ETMS2 RFP Section L and M.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Army Enterprise Staff Management System

(AESMS)

Enterprise Task Management Software Solution

(ETMS2)

Request For Proposal Sections L & M

Version 1.0 May 14, 2020 Draf t

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Draf

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page i

DOCUMENT CHANGE HISTORY

Version Description of Change Author Date

1.0 Initial Document Mat Conway 5/7/2020

PREPARATION AND APPROVAL

Prepared By:

Mathew Conway, Project Management Specialist, AESMS Date

Approved By:

Babette R. Murphy, Contracting Officer, Army Contracting Command Rock Island

Date

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page ii

Table of Contents

SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

1. Proposal Submission Instructions

2. Proposal Structure Instructions and Format

3. Proposal Instructions

4. Volume II-Submission of Technical Approach Proposal

Transition:

5. Volume III-Submission of Management Approach Proposal

6. Volume IV-Submission of Experience Proposal

7. Volume V-Submission of Quality of Control Proposal

8. Volume VI-Submission of Past Performance Proposal

9. Volume VI-Submission Cost/Price Proposal

10. Government Furnished Equipment / Information / Property

11. Additional Information:

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. General

Competition and Basis for Award

2. Factors to Be Evaluated

Relative Order of Importance Terminology

3. Evaluation Approach

Initial Considerations

Technical Approach

Management Approach

Experience

Quality Control Approach

Past Performance

Cost/Price

4. Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price and Non Past Performance Factors

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 1

SECTION L:

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

1. Proposal Submission Instructions

1. These instructions describe the type and extent of information required and emphasizes the significant areas to be addressed in the proposal. Review the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in this Request for Proposal (RFP) for specific information that must be addressed within the proposal. Include sufficient information to enable the Government evaluators to make a determination relative to the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements in each of the evaluated areas. It is the Government’s intent to execute one (1) Contract to a qualified Offeror.

2. In accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition the Government intends to execute a Contract without discussions with Offerors. Offerors are cautioned to examine this RFP in its entirety and to ensure that its proposal contains all necessary information, provides all required documentation, and is complete in all respects. The Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information nor does the Government assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. During the evaluation process the Government may request clarifications as needed. Clarifications do not constitute discussions and an Offeror is not allowed to change its proposal in response to a request for clarification. The Government reserves the right to open discussions if needed.

3. The proposal shall be valid for a minimum of 120 days from the required submission date.

4. The Offeror shall submit its proposal through Electronic Submission directly to the Contracting Office via email to Contracting Officer, Ms. Babette R. Murphy, babette.r.murphy.civ@mail.mil, and Contract Specialist, Ms. Jennifer Smith, Jennifer.l.smith974.civ@mail.mil.

5. To avoid rejection of an offer, Offeror must make every effort to ensure their electronic submission is virus free. Submissions or portions thereof submitted which cause the automatic system to detect the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as “unreadable.”

6. Offers, modifications, revisions, or withdrawals of offers received after the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

7. All questions pertaining to this RFP shall be submitted directly to the contracting officer and the contract specialist via email. The Offeror may submit questions up to three (3) days after the RFP is posted. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all questions submitted by Offerors, but will consider them and incorporate changes into the RFP as deemed necessary. Any questions that are answered shall be provided to all Offerors.

8. Reference: RFP Section ___, Paragraph(s) ____, Page(s) ____.Question_______ Answer_____

Your questions shall be submitted in the format above in an Excel spreadsheet titled “Request for Proposal W52P1J-20-R-ETMS Questions”.

Draf t mailto:babette.r.murphy.civ@mail.mil mailto:Jennifer.l.smith974.civ@mail.mil

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 2

2. Proposal Structure Instructions and Format

1. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. To be considered for award, the Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated.

2. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with proposal preparation instructions; resulting in no further consideration for award purposes.

3. The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government requirements, but 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 will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

4. Offerors who include in their proposals data they do by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall Mark the title page with the following legend:

• “This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used or disclosed--in whole or in part--for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a task order is awarded to this Offeror as a result of--or in connection with--the submission of this data, and the Government incorporates the proposal as part of the award, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data. Also, this restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to the restriction is contained in sheets (insert numbers or other identification of sheets)"; and

Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

• "Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation."

The Government assumes no liability for disclosure or use of unmarked data and may use or disclose the data for any purpose. Unless restricted, information submitted in response to this request may become subject to disclosure to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC. 551).

5. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read and will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may also be established for responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the notifications forwarding the ENs to the Offerors.

6. Page Size and Format A page is defined as each face of an 8.5 x 11 inches sheet of paper containing information. Each volume shall be clearly identified and the text shall begin at the top of each page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 3 identified by the complete company name, date, and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents shall be included. The cover page and table of contents are excluded from the page limitations. The files shall be Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx file extensions) and utilize the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch Gutter = 0 inches From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches Page Size, Width = 8.5 inches Page Size, Height = 11 inches Paragraphs = Separated by at least one blank line

Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx file extensions) files shall use the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch Gutter = 0 inches From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches Page Size, Width (Maximum) = 11 inches Page Size, Height (Maximum) = 14 inches

When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages.

Pages shall be single spaced. The font type shall be Arial and text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Pages shall be numbered sequentially within each volume. These page format restrictions shall apply also to responses to ENs. Page limitations shall be calculated as though the document were printed as a hard copy proposal.

Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Electronic foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point font size. For electronic submissions, page limitations shall be calculated as though the document were printed as a hard copy proposal.

Each volume shall contain a Glossary/Acronym List of all abbreviations/acronyms used and a definition for each within that volume. Glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Within a proposal volume, cross-referencing is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

Cost or pricing information of any kind shall NOT be included in any volume except the Cost and Pricing Proposal.

Number of Copies and Format. The Proposal shall be submitted in electronic (searchable) format to the Points of Contact identified in Section 1.4. Self-

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 4 extracting .exe files, hyperlinks, and ZIP files are not acceptable. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office or searchable Adobe Acrobat (.pdf).

3. Proposal Instructions The proposal shall be prepared in a clear, legible, practical manner. In addition, the Offeror shall write the proposal in English and must be specific and complete as described in these instructions. In the event of a conflict between the Offeror's proposal and the RFP, the RFP shall take precedence.

Proposal Submission Chart

# Item Description Location Page Limit 1 Offeror Name and RFP number Include Offeror Name and RFP number in all pages of proposal submission

Header N/A

2 The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available)

In Cover letter or Title Page of Proposal

3 Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal

Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office

In Cover letter or Title Page of Proposal

1 (However Offeror includes additional 1 page to document evidence of authority)

4 A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the RFP

In Cover letter or Title Page of Proposal

5 Number of days Valid (Minimum 120 days)

In Cover letter or Title Page of Proposal

6 RFP Letter and all amendments included

Acknowledgement of the RFP and all Amendments

Volume I of Proposal- Contract Documentati on

No Page Limit

7 Electronic Representations and Certifications signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed Task Order

Section K and from

SAM

Volume I of Proposal- Contract Documentati on

No Page Limit

8 Registered in SAM and includes CAGE Code

Use of CAGE indicates registration in SAM

Volume I of Proposal- Contract Documentati on

No Page Limit Draf

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 5

9 Factor 1- Technical Proposal Volume II of Proposal- Technical Proposal and Certifications

20 page limit (Certifications not included in page count)

10 Factor 2- Management Approach Volume III of Proposal- Management Approach

10 page limit

11 Factor 3- Volume IV of Proposal

5 page limit

12 Factor 4- Volume V of Proposal

5 page limit

13 Factor 5- Volume VI of Proposal

5 page limit

14 Factor 6-Price Proposal Volume III of Proposal

No page limits

Please use the following File Names:

CompanyName_Cover Letter_RFP_W52P1J-20-R-ETMS CompanyName_Volume I_Contract Documentation_RFP_ W52P1J-20-R-ETMS CompanyName_Volume II_Technical_RFP_ W52P1J-20-R-ETMS CompanyName_VolumeII_Technical_REDACTED_RFP_ W52P1J-20-R-ETMS CompanyName_Volume III_Cost/Price Proposal_RFP_ W52P1J-20-R-ETMS

4. Volume II-Submission of Technical Approach Proposal The Offeror shall provide a complete and detailed description of its approach to executing the PWS and shall include any assumptions associated with the proposed Technical Factor.

At a minimum, the proposal must convey a thorough demonstration and understanding of work and its ability to adhere to the establishment of government accounts, provide portal access, and required visibility into usage and billing contained in this RFP to accomplish all aspects of the PWS. The contractor shall describe any value-added services and resources, (services, support, staff, tools, and other assets) and describe the specific role as they support these requirements. The Technical Approach Factor is not to exceed 20 pages.

The vendor shall describe, in detail, their technical approach and overall ability to deliver task and correspondence management Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) to myriad customers across the field of Department of Defense (DoD) operations. This description shall, at a minimum, specifically address the approach towards providing a connection to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Correspondence and Task Management System (CATMS), meeting customer requirements for deploying and training personnel in the use of the task and correspondence management software. Draf

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 6

Transition:

Any resulting award shall contain Transition-In and Transition-Out phases. Transition-In and Transition-Out efforts shall be priced separately for the periods specified in this RFP.

The vendor’s Transition-In Plan shall:

1. Be achievable,

2. Discuss the approach to incorporating Government-specified associated efforts which may already be underway,

3. Assume custody of configuration control documents, and

4. Take physical responsibility for Government-specified items.

Your company is to provide a plan for 30 days of incoming transition. This plan is to be submitted as part of your Non-Cost/Price quote (subject to applicable overall Non- Cost/Price quote page limits).

The Transition-In Plan shall include:

1. Coordination with designated Government representatives,

2. Review, evaluation, and transition of current support services,

3. Transition of historical data to vendor systems,

4. Attend government-required training and certification processes,

5. Orientation phase and program to introduce Government personnel, programs, and users to the vendor's team, tools, methodologies, and business processes,

6. Distribution of vendor-purchased Government-owned assets, including facilities, equipment, furniture, telephone lines, computer equipment, etc.,

7. Transfer of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Government

Furnished Information (GFI), and Government inventory management assistance,

8. Applicable briefing and personnel in-processing procedures,

9. Coordinate with the Government to issue and account for Common Access

Cards (CACs), Building Passes, and security access codes.

5. Volume III-Submission of Management Approach Proposal The proposal shall provide written information that shall describe the vendor management approach, including a staffing strategy that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement.

As an attachment to their Volume III submission vendors shall include a draft Program Management Plan (PMP). The draft PMP shall document how the vendor will meet and comply with the requirements established in the PWS. The draft PMP shall not exceed 5 pages.

The vendor shall explain how their chain-of-command practices will contribute in a positive manner to ensuring completion of all tasks (particularly emphasizing communications, accounting, crosschecks on schedule early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities).

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 7

The vendor shall discuss their approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing all their Subcontractors.

6. Volume IV-Submission of Experience Proposal The proposal shall provide written information which effectively demonstrates the vendor’s relevant experience identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the PWS. The proposal shall provide evidence of the vendor experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what their company has done, not how well it was accomplished) in performing proposal processes and procedures. The vendor proposal shall demonstrate the amount of relevant corporate experience the vendor possesses and illustrate the amount of relevant experience possessed by the proposed Key Personnel. The vendor shall provide evidence that the organization has current capabilities for assuring performance of this requirement. Evidence of supporting subcontractors, consultants, and business partners will be considered. Experience shall show:

1. Appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members and

2. Quality and effectiveness insofar as the allocation of personnel and resources.

For all individuals quoted to fill Key Personnel positions identified, your company shall submit resumes. Resumes of Key Personnel do not count against the page totals. These resumes shall include a list of relevant training, education, and certifications. Proof of such may be requested prior to beginning work. Additional resumes may be submitted to demonstrate overall corporate experience.

The vendor shall provide a team with substantive experience delivering task management SaaS, training and support to U.S. Government organizations located in the continental and outside of the continental United States (CONUS/OCONUS). The vendor shall include verifiable examples of personnel conducting software installation and maintenance, training, and help desk efforts.

7. Volume V-Submission of Quality of Control Proposal The proposal shall include as an attachment to its volume V proposal, a Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QCP shall document how the vendor will meet and comply with the quality standards established in this PWS. At a minimum, the QCP must include a self-inspection plan, an internal staffing plan, and an outline of the vendor’s procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and any other requirements set forth in this RFP.

8. Volume VI-Submission of Past Performance Proposal The vendor shall submit a list of at least three (3) but no more than five (5) references of relevant contracts/orders within the past three (3) years. The contracts/orders may be past or current as long as the performance did not end more than three (3) years prior to the due date for the submission of the task order quote, and the contracts/orders may have been with Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers.

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 8

1. Reference Content: It is the vendor’s responsibility to provide valid, current, and verifiable references. References must include:

Name of the Organization that will be providing the reference, Name of the Point-of-Contact (POC), POC Telephone Number, POC Email address, Contract Number, Period-of-Performance, and Scope-of-Work.

2. Points-of-Contact (POCs): The above POCs must be either Government personnel (civil service or military) or employees of private sector clients (such as public or private sector medical facilities) with whom the vendor has provided services. Information provided by or for POCs who work directly for your company, or indirectly (i.e., in a prime or subcontractor relationship), will NOT be considered relevant.

3. Subcontractor Consent: If a subcontracting relationship is quoted, the vendor shall submit the consent of its quoted principal subcontractor(s) to disclose their past performance information to the vendor (Prime Contractor) along with the vendor submission. If the quoted principal subcontractor(s) consent is not provided at the time of the vendor quote submission, the past performance information for the principal subcontractor(s) may not be considered by the Government in assessing the vendor’s past performance.

4. Information from Other Sources: The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. The vendor shall ensure that contact information for designated references is accurate and up-to-date.

9. Volume VI-Submission Cost/Price Proposal

1. The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The FFP

CLIN structure is found on the Pricing Matrix provided at Attachment xxx.

2. Offeror’s proposal shall be based on Attachment 0001 (the PWS requirements).

A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror's best offer in response to this

RFP.

3. In completing Attachment xxx (Pricing Matrix), Offeror must comply with the instructions below, along with more specific requirements found on the Instructions tab of said Attachment xxx. Failure of Offeror to comply with these instructions may result in Offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration of award.

• Attachment xxx is an Excel file with certain locked cells that Offeror may not unlock, unprotect, or change. Offeror’s proposal must include Attachment xxx in the same Excel format (i.e., not a PDF). Offeror must populate all yellow highlighted cells. For areas that Offeror intends to propose no cost or no discount, Offeror shall populate those applicable cells with a zero (0).

• Offeror shall enter its full legal name on each tab in the cell highlighted in yellow.

• Offeror shall enter its CAGE Code on each tab in the cell highlighted in yellow.

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 9

• On the Pricing Matrix tab, in the cells highlighted in yellow, Offeror shall enter its proposed prices for associated xxx for the Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, Option Period 3, and Option Period 4. The Total Proposed Price is automatically calculated as the sum of the total price of all services for the Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, Option Period 3, Option Period 4, and the Option to Extend Service for 6 months.

• The vendor shall submit a completed copy of the ETMS2 Contract Catalog to support the additional ordering of software and services beyond the base award.

The ETMS2 Contract Catalog is designed to capture labor categories and rates, service costs, and costs and cumulative discounts for software licenses for the life of the contract. The vendor’s completed ETMS2 Contract Catalog will identify the costs for each identified category by contract year to reflect any inflation or discounts. The costs in the catalog will be used to develop pricing for future orders under this contract.

4. The Government is not under any obligation to correct proposal errors or omissions. Those proposals with errors/omissions, where the Government is unable to ascertain the Offeror's intent without meaningful exchanges or clarifications, may be removed from further consideration.

5. All prices shall be stated in U.S. dollars.

6. The price volume has no page limit.

10. Government Furnished Equipment / Information / Property If applicable, a listing of Government Furnished Equipment / Information / Property shall be included as a separate attachment to this RFP. Vendors must include as an attachment to their Non-Cost/Price quote, a listing of any Government Furnished Equipment/Information/Property or Contractor-Acquired – Government-Owned Property (CAP), not already identified but necessary to perform the PWS requirements. This attachment shall include any Contractor-purchased or acquired/Government-owned items. The attachment must include the following information: serial/asset tag number, item description, quantity, and current location. Detailed bills-of-materials (BoMs) shall be submitted along with the quote, noting item numbers, prices, and need-by dates for all required GFE.

11. Additional Information:

1. Alternate Quotes: Alternate quotes will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. Key Personnel: The following positions are estimated to be filled by Key

Personnel:

Program Manager – Senior Project Manager – Senior

Depending upon the staffing plan, the quote may have different positions to be filled by Key Personnel. For all Key Personnel positions, the vendor shall provide an attachment naming the individuals quoted to fill Key Personnel positions along with a description of the RFP section that each individual is quoted to perform. Also, for all individuals quoted to fill Key Personnel positions, the vendor shall submit resumes. Please do not submit

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 10 resumes for all labor quoted, only for those Key Personnel identified. For those individuals quoted as Key Personnel who are not current company employees, a signed letter-of-intent shall be included.

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 11

SECTION M:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. General Competition and Basis for Award

1. The Government is conducting this competition on a full and open basis in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.100 and 15.101- 1 Best Value Continuum, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and the Army Supplement to the DoD Source Selection Procedures A single Contract award will be made to the Offeror who is determined to be the best value to the Government IAW the criteria set forth in Section M of this solicitation. Awarded contract will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) consisting of one

(1) base year, and four (4) one-year options.

2. Contract award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the non-price and price related factors.

3. As this is a best value procurement, the Government reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror other than the lowest priced Offeror or the highest rated proposal. In the event, if the non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two of more Offerors, the Price factor may become the determining factor for award.

4. Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a “price/technical tradeoff” analysis of price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

5. To receive consideration for award, an adjectival rating of at least “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor(s) 1-Technical Approach; 2-Management Approach;

3-Experience; and 4-Quality Control Approach. A rating of at least Satisfactory much be achieved for Factor 5-Past Performance. The adjectival ratings are defined below. An award will not be made to any Offeror that receives a deficiency in any factor.

6. All proposals which are compliant will be subject to evaluations by a Government Source Selection Team. Proposal content will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the solicitation are satisfied. Assumptions will not be made by Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror’s submitted proposal, with the exception of Past Performance where data extrinsic to an Offeror’s proposal may be evaluated.

7. Contract award will be determined based upon the evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation criteria identified below.

8. Consistent with FAR 52.215-1; Section (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). However, if determined to

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 12 be necessary by the Government, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals may be established, FAR 15.306(c). The Government may engage in communications under FAR 15.306(b) as necessary to determine which Offerors shall remain and be included within the competitive range. The competitive range, if necessary, will be established taking into account that a single award will be made. Any proposal which does not have a realistic chance of receiving award will not be included in the competitive range.

9. In the event a competitive range is established, the Government will conduct discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range. Discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306(d). At the conclusion of discussions, the Government will request final and revised proposal revision from all remaining Offerors. Offerors determined not within the competitive range will be notified of this decision, IAW FAR 15.503. If during discussions it is determined that an Offeror’s proposal shall no longer be included in the competitive range, the Government reserves the right to eliminate the proposal from consideration for award and will notify the Offeror of this decision IAW FAR 15.503.

2. Factors to Be Evaluated Factor 1- Technical Approach

Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Factor 2- Management Approach Factor 2 is less important than Factor 1, but more important than Factor 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Factor 3- Experience Factor 3 is significantly less important than Factor 1 and slightly less important than Factor 2 but more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4- Quality Control Approach Factor 4 is significantly less important than Factor 1 and slightly less important than Factor 3 but more important than Factor 5.

Factor 5- Past Performance Factor 5 is significantly less important than Factor 1 and slightly less important than Factor 4 but more important than Factor 6.

Factor 6- Price When Factor 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 6- Price.

Relative Order of Importance Terminology In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the Government, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 13

Significantly more important- The factor is substantially more important than another Factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

More important- The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

3. Evaluation Approach The Government may render any proposal unacceptable which:

• Merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms without support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

• Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements in relation to the proposed prices.

• Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15, or is unbalanced as to prices for the first ordering period and for subsequent ordering periods where prices are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

• Fails to meaningfully respond to the Instructions specified in section L of this solicitation.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between proposed Technical Approach, Management Approach, Experience, Quality Control Approach, Past Performance, and Price submitted, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal due an Offeror’s misunderstanding of the work required or an inability to perform any resultant work under the contract. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly IAW its’ content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

Initial Considerations All proposals will be initially evaluated for compliance with the instructions in Section L of this solicitation.

Offerors who submitted proposals IAW instructions and have met the compliance requirements, will have its proposal evaluated by an evaluation team. The Government may engage in clarifications and/or communications with Offerors IAW FAR 15.306(a) and (b), however, as provided previously, the Government does not intend to hold discussions.

Technical Approach This section of the proposal will be used to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the tasks to be performed, as well as their technical approach and methodology for accomplishing tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS.

The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of a reasonable, well-thought-out

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 14 approach, likely to yield the required results within the required timeframe. Specifically;

the degree to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the effort required for each site, as well as how the vendor plans and executes the deployment of software and training.

The Government will assess the Offerors Technical Approach proposal and attachments for feasibility, service level performance, xx, xx, IAW:

1. The proposed approach is feasible and the end results are achievable and provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion

2. The proposed performance is based upon proven products and techniques to deliver a Commercially Operated task management SaaS

3. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror understands all aspects involved in meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

4. The Government will evaluated proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. It will also evaluate proposals for unique, creative and innovative methods, processes, and/or solutions that are beneficial to the Government and demonstrate responsiveness to customer needs.

5. Adequacy of Response/Completeness-The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

Management Approach The draft Program Management Plan (PMP) will be used to assess the degree to which the vendor demonstrates their clear understanding of the labor skills mix required to deliver task and correspondence management software, training, and support to multiple end-user site locations, both CONUS and OCONUS on-time and on-budget.

Experience The quote will be evaluated on the degree to which the quote reflects current capabilities and corporate/staff experience (including Subcontractors) identical to, similar to, or related to the requirement to deliver task and correspondence management software, training, and support to multiple end-user site locations, both CONUS and OCONUS on-time and on-budget.. Additionally, the vendor shall be evaluated on the amount of relevant experience possessed by quoted Key Personnel.

Quality Control Approach The vendor quality control approach will be evaluated for the degree to which their quoted methodology identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 15

Past Performance Past performance is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements IAW the PWS and contract terms based on the Offerors demonstrated record of recent, relevant performance.

1. Past performance will be evaluated for the Offeror. The Offeror’s recent and relevant projects/contracts will be assessed to determine the Offeror’s Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

2. The Government may consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower Overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

3. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral) Past Performance Rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for this factor.

4. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the Government by the Offeror.

5. In performing the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor, relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings which will be used in the evaluation of past performance information is as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Narrative Description

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 16

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Narrative Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral )

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

No Confidence

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

6. The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror, but will make attempts to interview all points of contact identified. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The Government is not obligated to make any further requests for the required information.

Cost/Price Cost/price will be evaluated an evaluated factor, however, it will not be adjectively scored.

The FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate and access the Price factor to determine price reasonableness.

Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

The Government will evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government may use any one or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2) to determine the price fair and reasonable. The Government expects adequate price competition (FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), therefore, a comparison will be made of total evaluated prices. However, the Government also reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer.

As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any unbalances pricing.

IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as follows:

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 17

1. The ETMS2 Pricing Model (Attachment xx) Tabs labeled Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4, showcase CLINs 1-10 which represent a proposed FFP Extended Price. Each Tab shall sum the Extended Prices for CLINs xxx to obtain the Total for each of the Period of Performance Years.

2. The ETMS2 Pricing Model (Attachment xx) Summary Tab sums the Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 by Extended Prices per CLIN. The evaluated price will be the total of all the priced line items for the basic task and all optional tasks over the entire performance period.

4. Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price and Non Past Performance Factors

A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to Factors 1-4 of the Offeror’s proposal.

A combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of a proposal. The Government will use the following adjectival rating definitions in the evaluation of Factors 1-4 IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures. Each Factor will receive a technical/risk rating. The ratings are identified below:

Rating: Definition and Criteria:

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

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

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

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

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

ETMS2 RFP Sections L&M Page 18

Term Definition

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

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

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

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

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

4. Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price and Non Past Performance Factors