

Government's most probable cost estimate, determined via a cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b), is higher or lower than the Offerors actual proposed cost; the cost may be adjusted by the Government upward/downward for the purposes of evaluation only.

NOTE: The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost analysis to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State,…