Section J Attachment 7 - CAF DMO 3.0 Section L_Amend 1.docx

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

FOR THE

COMBAT AIR FORCES

DISTRIBUTED MISSION OPERATIONS

(CAF DMO) 3.0

Solicitation #FA8621-24-R-B006

07 November 2023

Prepared by:

Agile Combat support Directorate, Simulators Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) 2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

FA8621-24-R-B006

Section J, Attachment 7 – Section L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FA8621-24-R-B006

Section J, Attachment 7 – Section L

1.0 PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of the CAF DMO program is to procure the training network service, scheduling service, technical expertise, management expertise, operations service, and support services necessary to ensure the complete interoperability and interconnectivity of the participant systems in accordance with (IAW) applicable security manuals, currently Joint SAP [Special Access Program] Implementation Guide (JSIG) security manuals. The program is described in Section 1 General, of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Only U.S. companies may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S. subsidiary may also be considered as a U.S. prime on CAF DMO 3.0.

Offerors are advised that the Government will evaluate technical acceptability and past performance for the prime as well as, significant subcontractors/teaming partners to the prime. The prime contractor will be able to form subcontracting teams as necessary, at the task order level.

The Government intends to award a single award multi-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CAF DMO 3.0 contract that will allow for a variety of contract types, including but not limited to, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Cost Reimbursable (CR). Applicable contract type contract line-item numbers (CLINs) will be specified on each individual task order.

The ordering period for CAF DMO 3.0 is 10 years. The ordering period is defined as the time period that task orders can be issued under this contract. The ordering period is broken out as follows: a 5-year base, plus 5 one-year options, if exercised. The option to extend services will also be included in the IDIQ via FAR 52.217-8.

In accordance with FAR 52.216-19, the minimum amount identified on the contract represents the only funding liability for the Government against the basic contract. It should be noted that funds are not currently available; therefore, subsequent task order awards are subject to availability of funds.

2.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals, as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. Offerors are required to submit one proposal with sufficient information concerning all factors to enable Government personnel to fully ascertain the Offeror’s capabilities to perform the requirements. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted IAW these instructions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Alternate proposals are not acceptable. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation and may render the proposal unawardable.

The proposal shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and that the Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Offerors are advised that the costs of any response to or otherwise incurred as a result of responding to this proposal request are not chargeable to this proposal effort. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the Contract Documentation Volume that the proposal is valid until the date specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one digital copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will not return any proposals and will destroy any additional digital or printed copies of proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact (POC)

The Contracting Officer (CO), Kendall Holmes, e-mail: kendall.holmes.2@us.af.mil and Contract Specialist, Jensine Ballweg, e-mail: jensine.ballweg@us.af.mil are the exclusive POCs for this acquisition. Written questions or requests for clarification may be sent via email to these individuals. It is encouraged that any such questions or requests be submitted within 10 days after the RFP release date. Answers to such questions and clarifications will be provided via posting questions and answers (Q&As) and/or RFP amendments on the SAM website (https://sam.gov). In the event of conflict between the answer to questions and the RFP, the RFP shall take precedence.

2.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify Offerors IAW FAR 15.503 of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to receive their debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing and must make their request within 3 days after being notified that they have been excluded from the competition.

The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.506.

2.1.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall notify the CO within 10 calendar days of RFP release via email with supporting rationale, as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the SAM website (https://sam.gov). Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. The CAF DMO 3.0 solicitation web page is: https://sam.gov/opp/72a2e1dc806340ecb288f61b7e94e843/view.

Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and Offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to Offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “CUI//Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) or made available for pick-up by a local representative. Classified information in the bidders’ library can be viewed upon request with a scheduled in-person meeting.

2.1.5 Amendments to Solicitations

If this RFP is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain in full force and effect. The Offeror shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment(s) and provide confirmation of receipt of any amendment(s) upon submission of the Offeror’s proposal. Acknowledgements are subject to solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1.

2.1.6 Pre-Award Surveys

The Government may conduct Pre-Award Survey (PAS) IAW FAR 9.106 during proposal evaluations to aid in determining contractor responsibility.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

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

20 pages maximum to allow for introductory information, including Business Relationship page.

Subcontractor Consent Letters and Client Authorization Letter

Attachment 2: DD254 Attachment 41: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) (large business Offerors only) Attachment 6: Proposal Adequacy Checklist

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Offerors will be notified of any excess page count. Each page shall be counted, except as indicated in the paragraphs below. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors.

2.2.2 Cost or Pricing Related Data

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Volume.

2.2.3 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix located at Section L Attachment 8, which correlates the RFP with the Offeror’s proposal, for Volume II only. The Offeror may prepare a cross-reference matrix in another format as long as it adheres to these instructions. The cross-reference matrix will reference the Proposal Volume/Paragraph and applicable PWS, Section L, and Section M paragraphs. The matrix will not be included in the volume page count.

If this matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this proposal request, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Additionally, to the extent this matrix discloses details as to the manner by which the Government intends to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for award, evaluation factor references in the matrix are for information purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of the evaluation criteria in Section M (RFP Attachment 8) of the RFP.

2.2.4 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tables of contents do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.5 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.6 Classified Information

No classified information is required or permitted in the Offeror’s response. Classified information provided as part of the bidders' library will be made available by appointment only. This material shall include the English Language Rule Plan (ELRP) and the classified DD254. Two representatives from each interested company planning to prime, may view this information with prior coordination with the POCs as outlined in paragraph 2.1.1.

The first visit will require a 1 hour in-briefing with security and will allow up to 4 hours for viewing the classified bidders’ library material. Any notes taken can not be removed from the vault. Offerors must be escorted at all times while in the vault.

An additional visit may be scheduled, if needed, to allow up to 2 hours of viewing classified materials. Any company that does not win the award of the CAF DMO 3.0 contract must have their representatives debriefed after contract award.

2.2.7 Markings

All proposal pages shall include the following legend at the bottom of each page:

“CUI//Source Selection Information -See FAR 3.104 and 2.101”

2.3 Page Size and Format

Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced as defined in paragraph settings/spacing in Microsoft Word, with a double space between paragraphs. Except for the reproduced sections of the proposal request document, the text size shall be no less than 12-point Times New Roman. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall also apply to responses to Evaluation Notices.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics shall be used wherever practicable to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and legible and shall not exceed 11x17 inches in size and shall be counted as two pages. For these displays, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point. Transmittal letters will not be considered in the overall page count nor will they be evaluated.

2.4 Electronic Offers

Offerors shall submit their proposal via CD-R/DVD-R. Submit proposal Volumes I, II, IV, and V on a single CD-R/DVD-R. Submit Volume III, Past Performance on a separate CD-R/DVD-R. No hard copies of proposals will be accepted. Each volume shall be in separate directories on the CD-R/DVD-R. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, addenda, and attachments, if any. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression application must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2010 or later. Offerors may also submit the proposal in Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later. Do NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images”. When creating PDF files always submit with textual search and copy functions enabled.

The file-naming convention for the proposal volumes is as follows. It is permissible to expand on these file names if a list of the content of each is provided. It is permissible to shorten these file names as long as the Volume number and title, Factor/Subfactor number, and a keyword or phrase is utilized to ensure clarity and consistency.

2.5 Proposal Submission

The Offeror’s proposal shall be prepared and submitted in five volumes: Executive Summary (Volume I), Technical Acceptability (Volume II), Past Performance (Volume III), Price (Volume IV), and Contract Documentation (Volume V). All volumes must be received via electronic media (CD R/DVD-R). Hand delivery of the CD R/DVD-R is acceptable. Proposals shall be sent to the Contracting Officer at the address below:

AFLCMC/WNSK

ATTN: Mrs. Kendall Holmes 1755 Eleventh Street Building 570, Room 216 Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433

2.6 Deadlines

Offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance by 3:00pm EST 8 Dec 2023. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in Offeror disqualification. All CAF DMO 3.0 proposal volumes must be received by 3:00pm EST on 22 Dec 2023.

3.0 VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1 Narrative Summary

Volume I shall include a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal, addressing significant risks, highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features must track to Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.2 Table of Contents

A master table of contents as a summation of all volume tables of contents shall be provided.

4.0 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

4.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you will use for accomplishing/ satisfying these subfactors. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical

In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting the Security Subfactor and for meeting/exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of the Transition and Training Operations Subfactors. Nomenclature should be consistent with the current contract (as seen in the documents in the bidder’s library) to CAF DMO 3.0. For example, collaborative federate service provider standards meetings should remain as the “Standards Development Working Group” (SDWG) in order to reduce changes to existing Government contracts that support the SDWG.

4.2.1.1 Technical Risk

The Offeror shall identify any risk (if any) associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Provide mitigation strategies for any self-identified risks the offeror intends to implement to reduce/eliminate these risks.

4.2.2 Volume Organization

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents (Not included in volume page count)

(2) List of Table and Drawings (Not included in volume page count)

(3) Glossary (Not included in volume page count)

(4) Cross Reference Matrix (Not included in volume page count)

(5) Subfactor 1: Transition

(6) Subfactor 2: Security

(7) Subfactor 3: Training Operations

(8) IMP (Attachment 1)

(9) IMS (Attachment 2)

(10) Task Order PWS, including TO IMP (Attachment 3)

(11) Past Performance Tool Submission

4.2.3 Subfactor 1: Transition

The Offeror shall provide a transition approach, fully supported by the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), to transition the services required for DMO training from the existing service to the CAF DMO 3.0 Service. The complete transition approach will be incorporated into the master PWS. Additionally, only the first 12-months will need submitted via a separate PWS for the first task order. This approach shall address the Offeror's approach to transitioning the 1-N priority list of sites. The plan shall use narrative, as well as diagrams to fully address transition of applicable PWS items to the Offeror from the existing service provider and shall detail:

A. A transition strategy and technical approach, to include the Offeror’s approach to minimizing operational downtime. Sites will be transitioned according to the 1-N priority list found in PWS Appendix A. The Offeror shall propose the sequence of groups to be transitioned supported by the Offeror's plan. (PWS 1.1.2, 4.3, 3.11, 4.2, 4.3.1)

· Assumption should be that the number of domains is equal to the number of fighter MDSs (Mission Design Series) on the network plus 3.

· Simultaneous event capacity as described in the PWS 4.4.3.

· Full Network Service Start date is defined as all PWS Appendix A sites operational.

· Assumption for Full Network Service Start Date shall be No Later Than 24 Months after contract award with a contract start date of 30 Jun 24.

B. A staffing approach which substantiates how many full-time equivalents will be assigned to different areas (e.g., installation teams) during the transition and qualifications for those positions that require specific qualifications/certifications. (PWS 1.1.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.10.1) C. An engineering approach describing the design, integration, and testing necessary to implement the DMO network. (PWS 4.4.2, 4.5.1, 4.7.3, 4.8, 4.12.1, 4.12.5) This approach shall include:

· Hardware Acquisition and Assembly

· Hardware Integration, Test and Installation

· Proposed network architecture

· Network Software Development, Integration and Test

· Network Diagnostic Software Tool Development, Integration and Test

· Cross Domain Security System Architecture and Accreditation

· Service Implementation and Activation Schedule

· Federate Integration and Testing Activities D. An accreditation strategy for the applicable parts of the DMO Training System IAW Joint Special Access Program Implementation Guide (JSIG) security manuals which shall be fully supported by the IMP and IMS. (PWS 2.1.1, 4.7.3.3, 4.8.4, 4.11.1)

· Proposed network architecture

· Cross Domain Security System Architecture and Accreditation

· CAF DMO 3.0 Network System Architecture and Accreditation

· Distributed Training Center System Architecture and Accreditation

4.2.3.1 Integrated Master Plan (IMP)

The purpose of the IMP is to demonstrate that the CAF DMO 3.0 transition plan is structured to minimize and control risk, to accomplish up-front summary planning and commitment, to provide a basis for subsequent detailed planning, to instill a balanced design discipline, to measure progress of CAF DMO 3.0 transition, and to provide management with in-process verification of requirements in order to make informed milestone decisions.

The IMP is an Offeror-generated document, capturing the core activities and processes necessary to implement the transition. The IMP should be written as an event-based plan containing significant accomplishments and accomplishment criteria needed to successfully complete each milestone. IMP milestones should be event-oriented and represent integrated product development (encompassing all functional disciplines) of the CWBS elements. The IMP measures program maturity by marking the initiation/conclusion of events/milestones, significant accomplishments, and associated completion criteria which describe the total work effort necessary to acquire a system which meets contract requirements. The IMP should contain narratives that provide the Government insight into the Offeror’s total work effort and for addressing how the Offeror will develop, implement, and commit to the transition effort.

The Offeror’s overall approach should provide traceability from the PWS to the IMP and IMS, and to the IPT organization. The IMP shall be a single plan, including associate and/or major subcontractor activities. There should be an IMP section/subsection for each of the elements in the Offeror’s proposed CWBS, as linked to the PWS. Each section/ subsection of the IMP should contain Events, Significant Accomplishments, Accomplishment Criteria, and selected Narratives as called for in the example PWS. The traceability to IPT organization allocates responsibility and accountability and should indicate primary and supporting IPTs. (PWS 4.12.1). The first 12 months of the IMP will be added as an attachment to the first task order. Therefore, the master IMP shall include the entire transition, and the first 12 months submitted via a separate IMP attachment to the first task order.

a. Event: An IMP event is a key contractual or programmatic event defined by the Government or the Offeror, which defines progress at a specific point in time. IMP events mark the conclusion/initiation of intervals of major program activity and serve as decision-oriented measures of program activity related to the program’s maturity associated with continued system development. The Offeror is encouraged to identify incremental reviews and milestones and additional events that best reflect the proposed program approach. The Offeror shall include definitions of each event at the beginning of the IMP. IMP events should be properly sequenced and may include demonstration milestones, technical or program reviews and audits, and other key decision points. For each IMP event, there shall be one or more entry or exit significant accomplishments (either entry or exit).

b. Significant Accomplishment: Significant accomplishments are interim or final critical efforts that must be completed prior to entering or exiting an event. Significant accomplishments are organized first by the CWBS element/product and then by functional area. Entry accomplishments reflect what must be complete to initiate an event. Exit accomplishments reflect what must be done for the event to be successfully closed and ready for the next event. For each significant accomplishment, there should be one or more accomplishment criteria. Significant accomplishments include:

(1) A desired result at a specified event which indicates a level of design maturity,

(2) A discrete step in a process,

(3) A description of interrelationship between different functional disciplines.

The Government is seeking Significant Accomplishments that provide sufficient insight to the process for achieving requirements of the PWS. The accomplishments shall be sequenced in a manner that ensures a logical path is maintained throughout the effort and tracks against key events.

c. Accomplishment Criteria: Measurable and useful indicators demonstrating that the required level of maturity/progress in an associated significant accomplishment has been achieved. Accomplishment criteria include:

(1) Completed work efforts,

(2) Activities which confirm the value of the technical parameters,

(3) Internal documents which provide results of in-process verification (successfully completed analysis or other testing activities),

(4) Completion of critical activities required by the Offeror’s internal program plans/operating instructions.

Accomplishment Criteria should include the use of Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) and metrics to track detailed tasking in the IMS. Preferably, the accomplishment criteria should avoid the use of ‘percent completed’ and avoid citing data item report numbers rather than identifying and summarizing results.

d. Narratives: Narratives are a collection of concise statements, with flow diagrams as necessary, describing the Offeror’s key functional/management processes and procedures. The IMP narrative is used to supplement IMP accomplishments and associated criteria, provide insight into any PWS tasks not described by IMP accomplishments /criteria, and implement the IPD process. A narrative should provide enough information to identify where the accomplishment criteria apply, (i.e., “pickoff points”) on the associated process. The narrative describes the minimum essential processes that the Offeror will apply to their products in conformance with Government requirements.

The narratives should complement the significant accomplishment and accomplishment criteria by indicating where in the process the criteria apply. The concise statements, in addition to describing the Offeror's key functional/management processes and procedures, should describe their relationship to the IPD process and an overview of the efforts required to implement them. The narrative should address only the key elements of implementing or developing a process/procedure (i.e., what the process/procedure will be and how it will be implemented and tracked), since the narrative will be included in the contract. The narrative is not the forum for providing supporting information/rationale (i.e., why a particular approach has been taken). Each narrative subject area should be arranged in the following format:

A. Objective;

B. Identification of Governing Documentation: and C. Process (if applicable).

The Objective is a brief statement of desired results and is to be traceable to the PWS. The Governing Documentation lists the Government documents and/or Offeror practices or procedures to be used to achieve the objective. The Offeror should clearly state whether Government documents will be tailored further and reference in which of the Offeror’s compliance documentation they will be tailored. The narrative should be consistent with applicable technical and management approaches described in the Technical volume of the proposal.

4.2.3.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The intent of this section is to obtain a functionally integrated understanding of the proposal with clear tracks between the technical, cost, schedule, management, etc., in a way that provides the Government confidence that the program is structured to be executable for the resources indicated. The IMS is a detailed task and timing of the work effort in the IMP and is used as the primary tracking tool for technical and schedule status.

The IMS is an integrated and networked multi-layered schedule of program/project tasks. The IMS identifies all IMP events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. These dates are based on the calendar dates provided as the starting point and the logical flow of dates provided by calculating the addition of duration of all tasks using typical schedule networking tools. The IMS tasks will be directly traceable to the WBS, IMP, PWS, and CLINs The Offeror shall provide a top-level IMS as part of the proposal submittal (PWS 4.2, 4.12.1) The more detailed levels of the IMS, as well as updates, will be submitted after contract award as a CDRL deliverable. The IMS is intended as a tool for day-to-day tracking of the program/project that rolls up to increasingly higher summary levels. All tasks/activities in the IMS should be logically linked together showing predecessor/successor relationships. The activities and tasks will be sufficient to account for the entire program under contract. In addition to the top-level IMS, the Offeror shall provide a separate more detailed IMS, for the first 12 months of the Initial Transition Task Order. Key elements of the IMS include:

a. Milestone/Event: A specific definable accomplishment in the program/project network, recognizable at a particular point in time.

b. Activity or Task: A time consuming element, e.g., work in progress between interdependent events, represented in an activity box. Activities are numbered and are contained within an activity box. The left side represents the beginning of the activity, and the right side is the completion of the activity.

c. Duration: The length of time estimated to accomplish an activity (disregarding the “calendar impact”). Rationale should also be provided supporting the derivation of the durations including ground rules and assumptions (e.g., historical data, experience on similar efforts, vendor schedules, number of work days per week, number of shifts, company holidays). In addition, the Offeror shall provide a supporting narrative for the network diagram that explains the basis for the estimated durations of those activities on the critical path(s) and for activities designated as high risk. Any unusual aspects of their proposed approach to the program should also be described.

d. Constraint: A line that defines how two activities or events are logically linked

(1) Finish-to-Start (FS) - An activity must finish before another can start. The Offeror should provide a brief narrative for all activities that do not have FS relationships and how the respective relationship was determined and the lead or lag estimated

(2) Start-to-Start (SS) - An activity depends on the start of another activity

(3) Finish-to-Finish (FF) - One activity cannot finish until another activity finishes

(4) Start-to- Finish (SF) - An activity cannot finish until another activity starts

(5) Percent Complete or Lead Lag

e. Total Slack or Float: Extra time available on an activity before it will impact another activity on the critical path.

f. Free Slack or Float: Extra time available on an activity before it will impact an activity on another successor activity.

g. Lead: The amount of time of the overlap between where a successor task begins and a predecessor task completes.

h. Lag: The amount of time between the end of a predecessor task and the beginning of a successor task.

i. Critical Path: A sequence of activities in the network that has the longest total duration through the program/project. It should be easily distinguished on the report formats.

j. Target Start (TS): Date when an activity should start.

k. Target Complete (TC): Date when an activity should finish.

l. Actual Start (AS): Actual start date of an activity.

m. Actual Finish (AF): Actual finish date of an activity.

n. Early Start (ES): The earliest date an activity can start.

o. Early Finish (EF): The earliest date an activity can end.

p. Late Start (LS): The latest date an activity can start without delaying the program/project target completion date.

q. Late Finish (LF): The latest finish date an activity can have without affecting the program/project target completion date.

r. Gantt Chart: A graphical display of program activities and key milestones that depict work activities in an integrated fashion. Represent activities by bars showing the length of time for each activity.

4.2.4 Subfactor 2: Security

The Offeror shall describe its proposed approach to provide security services and execute the program IAW the security requirements established in the RFP. The Offeror shall provide:

A. A staffing approach which documents the certifications and credentials of those personnel with cybersecurity duties, including their expertise and experience. A draft security strategy shall also be included to maintain accreditation of the DMON. , and the approach to provide configuration management, CDS/MLS services, System Security Plans (SSP) with annexes, and data storage/retrieval/encryption. The Offeror shall also provide an approach for crypto key management for all encryption devices. (PWS 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.8.1) B. A proposed hardware and software architecture, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to support the security domains of the Federate Service Providers, including data storage architecture. The Offeror shall include an approach for data storage/retrieval architecture that supports Federate System site operations including simultaneous events in multiple security domains IAW JSIG/security manuals. (PWS 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.11.1) C. An approach for an adequate JSIG-based ATO including the strategy to develop the necessary artifacts, including, but not limited to: Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M), System Security Plan (SSP) and Security Control Traceability Matrix (SCTM) templates that include the appropriate overlays and security policies relevant to each authorization boundary (Distributed Mission Operations Network [DMON], DMON Cross Domain Solution [DCDS], Distributed Training Center (DTC)). Specific information on how the controls will be implemented not expected/required. Offeror shall provide a plan for a properly cleared/approved/accredited personnel, facilities, and equipment IAW JSIG/ security manuals. (PWS 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.11.1) D. An approach for CDS/MLS services that pProvide pedigree information on the proposed solution for CDS/MLS services using NSA Cross Domain Solutions Management Office (NCDSMO) Cross Domain Baseline Submission Guide (in bidder’s library). Configuration Management of the network and CDS/MLS accreditation sustainment. (PWS 4.8.2, 4.8.4, 4.9, 4.11.1)

· The Offeror shall substantiate how its CDS approach will achieve network protection methods at or above PL3 as required in PWS 4.11.1, Network Security. Increases in protection methods supported by the controlled interface meeting the requirements above the thresholds identified in as directed by the JSIG/SCTM should be documented using the NCDSMO Cross Domain Baseline Submission Guide. Offeror proposed protection methods that exceed RFP threshold requirements (if proposed) will become contractual thresholds against which protection level performance will be monitored after Full Operational Capability (FOC). The Offeror shall substantiate how its MLS approach will achieve network protection methods at or above PL4 as required in PWS 4.11.1, Network Security.

4.2.5 Subfactor 3: Training Operations

The Offeror shall describe its proposed approach to manage the distributed training system and perform the duties of integrator. The Offeror shall provide:

A. An approach for the management of training system protocols across the network and how the Offeror intends to provide federation management of diverse federates and multiple security domains. (PWS 4.4.2) B. An approach for the management and execution of distributed training events, detailing the Offerors approach to event management, and thoroughly describing activities and substantiated staffing levels. (PWS 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.4.7, 4.7) C. The Offeror’s standards development, adoption, and maintenance processes and approach to implement and provide an automated certification tool. (PWS 4.10.1) D. An approach for the completion of verification and test activities and managing DMO training events and supporting them through scheduling and help desk functions. (PWS 4.12.54.4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5.2) E. An approach to support a diverse set of Exercises Services at/with Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC), the Distributed Training Operations Center (DTOC), USAFE AFAFRICA Warfare Center (UAWC), the Distributed Training Center (DTC), and an approach to support connections with other networks (including coalition networks) as directed by the Government, Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the Joint Training and Exercise Network, MAF DMO, AFSOC DMO, Cyber DMO, Space DMO) and accreditation activities. (PWS 4.7) F. A staffing approach that substantiates the number of full-time equivalents, the area supported, and the certifications/credentials of personnel who will, 1) support the Standards development, adoption, and maintenance process, 2) support the Distributed Training Center, 3) support the Distributed Mission Operations Center 4) DTOC and 5) UAWC. Additionally, this staffing approach should take into account the continued technical support of the DTOC and UAWC. (PWS 4.7, 4.10) G. An approach for establishing and maintaining a CAF DMO 3.0 Website with appropriate controls in place to maximize its use as a collaborative tool for the DMO community. (4.12.4) H. An approach to meeting the availability threshold requirements (event and system availabilities) and the latency threshold requirement (PWS 4.4.2, 4.4.3).

· System Availability Requirement. The Offeror shall substantiate how its approach will achieve Event Availability and Systems Availability rates at or above 97% and 99% respectively as calculated IAW Section H Clause H100 titled “Service Availability”, the availability clause in Section H. Predicted availability rates should be calculated based on expected performance of the network architecture being proposed. If historical data is not available, the Offeror may use estimates of system-level Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) derived from component- level MTBF and MTTR for the proposed hardware. The Offeror shall show how rates were derived. Offeror proposed availability rates that exceed RFP threshold requirements (if proposed) will become contractual thresholds against which availability performance will be monitored after Full Operational Capability (FOC). Event Availability shall be estimated for the sample month of events found in Section L Attachment 4. System Availability shall be estimated based on the sample list of sites with corresponding normal operating hours found in Section L Attachment 5.

· Real-Time Training Requirement. The Offeror shall estimate the latency due to the network architecture proposed. The estimate shall be the maximum latency between two sites, considering all possible combinations of sites in theater (i.e., CONUS, PACAF, USAFE). The Offeror shall provide two estimates, one estimate with a CDS/MLS solution, and one estimate without a CDS/MLS solution. The Offeror shall list specific subsystem-level delays that add up to the total latency estimate. The Offeror shall propose a latency threshold, IAW IEEE 1278.2 and supported by the applicable factors of the proposed architecture. If the Offeror proposed latency threshold is better than PWS threshold requirements (65ms), the proposed threshold will be inserted as the contractual threshold against which latency performance will be monitored after award if the Offeror is the successful Offeror.

I. An approach for providing DMO Configuration Management services. (PWS 4.12.7)

5.0 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 General

Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing relevant past performance information for no more than 3 contracts, which have had at least six months of performance within the last five years and are either active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation. Past performance information shall be provided using the Past Performance Information Tool as described in Section L Attachment 7, for each referenced contract. In addition to the data provided in this volume, the Government may use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and COs, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

The Business Relationships page generated from the Past Performance Information Tool is counted within the Introductory Information in the Past Performance Volume.

Offerors shall send a Past Performance Questionnaire (Section L, Attachment 1) directly to the POCs for the efforts identified. All respondents shall be instructed that all responses are to be provided directly to the Government CO (Kendall Holmes, kendall.holmes.2@us.af.mil) or Contract Specialist (Jensine Ballweg, jensine.ballweg@us.af.mil) not later than 3:00pm 8 December 2023. Offerors shall provide a listing of the individuals to whom the questionnaires were sent with contact information (name, phone, email, etc.). This is needed in case the Government has to follow-up with any POCs for questionnaires not received. This listing is excluded from the volume page count.

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (Section L, Attachment 3), authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance. This letter(s) is not included in the volume page count.

5.2 Early Proposal Information

In order for the Government to be able to conduct its assessment more efficiently, Offerors are requested to submit their past performance information volume prior to the required submission date for the remainder of the proposal.

5.3 Relevant Contracts

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. Not all aspects of relevancy must be included within a single contract; aspects of relevant performance may be from separate contracts. The Offeror’s past performance information shall include information about predecessor companies, or significant subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M, 2.4.1 Recency Assessment, and Section M.

5.3.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical Subfactors used to evaluate the proposal.

All Past Performance materials shall include the following legend at the top and bottom of each page:

“CUI//Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 AND 2.101”

5.3.2 Subcontractor Consent

The Offeror shall submit, together with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter (Section L attachment 2), executed by each significant subcontractor/teaming partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all significant subcontractors performing aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime Offeror. A significant subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor/teaming partner that performs no less than 20% of the work on contract.

5.3.3 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection.