Draft 2_Request for Proposal_Information Collection Management_ 11 September 2023.pdf

DRAFT Request for Proposal For: Intelligence Systems & Analytics

Intelligence Application – Information Collection Management Solicitation Number: W56KGY-24-R-0002

***This is a DRAFT RFP being sent for informational purposes. No proposal is required and no work is to be performed. See SAM.gov Instructions for more information ***

A. Executive Summary

1. Description of Item(s) Being Procured: The Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) has the need to acquire on behalf of Project Manager (PM) Intelligence Systems & Analytics (IS&A), a commercial item that will provide a software-only solution to meet the Information Collection Management (ICM) interoperability, security, training, usability, and data management capabilities. It includes the associated support services, incidental services, and deliverables for the procurement of a commercial item solution to satisfy the ICM requirements.

2. Program Objective / Needs: The program objectives and needs for this effort are outlined within the Draft Statement of Work (SOW) (Attachment 0001). SOW and Draft Performance Requirements Document (PRD) (Attachment 0002), will be provided upon request to the following:

Ms. Meghan C. Whitmore Procuring Contracting Officer E-mail: meghan.c.whitmore.civ@army.mil

And

Ms. Nadia Townsend Contract Specialist E-mail: nadia.townsend2.civ@army.mil

3. Delivery Schedule: This single award, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract will have an ordering period consisting of one (1) year base period and four

(4) option years. Delivery, schedule, and performance requirements will be reflected in each delivery order issued under the proposed contract, based upon the identified program needs during the contract period of performance. The orders may have option periods.

4. Type of Contract: The Government intends to award a single award IDIQ contract with orders issued on a firm-fixed-price (FFP) basis. in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and FAR Part 15. The North American industry classification system (NAICS) code is 513210 with a size standard of $47,000,000.00.

5. Format of Contract: The resultant contract will be formatted in accordance with FAR

15.204-1 -- Uniform Contract Format. Orders will be issued with respect to all basic terms and conditions as stated in the base contract, with information as required by FAR 16.505(a)(7).

6. Nature of Work: The scope of this effort is to satisfy the Governments projected need.

The security requirements for the base contract are defined in the Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254).

7. Unusual / Specific Aspects of the Acquisition: Refer to Sections L and M of this

DRAFT solicitation.

8. Source Selection Methodology: An award will be made based on the best overall

(i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

Technical, Price, Past Performance, and Small Business. The weighting and specific details regarding these evaluation factors and source selection methodology can be found in Sections L & M of this solicitation.

9. During the conduct of this acquisition DOD Safe will be utilized by the Government to support the proposal evaluation and source selection process. All exchanges with Offerors will occur with the Procuring Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

Please refer to Section L of this solicitation for further information.

10. Disclaimer: This Executive Summary has been prepared as an aid to the potential offerors. The Government has made every attempt to accurately reflect the requirements and information contained in this solicitation.

CONTRACT MAXIMUM/MINIMUM TASK ORDER CEILING: The anticipated MAXIMUM contract ceiling under the PM IS&A Information Collection Management acquisition is $23,750,000.00. The cumulative value of the IDIQ contract, which includes all delivery orders issued, shall not exceed $23,750,000.00. The MINIMUM guaranteed value under this contract is $3,500.00, which shall be obligated on the first delivery order issuance to the awardee at the time of contract award.

B. Anticipated CLIN Structure

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) CLIN0001 – Technical Test Support CLIN0002 – Soldier Touch Point Test Support CLIN0003 – Program Protection CLIN0004 – NIPR RMF Certification CLIN0005 – Secret RMF Certification CLIN0006 – Top Secret RMF Certification CLIN0007 – Cyber Security Testing

CLIN0008 – Functional Configuration Audit CLIN0009 – Army Interoperability Certification (AIC) CLIN0010 –Training Solution CLIN0011 – Operational Assessment CLIN0012 – Solution Software Test Licenses (Annual) CLIN0013 – Solution Software Test Licenses (Monthly) CLIN0014 – Annual Solution Software CLIN0015 – Annual Sustainment (CLIN 0013) CLIN0016 – Software Safety CLIN0017 – Initial Integration Support CLIN0018 – Exercise Support CLIN0019 – Configuration Management (Not Separately Priced) CLIN0020 – Engineering Change Proposals (Not Separately Priced) CLIN0021 – (OPTION) Perpetual Software License CLIN0022 – (OPTION) Annual Sustainment Perpetual Software License CLIN0023 – (OPTION) Unlimited Enterprise Software License CLIN0024 – (OPTION) Annual Sustainment Unlimited Enterprise License

C. Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors (Section L)

1. Introduction. During the conduct of this acquisition, all documents will be submitted to

Army Contracting Command- Aberdeen Proving Ground via DOD Safe. Request for drop boxes will need to be submitted by email to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Contract Specialist, detailed below, one (1) business day in advance. All communications with Offerors will occur with the PCO and Contract Specialist via email. During the conduct of this acquisition, once proposals/documents are submitted via DOD Safe, the Government requests that Offerors submit a confirmation email to the following points of contacts:

E-mail: meghan.c.whitmore.civ@army.mil

Ms. Nadia Townsend Contract Specialist

Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) volumes.

The Volumes are as follows:

I. Executive Summary II. Technical III. Price IV. Past Performance V. Small Business mailto:nadia.townsend2.civ@army.mil

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements or the Statement of Work (SOW) (Attachment 0001) with a statement of intent to perform, does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Each proposal volume shall be submitted electronically via DoD Safe. Each volume shall be separate files, clearly labeled and include the prescribed files identified in the below Table 1, “Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials”,. Electronic submission of proposal is mandatory IAW the solicitation instructions, with the time of receipt of the required electronic proposal volumes to the PCO and Contact Specialist (detailed in paragraph 1, “Introduction”) serving as the compliance time for directed proposal submission date and time. The electronic proposal files submitted to DOD Safe will be the official submission used for evaluation purposes.

b. Files submitted to the Government shall NOT contain CLASSIFIED data. The use of external hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The use of hyperlinks that link within a document, such as table of contents links, are allowed.

c. SAM.gov registration and (active) System for Award Management (SAM) account is required to submit proposals.

d. WARNING: Do not wait until the last minute to submit proposals. To avoid late proposal submissions, Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals twenty-four (24) hours prior to the required due date and time. Request for DOD Safe drop boxes will need to occur at a minimum one (1) business day in advance of submittal as detailed in paragraph A1.

e. Note: Offerors are offered the opportunity to participate in an open integration period of time (approximately 2 weeks) using Commercial Cloud Services provided by the Government, along with sample data sets (for testing purposes). The purpose of this integration period is to prepare the Offeror for the Draft Product Demonstration Plan (Attachment 0005).

f. Any pages that are changed as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions shall be clearly marked and dated. The changed information shall be clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page, and underlining and/or strike-through of text shall be used to distinguish the changed information. The revised pages shall be dated. Each file containing change or revisions shall be clearly labeled with its title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

g. The volumes of material shall be submitted as depicted in Table 1, “Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials”. All proposal submissions must be in Microsoft Office (MS) Office using a version no earlier than 2007.

Table 7. Requirements for Submission of Proposal Material

Volume Title File Name

MS

Word Version

MS

Excel Version

MS

Power Point Version

PDF

Version

Doc Not Required

Maximum Page Count

I Executive Summary - - - - - - - -

Proposal Summary “PROP_SYN” X* - - X* - 10

Commercial Item Assertions “COMM_ITEM_ASSERT” X* - - X* - N/a

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

“GLOSSERY” X* - - X* - N/a

Award Documents/ Certifications/ Representations

“AWARDDOC_CERT_REP” X* X* - X* - N/a

Data Assertions “DATA_ASSERT” - X - - - N/a II Technical Factor (when applicable)

Project VISTA Innovative Technology

“PROJ_VISTA”- X* - - X* - 10

III Price Factor TEP Worksheet “TOTAL_EVAL_PRICE” - X - - - N/a

IV Past Performance

Past Performance Record

“PAST_PERF” X* - - X* - N/a

* Selection one (1) of the multiple versions offered.

** If the Offeror has both plan types, please submit both.

*** Page Count refers to MS PowerPoint slide count.

NOTE: Pages and slides that exceed the required maximum limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages and slides over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

3. Proposal Files.

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume should be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume should be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A table of contents shall be created using the table of content feature in MS Word. MS Word files shall use the following page setup parameters:

• Font Type – Arial font is required.

• Font Size – A standard 12-point minimum is required. An 8-point minimum may be used for tables, illustrations, headers and footers.

• Line Spacing – Pages shall be single spaced.

• Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

• Gutter – 0”

• From Edge – Header, Footer – 0.5”

• Page Size, Width – 8.5”

• Page Size, Height – 11”

Note: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11X17 page counts as two (2) pages.

b. File Packaging. Proposal file names shall include the volume number proceeding the identified filename stated in Table 1, “Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials”. All PDF documents shall be provided as searchable PDF files. If proposal files are compressed (zipped), using WinZip version 6.2 or later, into multiple zip files, each zip file must be clearly identified by Volume, as per Table 1 instructions.

Note: Offerors are cautioned that large file sizes of proposals significantly delay submissions, or may not be permitted due to file size restrictions on DOD Safe. High resolution graphics may greatly increase file sizes. Up to five (5) files can be uploaded at one (1) time. The combined size of the five (5) files cannot exceed 100MB. Also note, self-extracting .exe files will not be accepted. Additionally, the Government does not accept responsibility for the organization of electronic proposal submissions. If proposal files are missing or not identified per the instructions provided by this solicitation, the proposal will be immediately eliminated from the competition. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring all appropriate files are included in the proposal submission. Proposal files may be submitted individually without compression at Offeror’s discretion.

If files are divided into smaller files to support electronic transmission, individual files should be clearly labeled such as “technical 1 of 5,” etc. Break attachments into smaller files or use the upload utility multiple times if files exceed the 100MB size limit. Filenames MUST be labeled as indicated in Table 7, Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials.

Updated computer software virus protection is required. Offerors should not submit proposals without first having scanned them using appropriate computer virus protection software. Uploading files with viruses may jeopardize bid submission.

The Government will not accept or consider any proposal submission methods other than as discussed herein.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The

Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Volumes I, II, IV and V of the proposal shall consist of a table of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, summary section, and the narrative discussion. The summary section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume. Any proprietary information shall be clearly marked. No price information shall be presented in any part of the proposal except as provided in Volume I, Executive Summary and Volume III, Price Factor. Each volume shall be prepared on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with minimum cross-referencing to another volume of the proposal. Each table of contents shall delineate the subparagraphs with that volume to the proposal content when applicable. The submission of alternate proposals shall not be allowed.

i. Volume I - Executive Summary. The Offeror shall utilize this volume to provide an overview of the proposal and summarize pertinent information contained in all volumes of the proposal. The information contained in this volume must be consistent with data in the other volumes. References to the proposal locations providing substantiating data shall be given as appropriate. The information contained in this volume is not an evaluation factor, but is required for award.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

1) Proposal Synopsis. The Offeror shall utilize this section of the Executive

Summary to summarize pertinent information contained in all volumes of the proposal. The Offeror is free to submit this section of the Executive Summary in any format desired, subject to the limitations previously set forth above, and to include any and all information it believes will support its proposal. Offerors are reminded that the Executive Summary is an introductory summation of the proposal; therefore, no information shall be in the Executive Summary that does not appear elsewhere in the proposal.

2) Commercial Item Assertions. The Offeror shall provide documentation to support that its solution is a commercial item. The commercial item assertions should explicitly detail how the proposed solution fits the definition of a commercial item as stated in FAR 2.101.

The Government may consider applicable law, regulations, policy, and guidance when determining whether an Offeror's solution is a commercial item, as defined in FAR 2.101.

If the Offeror does not provide sufficient evidence that its solution is a commercial item, then the Government may determine that the Offeror is not eligible for award.

3) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. The Executive Summary shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

4) Award Documents/Certifications/Representations. The Offeror shall provide any Award Documents, Certifications, and/or Representations to accompany the proposal submission as required by the solicitation under representations, certifications, and other statements of Offerors.

The Prime Offeror shall have an approved Secret facility clearance and safeguarding for classified material and property in effect at time of award, based on the IS&A DoD Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, and PM IS&A requirements.

The following information must be provided to verify the secure facility clearance:

- Contractor Name

- Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

- Corporate Mailing Address

- Classified Mailing Address

- Security Office Information including:

i. Name

ii. Title

iii. E-mail address Iv. Telephone Number

If the Prime Offeror does not have an approved Secret facility clearance at time of proposal, Offerors shall submit a plan with timeline to achieve those requirements within one hundred eighty (180) days from time of initial award.

5) Data and Software Rights Assertions. IAW the content and formatting requirements for Data and Software Rights Assertions (set forth in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.227- 7017), the Contractors Data and Software Rights Assertions shall comply with the following requirements:

- The Prime Offeror shall not assert license restrictions on items, component, or processes themselves. The asserted license restrictions shall pertain to software or technical data that relates to items, components, or processes.

- The Prime Offeror’s assertions shall not include technical data or software that will not be furnished to the Government under this Contract.

- The Prime Offeror shall provide a concise (but specific) description of the technical data and software deliverables that will be furnished to the Government with restrictions, rather than generically asserting license restrictions in technical data or technology.

- The Prime Offeror is responsible for ensuring that Data and Software Rights Assertions from its subcontractors comply with the aforementioned content and formatting requirements (IAW DFARS 252.227-7017).

- Prime Offerors shall provide Data/Software Rights Assertions in a tabular format prescribed in DFARS 252.227-7017. In addition to the content and formatting requirements set forth in DFARS 252.227-7017, the Prime Offerors Data/Software Rights Assertions table shall list all commercial or non-commercial technical data and software data deliverables that the Prime Offeror intends to furnish to the Government with license restrictions. Thus, the Data/Software Rights Assertions shall include all technical data and software data deliverables that are provided to the Government without an unlimited and/or unrestricted rights license. In the Prime Offerors identification of technical data and software license rights, the Prime Offeror shall reference any applicable commercial software license agreement related to proposed commercial software deliverables. The Government will consider any data deliverables, that are required in the SOW but not listed in the Prime Offeror’s Data/Software Rights Assertions, as technical data or software deliverables furnished to the Government without restrictions.

6) Commercial Plan or Subcontracting Plan. Other than U.S. Small Business Offerors shall submit either a commercial plan as defined at FAR 19.701, or a Commercial Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219- 9 and DFARS 252.219-7003, or DFARS 252.219-7004, if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan. Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. The Commercial Subcontracting Plan or Commercial Plan will be IDIQ level attachments, applicable to all orders issued. The requirements in this paragraph are for compliance purposes and shall not be considered as an evaluation factor during the Government’s award selection trade-off analysis.

ii. Volume II - Technical Factor. The Technical Factor will consist of two (2)

Subfactors; Product Demonstration; and Project VISTA Innovative Technology.

For the Project “Valuing Innovation with a Source Selection Technical Advantage” (VISTA) subfactor, offerors will identify one or more innovative technology for transition into the delivered solution. The technology must have been developed/funded through the Department of Army (DA) or Department of Defense (DoD) Research and Development programs such as but not limited to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs, Other Transaction Agreements, and the DoD Mentor-Protégé Program. See Project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards (Attachment 0004) for a list of potential technologies and businesses partners for technology transition. The project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards is not an all-inclusive list, but a list to provide industry awareness and access to potential partnership of current and past SIBR/STTR awards. The Offeror shall include the technology developer as part of their proposed subcontracting team.

1) Product Demonstration. The product demonstration will be conducted in accordance with the Draft Product Demonstration Plan (Attachment 0005).

The actual demonstration will consist of a one (1) day event, and two (2) weeks of system integration and set-up prior to the day of the demonstration.

The system set-up time period (2-weeks) consists of integration of the application, verifying the application can utilize Government-provided test data that would be similar to the data provided on the day of the demonstration event, and to familiarize the Offeror with the lab environment.

The Offerors system operator will perform all steps on the system IAW the Product Demonstration Event Plan.

2) Sample Data Available Upon Request. Product Demonstration sample data is available upon request as Government Furnished Information (GFI). Please see the Information Collection Management GFI list for a summary of the information that can be provided. In order to receive a copy of the GFI, the Offeror shall send an email to the PCO with the company CAGE code no later than fifteen (15) days after the issuance of the solicitation. Once in receipt of the request, the Government will coordinate delivery of the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) data.

3) The submission for the Project VISTA initiative shall describe how the

Offeror proposes to transition new, innovative technology developed with Army or DoD funding into the delivered solution. If the contract is not included in Project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards (Attachment 0004) The contract number, contracting officer, NAICs code must be included as part of your submission. The Government will verify that the contract meets the Project VISTA contact requirements. The submission, not to exceed ten (10) pages, must include the contract/agreement number(s) and proof of Army/DoD funding utilized to develop the technology. During the product demonstration, the Offeror will address how the innovative technology will be transitioned.

iii. Volume III – Price Factor. The Offeror shall submit pricing for all CLINs identified in the TEP Worksheet (Attachment 0003). Offerors shall not re-format or remove cells from the spreadsheet. Submission of the pricing data shall be complete and accurate. All prices will be provided as FFP, therefore all proposed prices shall be inclusive of all direct cost (i.e., direct labor, material, travel, and other direct costs), associated indirect costs, and profit related to each CLIN. Any CLINs where a proposed $0.00 price is submitted shall be accompanied by an additional statement verifying the pricing of $0.00 is correct.

The proposed unit pricing in the Offeror’s proposal and TEP (Attachment 0003) will become the actual firm fixed prices in any resultant contract for the expected five-year ordering period of the basic contract. This also applies to any range pricing as applicable. The prices in the TEP worksheet will be incorporated into the CLINs of the Base IDIQ contract.

The Government expects adequate price competition under this effort. If, however, at the time of proposal due dates there is not adequate price competition, then Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Government to determine fair and reasonable price.

All information related to pricing shall be included in the section of the proposal defined as Volume III Price Factor. In the event the PCO determines additional information (Certified or other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403) is necessary in order to determine the reasonableness of price, information below may be requested:

- Catalog Pricing: Relevant Offeror commercial catalog, its date, catalog prices, and related discounts. Include an explanation of any differences between the offered price, the established catalog price, and price of recent sales in quantities similar to the proposed quantities.

- Market Pricing: Description of the nature of the relevant market and how that market affects the offered price including the source and date or period of any relevant market quotation or other basis for market price, the base market price, and applicable discounts or other price adjustments.

- Other evidence of prices charged: Evidence of prices charged other customers under similar circumstances. For example, the firm could provide copies of contracts with other customers to document the prices charged.

- Unbalanced Pricing – If the Offeror’s unit prices appear unbalanced when comparing them from quantity range to quantity range or ordering period to ordering period, the Offeror shall provide documentation, including calculations and supporting rationale, explaining the apparent unbalanced pricing.

For proposal preparation purposes only, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance for the Single Award base IDIQ, as well as the first Delivery Order, is tbd. The actual performance dates may vary.

iv. Volume IV – Past Performance Factor. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall submit Government contracts for the Prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past thirty-six (36) months (three (3) years), from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the requirements of this solicitation, to include the NAICS code the work was completed under. The Offeror shall submit only those recent and relevant contracts for itself and its major subcontractor(s) for identical or similar efforts to the requirements of this Draft RFP. The proposal volume shall contain no more than five (5) contracts for the Prime Offeror and three (3) contracts for each of the Prime Offeror’s major subcontractors. A minimum of one (1) contract reference is required for each proposed major subcontract. Major subcontractors are defined as members of a Prime Offeror’s overall team who are anticipated to perform more than twenty percent (20%) of the proposed TEP. Relevant efforts are defined as efforts that are essentially the same as or similar in scope and complexity as the Draft SOW (Attachment 0001) with a minimum of one (1) year of completed performance, within the NAICS code 513210. In order to be considered relevant, the Offeror must demonstrate for each proposed contract that it, or its major subcontractor, performed a minimum of 33% of the dollar value of the contract. Data concerning the Prime Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Prime Offeror.

1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

i. Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE code and Unique Entity ID (UEI) number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and point of contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

ii. Government contracting activity, and current address, PCO name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

iii. Government’s technical representative name, current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

iv. Government contract administration activity and the Administrative

Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

v. Government contract administration activity’s pre-award monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

vi. Contract number and, in the case of indefinite delivery type contracts, General Services Administration contracts, and blanket purchase agreements, include delivery/task order numbers.

vii. Contract Type (specific type such as fixed-price (FP), cost reimbursement (CR), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)-term form, CPFF-completion, time & material (T&M), etc.). In the case of indefinite delivery contracts, indicate specific type (requirements, definite quantity, and indefinite quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

viii. Awarded price/cost.

ix. Final or projected final price/cost.

x. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

xi. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

xii. One (1) contract, Delivery Order counts as a single reference. Do not combine multiple contracts, Delivery Order into one (1) reference.

The Offeror must provide the current SOW with each reference. The Prime Offeror/major subcontractor must cross reference the relevancy of the work they accomplished under the provided Draft SOW to the Information Collection Management.

2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objective achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this solicitation. 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 Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All requests for variance shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide a copy of any cure notices or show-cause letters received on each contract listed and a description of any correction action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reason(s) for the termination.

3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the requirements will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the Prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE code, UEI number, and type of work to be performed by citing the Draft SOW subparagraph number. This includes all major subcontractors. The Offeror must define the dollar value of work that each Offeror/major subcontractor will accomplish.

4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees; however, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

5) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a PPQ must be completed and submitted.

• The Offeror shall complete Part I of the PPQ and e-mail the completed questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and Government technical representative responsible for the past/current contract.

• The Offeror may not fill in and/or submit any past performance information for data entered into Part 1.

• The Offeror must instruct the POCs for the cited past performance data in Part 1 that the questionnaires must be filled out by Government personnel for Government contract vehicles.

• Past performance data for commercial past performance may be filled out by personnel of the commercial entity cited.

• Offerors must instruct the POCs for past performance data cited in Part 1 of the PPQ to complete Part II of the questionnaire electronically and email the entire questionnaire to the cited PCO and Contract Specialist no later than the proposal due date. The Offeror shall e-mail these two individuals a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC list shall be submitted in MS Word for Windows table format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name;

Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name;

POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E- Mail to POC (month/day).

6) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing POCs with another contractor’s facility, i.e., in case an Offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POC information, in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POC information in situations as described above.

d. Discussions.

i. General Information.

• The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

• The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated as set forth in Section M of this solicitation. IAW FAR 15.306(d), the Government may hold discussions with Offerors. Clarifications and/or discussions may be deemed necessary, as described in FAR 15.306(a); however, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain its best terms and conditions from a price and technical standpoint as the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the resultant contract without discussions. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary.

• If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

ii. Discussion Scheduling. If discussions are conducted, the PCO may schedule discussion session(s) to clarify Offerors’ questions on Evaluation Notices (ENs), and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place prior to its discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the Offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The PCO will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing in the Aberdeen, MD area.

iii. Non-Government Advisors. Offerors are advised that non-Government advisor subject matter experts (SMEs) have participated in the development of the requirement or may participate in the source selection process. The non- Government advisor SMEs that may participate in the source selection process will have access to all of the necessary parts of the Offeror’s proposal pertinent to the SMEs’ area of expertise. Non-Government SMEs that will participate in the source selection process will not have access to price data or past performance information. These individuals are non-voting members of the evaluation team.

The companies listed below are precluded from being a prime contractor or from participating in any teaming arrangement with potential Offerors due to Organizational Conflict of Interest concerns. Offerors must advise the PCO as soon as possible of any concerns/questions with regard to the use of the non- Government SMEs from the companies listed below. Any Offeror that is affiliated with or is contemplating a contractual relationship with the companies listed below must notify the PCO as soon as possible. In accomplishing its duties, the below firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors’ proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4(b), these firms must execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will (1) protect the Offerors information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each Offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each Offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with its proposal within Volume I - Executive Summary (4) - Award Documents/Certifications/ Representations.

Each Offeror must submit copies of its complete NDA with the following companies:

TBD

D. Basis for Award (Section M)

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose best overall proposal is determined to be most beneficial to the Government.

The Government anticipates awarding to a single Offeror in response to this solicitation.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, Past Performance and Small Business. For the Technical and Price factors, the Government will utilize the tradeoff process under the Best Value Continuum. The Technical Factor contains two (2) subfactors, “Product Demonstration” and “Project VISTA Innovative Technology”. Subfactor 1 “Product Demonstration” is more important than Subfactor 2 “Project VISTA Innovative Technology”. In the best value tradeoff, any offeror who successfully meets the requirements under Subfactor 1 “Product Demonstration” and Subfactor 2 “Project VISTA Innovative Technology” VISTAMAY receive an advantage during the best value tradeoff. An Offeror who does not meet the requirements of Subfactor 2 “Project VISTA Innovative Technology” will not be evaluated unfavorably.

The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. Both Technical and Cost are more important than Past Performance. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest prices offered or the highest technically rated proposals.

Past Performance factor will assess the degree of confidence in the Offeror. The Small Business factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. A minimum rating of Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical and Small Business factors, and a rating of Limited Confidence or higher for Past Performance to be considered eligible for award. Offeror’s proposed prices within the Price Factor must be equal to or less than the Government affordability values for each Delivery Order identified within the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet (Attachment 0003) to be considered eligible for award.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without conducting discussions with Offerors. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions as determined necessary or required in the sole discretion of the Government's Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Therefore, an Offerors initial proposal should contain its best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The PCO may limit the number of highly rated proposals in the competitive range if determined that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an effective competition can be conducted. Proposals with an omission, or unclear proposals, may be judged to mean the Offeror does not fully understand the requirements or understand what it takes to meet or exceed the requirements, regardless of the proposed price. In that case, the Offeror may be found Unacceptable and ineligible for award.

B. Factors to Be Evaluated

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposal. These proposals will be deemed the most advantageous to the Government based upon the evaluation factors described below.

Factor I – Technical

Factor II – Price

Factor III – Past Performance

Factor IV – Small Business

C. Evaluation Approach

1. Technical Factor. The Technical Factor will consist of two (2) Subfactors; Product Demonstration; and Project VISTA Innovative Technology.

a. SUBFACTOR 1 - Product Demonstration: The Government will evaluate the extent to which an Offeror’s solution is able to successfully complete the steps called out in the Product Demonstration Event Plan, specifically the demonstration test thread in Appendix A of the Product Demonstration Plan.

During the Product Demonstration, an Offerors’ solution is not required to successfully complete all requirements in the Product Demonstration Event Plan Appendix A. Offerors who successfully complete a higher number of steps will receive a higher rating; conversely, an Offeror's solution that accomplishes less of the Product Demonstration Event Plan steps will be rated lower. An Offeror's solution that does not present a viable solution to the Government may receive a combined technical/risk rating of Unacceptable (see Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings).

The Government will assign ratings in accordance with able 2 - Technical Adjectival Rating and Table 3 – Technical Risk Rating, based on an Offeror’s proposed solution to an individual step set forth in the Product Demonstration Event Plan Appendix A. To receive consideration for award, an Offeror must receive a technical an overall rating of Acceptable or better.

Table 2. Technical Adjectival Rating

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Table 3. Technical Risk Rating

a. SUBFACTOR 2 -Project VISTA Innovative Technology: The Government will evaluate the extent to which an Offeror’s solution incorporates and proves the innovation-driven technology developed through and funded by the Department of Army (DA) or Department of Defense (DoD) Research and Development Programs such as but not limited to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs, Other Transaction Agreements, and the DoD Mentor-Protégé Program.

The Government will refer to the list of potential technologies and businesses partners in Project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards (Attachment 0004) when evaluating the Project VISTA subfactor and information provided as part of the

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Offeror’s “Project VISTA Innovative Technology” submission. The project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards is not an all-inclusive list, but a list to provide industry awareness and access to potential partnership of current and past SIBR/STTR awards. The Government will validate any submission that proves the small business award exist if utilizing an award not listed Project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards (Attachment 0004). The Government will assign ratings in accordance with the Project VISTA Innovative Technology Rating (Table 4). An Offeror whose proposal includes one or more of the technologies identified in Project VISTA Past Army SIBR Awards (Attachment 0004) will receive a rating of “meets.” Any Offerors who do not successfully demonstrate existing innovative technology/does not propose for this subfactor will receive a rating of “does not meet (neutral).”

A rating of “does not meet (neutral)” will not negatively affect an offeror who does not “meet” or participate in this requirement.

Table 4. Project VISTA Innovative Technology Rating

2. Price Factor. The Government will evaluate for price reasonableness specifically using price analysis, and will analyze the line item pricing to determine if the prices are unbalanced. The TEP will be calculated IAW the TEP Worksheet attached to the solicitation (Attachment 0003), and will be utilized for the purpose of the Government’s award decision. The TEP will reflect the five (5) year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) base contract ordering period.

The analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR subsections 15.404-1 (b) and

(g) will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable, or that unbalanced pricing between contract line item numbers (CLINs) is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data shall be utilized. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report.

A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLIN or base and option period is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data shall be utilized. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report.

Rating Definition

Meets Proposal contains Project VISTA Innovative Technology

Does Not Meet (Neutral)

Proposal does not contain Project VISTA Innovative Technology. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Project VISTA Innovative Technology subfactor.

In order to determine that price is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404(b) and (g), price analysis for commercial items and analysis will be used to ensure unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring. Indications of potential unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report, and an offer may be rejected and ineligible for award if the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. In accordance with the instructions provided in the TEP worksheet, proposed unit prices will be weighted and added to arrive at a total evaluated price which will be used in the trade-off evaluation.

All of the pricing for each CLIN identified in the TEP Worksheet (Attachment 0003) will be incorporated into the base contract at the time of award. The prices incorporated into the contract shall be ceiling prices which the awardee shall not exceed, binding upon the awardee for the duration of the contract.

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts contained in the Draft SOW (Attachment 0001).

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the Contractor submitted information, as well as forms and questionnaires.

b. The Government will focus its evaluation on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractors’) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are anticipated to perform more than twenty percent (20%) of the proposed TEP (Attachment 3). A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process;

therefore, Offerors are reminded to include the most relevant recent efforts in the proposal. Recent efforts consist of those proposed by the Offeror that include performance of contracts occurring within thirty-six (36) months (three (3) years) of the date of issuance of this solicitation.