EPG OCI Phase I Instructions.docx

The use of an advisory multi-step Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) evaluation process in accordance with FAR 15.202 will be used for this requirement. Phase I will be an evaluation of any potential OCI concerning contractor affiliation with Army developmental testing. Based on this evaluation, the respondent shall be advised (a) that it does not have an OCI, (b) the mitigation plan is acceptable, or (c) that it has been determined that it does have an OCI that cannot be mitigated and therefore the respondent is unlikely to be a viable competitor. Phase II will be the evaluation of each Offeror’s full proposal. This two-step process will allow potential Offerors with OCIs that cannot be mitigated to make an informed decision whether preparing and submitting a full proposal is in their best interest. Any Offeror planning on submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation, Phase II, for USAEPG shall provide a Phase I OCI submission.

Offerors who fail to provide all requested information for their submission will be considered non-responsive to the Phase I evaluation and will not be eligible to participate in Phase II.

Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Regulation 73-1, System Test and Evaluation (T&E) Policy, dated 13 May 2019 establishes policy to ensure that contracts awarded in support of ATEC are free of actual or potential OCI. This policy is necessary because of ATEC's evolving common instrumentation effort, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of combined developmental and operational testing.

Section 5-5 of ATEC Reg. 73-1 states that “contractors working on any system development programs will be excluded from participating in ATEC T&E process support contracts where those contractors may be tasked to evaluate their own products or services or the products or services of a competitor. Alternatively, they may participate in ATEC process support contracts to the exclusion of working on conflicting system development programs.” This is the only reliable and effective means of avoiding violations 10 U.S.C. § 2399(d), Impartiality of Contractor Testing Personnel, which specifically prohibits system contractor involvement in the conduct of the operational test and evaluation. Consequently, system contractor personnel may not participate in Data Authentication Groups (DAGs) or Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) scoring conferences, nor act as data collectors, reducers, or processors for their own or a competitor’s products or services.

Therefore, with respect to ATEC test and evaluation service support, contracts will not be awarded for operational or developmental test and evaluation support to prime contractors or affiliates that are executing developmental programs. This is because test and evaluation support contractors may be required to evaluate their own (or their subcontractors/suppliers) or a competitor’s products or services.

1. In accordance with ATEC Reg. 73-1, System Test and Evaluation Policy dated 13 May 2019, contract support for developmental testing and other types of non-operational testing is subject to the OCI rules of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Subpart 209.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, and the decisions of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). These authorities recognize three categories of OCIs, one of which principally impacts ATEC: impaired objectivity OCIs. An impaired objectivity OCI “arises where a firm’s ability to render impartial advice to the government would be undermined by the firm’s competing interests.” Leidos, Inc., B-417994 (Dec. 17, 2019). Impaired objectivity OCIs can be difficult to mitigate, and, as a result, contractors working on any system development programs will be excluded from participating in the ATEC T&E process support contracts where those contractors may be tasked to evaluate their own products or services or the products or services of a competitor.

2. In order to prevent circumstances that place the Government at a disadvantage of an impaired objectivity (conflicting roles that may bias or appear to bias the judgment or objectivity of the Contractor or its participating organizations) some Contractors and their affiliates may be limited in their ability to participate in certain competitive opportunities.

An impaired objectivity OCI is possible when a Contractor or its affiliates:

a. Is responsible for assessing the performance of systems it has manufactured or developed (original equipment manufacturer, system developer, metal bender);

b. Is tasked to evaluate its own services or the products or services of a competitor;

c. Had/has program management input (i.e., Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) work, determining engineering or technical specifications for or drafting requirements of a system, evaluating or assessing another contractor’s proposal or performance);

d. Had/has financial or other interests at stake in the matter, so that a reasonable person might have concern that when performing work under the contract, the contractor may be improperly influenced by its own interests rather than the best interests of the Government; and

e. Is in a position to influence an acquisition.

3. In the context of impaired objectivity, OCI involvement is defined as any participation or connection to a project, contract, program, or product which may create actual or perceived OCI. This includes participation in contracts that provide engineering or technical support to sponsors or program offices responsible for developing such systems.

USAEPG’s mission is to plan, conduct, analyze and report the results of developmental testing in direct support of Army Futures Command through rigorous testing, while continuing to support Program Executive Offices and industry partners ensuring Soldiers receive systems that enable mission accomplishment on the battlefield. EPG also supports Operational Tests (OT) and rapid initiative, technical, or customer test and evaluations in support of our Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Network, Electronic Warfare (EW) and offensive cyber mission.

USAEPG offers a variety of test services to the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corp, non-DoD agencies and industry: Command, Control, Communications and Computing (C4) and tactical network systems testing, electronic warfare/offensive cyber, enterprise system testing, electromagnetic environmental effects (E3), including electromagnetic interference / electromagnetic compatibility (EMI/EMC), radio frequency electromagnetic environment (RF-EME), TEMPEST, telecommunication emission security and antenna testing; environmental effects; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare, and sensors; GPS and navigation systems, spectrum/frequency management; cybersecurity, logistics, safety/security, data processing and analysis, and technical reporting. Additional competencies include developmental, integrated, and operational intelligence and electronic warfare software, and biometric testing. Major support will be comprised of C4ISR testing functions, instrumentation development support, logistics and infrastructure support.

With the recent expansion into the integrated operational and developmental testing of intelligence, electronic warfare, and sensors testing, USAEPG has significantly amplified its obligation to remain OCI-free. Integrated testing increases the opportunities for operational tester and developmental tester organizations to make efficient and cost effective use of common support contracts, data collection, and instrumentation.

4. For the purpose of the Phase I evaluation, the documentation submitted by each Offeror shall include that of all subcontractors, joint ventures, teaming arrangements and other partners/affiliates. Subcontractor OCI is equivalent to a prime contractor OCI.

5. Phase I OCI documentation shall include the following for each Offeror and proposed subcontractor/affiliate:

a. Description of any involvement in the development of any DoD system or support to any Program Office with details including contract numbers and Contracting Office/ Contracting Officer’s Representative points of contact; period of performance dates; programs and systems supported that are possibly not noted in the contract/task order PWS; and a synopsis of the PWS to include a list of related deliverables.

b. Discussion of any competitions for developmental work or Program Office support in which the company is involved, as either a prime or sub, regardless of the stage of the acquisition.

c. Rationale for why the cited work/support does not create an OCI. Supporting documentation for the assertion that there is no OCI is vital to facilitate the Government's evaluation of an OCI.

d. Description of the process and frequency with which the company performs an enterprise review across all business units to identify and vet or prevent future OCIs as either a prime or subcontractor.

e. Your company’s mitigation plan for any actual or potential OCI other than those that would be considered Impaired Objectivity OCI as per ATEC Reg 73-1 an Impaired Objectivity OCI cannot be mitigated.

f. Electronic copy of your company's latest annual report to stockholders since this document discusses the company's involvement in various programs.

6. Offerors who fail to provide all requested information for their submission will be considered non-responsive to the Phase I evaluation and will not be eligible to participate in Phase II. There is no page limitation.

7. The Contracting Officer will evaluate statements provided by each Offeror (and its affiliates) as to the system developmental and manufacturing work the company has performed; involvement in program management activities; and the Offeror’s (and its affiliates) financial and other interest. The Contracting Officer will further evaluate the submittals considering internal and external sources of knowledge as to the company's program support and determine on a case-by-case basis whether an OCI exists. If an Offeror is advised its subcontractor(s) have an OCI, the Offeror will have a limited amount of time in Phase I to provide the Government a replacement subcontractor(s) for review. If the Offeror is advised the replacement(s) has an OCI, there will be no further opportunities to provide subcontractor(s) for review. Any communications that occur are strictly limited to OCI issues of the Offeror and its subcontractors. This will not constitute exchanges under the provisions of FAR 15.306.

8. As a result of the OCI evaluations, the Government will notify each respondent in writing that based on the current information as submitted within this evaluation: a) the team it has proposed does not appear to have an OCI at this point in time, or b) its mitigation plan is acceptable, or c) it has a potential OCI that falls under Reg. 73-1, System Test and Evaluation Policy dated 19 May 2019 and that the Offeror is unlikely to be a viable competitor. The Government will advise respondents considered not to be viable competitors of the general basis for that opinion.

The Government will inform all respondents that, notwithstanding the advice provided by the Government in response to their submissions, they may participate in the resultant acquisition.