N2ITSM_Site_Visit.pptx

SITE VISIT RFP FA2517-15-R-7001

NORAD-USNORTHCOM Information Technology Service Management (N2ITSM) Support This Briefing is Classified

UNCLASSIFIED

Ms. Karen Holderfield, Procurement Contracting Officer Mr. Thomas B. Youngs, Deputy Chief, Plans and Programs Division

27 April 2016

Agenda 0800 Hrs - Security and Sign-in at East Entrance 0845 Hrs - NORAD-USNORTHCOM (N-NC) Welcome and Introduction, Overview, Site Visit Purpose, and Ground Rules 0900 Hrs - Small Business Office NAICS, Limitation of Subcontracting, and Teaming Arrangements 0915 Hrs - 21 Contracting Squadron (21 CONS) Acquisition Strategy, Request for Proposal, and Acquisition Timeline 1015 Hrs - Break 1020 hrs - Portal Entry for the PL1 Basement Area Tour Industry will be split up so the main floors can be toured at the same time 1030 hrs - Site Visit Two areas will be visited 1230 hrs - Out processing Badges / Departure

UNCLASSIFIED

N-NC

Welcome and Introduction N2ITSM Overview Provide support for the NORAD and USNORTHCOM Information Technology Services Management (N2ITSM) to include classified and unclassified data, Voice, Video networks Specific functions include: Service Desk, Operations Management, Technical Management Services provided apply to current systems, systems in place but not accepted, systems approved but not installed, any new systems installed through approved projects Site Visit Purpose Show a few N2ITSM locations and operations Provide a Request for Proposal Briefing Facilitate networking opportunities for Industry Prime/Sub Site Visit Ground Rules No Cell phone/No Cameras/No Electronic Devices Do not wander around, stay with the group All questions and concerns shall be directed to 21 Contracting Squadron Questions will not be answered during this event, all questions must be submitted using the RFP attachment 17 no later than Friday 29 April 2016 12:00 PM (MT) to karen.holderfield@us.af.mil and copy christian.freire@us.af.mil

Small Business Office

NAICS

A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the most part, size standards are the average annual receipts or the average employment of a firm. How to calculate average annual receipts and average employment of a firm can be found in 13 CFR § 121.104 and 13 CFR § 121.106, respectively.

SBA also includes the table of size standards in the Small Business Size Regulations, 13 CFR 121.201. This table includes size standards that have changed since the last publication of 13 CFR 121. (Effective 26 February 2016)

For more information on these size standards, please visit http://www.sba.gov/size.

If you have any other questions concerning size standards, contact a Size Specialist at your nearest SBA Government Contracting Area Office or contact the Office of Size standards by email at sizestandards@sba.gov or by phone at (202) 205-6618.

FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting Applies to contracts set-aside for small business concerns or 8(a) concerns At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern (The concern is the prime contractor) Contracting will evaluate this requirement on an annual basis (Section H.1)

Teaming Arrangements (FAR 9.601) Traditional Prime Contractor and Subcontractor Relationships Joint Ventures (13 CFR 121.103(h)) Supports use of JVs where this business decision is beneficial to small businesses Size standards applied to individual concerns, not the combined assets, or the joint venture if:

A revenue based size standard applies to the requirement and the estimated contract value, including options, exceeds one-half the applicable size standard.

Acquisition Strategy Non-commercial Requirement Competitive Small Business Set Aside Single Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract 5-year Base Ordering Period (CLIN 0001-0011) 6-month optional ordering periods (CLIN 1001-1011) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Labor Cost Reimbursable (CR) for Travel, ODC, and Contingencies Two Task Orders TO 1 Network O&M : Total Estimated Budget is $67M TO 2 ODC Mexico : Total Estimated Budget is $ 5M Initial 60-Day Phase-in/out Period $99M Program Ceiling Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) ISO 9000 and CMMI Level II at Prime Level

Request for Proposal

SECTION A

Solicitation FA2517-15-R-7001 Question due 29 April 2016 12:00 PM (MDT) Proposal due 23 May 2016 1:00 PM (MDT)

SECTION B

Minimum $3.5K Maximum $75M Guarantee $25K

PPT – Relevancy criteria

- Evaluation at the contract level

Conversions

SECTION C

Performance Work Statements (PWS) are located in Attachments 1-3 Additional Task Orders (TOs) will have their own PWS

SECTION D

As specified in each individual TO

SECTION E

Each TO will include specific Inspection and Acceptance information. Inspection and Acceptance will be accomplished by the appointed TO Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

Authority for almost all Inspection and Acceptance activities flows from the identified clauses.

SECTION F

5-year Base Ordering Period (CLINs 0001-0011) 28 November 2016 – 27 November 2021 6-month optional ordering periods (CLINs 1001-1011) 28 November 2021 – 27 May 2022 In the event awards falls after this date, the ordering periods may be adjusted by amendment The total duration of the N2ITSM ID/IQ contract inclusive of all options and extensions will not exceed 60 months (FAR 52.217-8) Each TO will specify the place of performance, period of performance, and may include options Majority of on-site performance is expected to occur on Peterson Air Force Base

SECTION G

Procuring Contracting Officer Ms. Karen Holderfield, 719-556-0050 Karen.holderfield@us.af.mil Wide Area Work Flow Payment Instructions 21 CONS will be responsible for all preaward and administration activities associated with TOs

SECTION H

Limitation on Subcontracting Changes/Additions to Subcontractors International Traffic in Arms Regulations Registration Remedies for Breach by the Government

SECTION I

Provision and Clauses applicable to the ID/IQ

SECTION J

Attachments 1-20 Appendices A-D

SECTION K

Annual Representations and Certifications

SECTION L

Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF 33 Electronic submissions via email or fax will NOT be accepted Non-conformance with RFP instructions may result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned that their proposal should reflect their best efforts.

Offeror's proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes: Price, Technical Capability, and Past Performance

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

VOLUME NUMBER OF COPIES MAXIMUM NUMBER

OF PAGES

3 copies and 1 CD electronic copy The Offeror shall provide not more than five (5) total performance citations (not to exceed a total of 10 pages in length for all citations submitted. At least two (2) of the citations must be of the Prime.

Volume I – Price

SECTION A – PRICING

Tab 1: Labor Rate Matrix under N2ITSM Pricing Attachment. Offerors shall provide labor rates for the entire N2ITSM contract ordering period. The rates shall be used on Task Order (TO) 1, TO 2, and all future TOs. See RFP Attachment 16 - N2ITSM Pricing – TAB 4 Labor Matrix.

Tab 2: Total Combined Pricing for Network O&M (TO 1) and Office of Defense Coordination (ODC) Mexico (TO 2): Offerors shall provide individual pricing for Network O&M and ODC Mexico, and a combined total pricing for both TOs. The Total Combined Pricing includes the price of all services (CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0008, 0009), Contingency (CLIN 0006), N2ITSM Projects (CLIN 0007), Travel (CLIN 0010), and ODC (CLIN 0011) for the base year and all option year periods to include the 6-month extension period.

Tab 3: Contingency Rates: Offerors shall provide a fully burdened Fixed-Price Rate for Contingency Services as outlined in RFP Attachment 2, Network O&M PWS. This fully burdened Fixed-Price Rate will be used in future Contingency TOs. The labor rates shall match to the rates used in TO 1 and TO 2. See RFP Attachment 16 - N2ITSM Pricing – TAB 6 Pre-priced Services.

SECTION B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Tab 1: Completed Standard Form 33 Tab 2: Acknowledgement of all Amendments (if applicable) Tab 3: Representation and Certifications (Prime) Tab 4: Professional Compensation Plan Tab 5: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Volume II – Technical Capability Tab 1: Executive Summary and Authorized Point of Contact (Tab 1 is not included in the 40 page count): Provide a one (1) page summary and authorized personnel who can obligate and negotiate for your company.

Tab 2: Table of Contents (Tab 2 is not included in the 40 page count). Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

Tab 3: Glossary (Tab 3 is not included in the 40 page count). Include a glossary of all acronyms and Industry terminology used.

Tab 4: Teaming Arrangements (Tab 4 is not included in the 40 page count): Provide complete information as to the arrangement and relationship and copies of any Teaming Arrangement/Agreements. FAR 9.104 will be used to determine responsibility for Teaming Arrangement /Agreements. Subcontractor management will be IAW FAR 52.244-2.

Tab 5: Technical Capability (Limited to 40 Pages). Technical Capability shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to address the Offerors response to the Technical Factors and Sub-Factors described below. Offeror’s responses shall be organized as follows:

Sub-Factor 1: Program and Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Sub-Factor 2: Service Operations and Stability (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Sub-Factor 3: Service Transition and Support (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Sub-Factor 4: Service Optimization (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Sub-Factor 5: Continuous Service Improvement (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Volume III – Past Performance Tab 1: Authorized Point of Contact (POC): Provide contact information for the Offerors Past Performance POC. This POC is someone within the Offeror’s company that is able to respond to questions or concerns regarding Past Performance.

Tab 2: Business Relationships. The Offeror shall identify all Prime and Sub-prime organizations. Submission of past business relationships shall be made via EZ Source. Submission of PPI shall be made using the Past Performance Tool (RFP Attachment 10 – Past Performance Information Tool).

Tab 3: Past Performance Contract Citations. The Offeror shall provide five (5) total recent and relevant performance citations for the proposed Contractor team in accordance with the information below. At least two (2) of the citations must be of the Prime.

Tab 4: Past Performance Questionnaires and Point of Contact Listing. Offerors will send out the Past Performance Questionnaire (See RFP Attachment 12 - Past Performance Questionnaire) to each reference identified in the Past Performance Volume.

Tab 5: Consent Letters. Subcontractor PPI cannot be disclosed to the Prime Offeror without the Subcontractor’s consent. Provide a letter in the Past Performance Volume (RFP Attachment 14 - Consent Letters) from all Subcontractors consenting to the release of their PPI to the Prime Contractor.

Tab 6: Client Authorization Letters. In the event that commercial contracts are presented as Source of Information, the Offeror shall issue a client authorization letter with the request to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire. The Offeror shall follow the guidance provided in the sample client authorization letter RFP Attachment 15 - Client Authorization Letters.

Tab 7: Organizational Structure Change History.

SECTION M

Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value Source Selection using Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), in which competing Offerors' technical capability will be evaluated on Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and Past Performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Sub-Factors. The tradeoff will occur only between the Past Performance Factor and the Price Factor. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) will perform comparative analysis between the lowest priced Offeror with a “Substantial Confidence” rating with an “Acceptable” technical rating and the lowest priced Offeror with a “Satisfactory or Neutral Confidence” rating with an “Acceptable” technical rating to determine the best value to the Government.

The Government will not differentiate between confidence ratings (e.g. All “Satisfactory Confidence” ratings will be considered equal, all “Substantial Confidence” ratings will be considered equal).

Source Selection. This solicitation is being conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated July 1, 2011, and AFFARS 5315.3 including Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 and Informational Guidance (IG) 5315.404-3.

Evaluation Methodology

Step 1. Price Evaluation. The Government will screen total proposed prices for accuracy and completeness and then rank responsive proposals by the total combined price of TO 1 and TO 2, from lowest to highest. The individual prices for TO 1 and TO 2 will be determined separately to be reasonable, balanced, and affordable. Only reasonable, balanced, and affordable proposals will move onto Step 2.

Step 2. Technical Capability Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated either Acceptable or Unacceptable on all Sub-Factors (if rated “Unacceptable,” each proposal’s correction potential will be documented in case discussions are conducted).

Step 3. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will perform a Past Performance Confidence Assessment starting with the lowest Total Evaluated Price determined fair, reasonable, and balanced. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it has a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance rating. If the proposal does not have a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance rating, the evaluations will continue with the next lowest evaluated priced proposal with a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance rating. At that time the evaluations will stop. If there are no proposals with a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance rating, only those proposals who receive a “Satisfactory Confidence” Past Performance rating will be considered for evaluation under Step 4.

Best Value Decision: The SSA will perform comparative analysis of the lowest priced Offeror with a “Substantial Confidence” rating and the lowest priced Offeror with a “Satisfactory or Neutral Confidence” rating to determine the best value to the Government. The Government will not differentiate between confidence ratings (e.g. All “Satisfactory Confidence” ratings will be considered equal, all “Substantial Confidence” ratings will be considered equal). Tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between Price and Past Performance (where Past Performance is significantly more important than Price) for technically acceptable proposals in reaching the contract award decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the Evaluation Factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the superior Past Performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to evaluate proposals and award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. If it is determined that discussions are necessary, the Government reserves the right to limit the number of Offerors in the Competitive Range for the purpose of holding an efficient competition. In the event the Government enters discussions, the competitive range will only consist of offerors that are either technically acceptable or can reasonably be made technically acceptable and are lower priced than the lowest priced offeror with a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating. If the Government receives no offers determined with a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating, the Government will include only those Offerors whose technical proposal can reasonably be made acceptable through discussions.

Factor I – Price The Price Evaluation assesses each Offeror’s total price for TO 1 and TO 2 and evaluates for price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and affordability.

Price Reasonableness: The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, will be used to assess proposal price reasonableness.

Balanced Pricing: The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(g) will be the primary means of assessing unbalanced pricing.

Affordability of $67M for TO 1, and $5M for TO 2.

Labor Rate Matrix under Pricing Attachment. Offerors shall provide labor rates to be used for the entire N2ITSM requirement. Rates will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable and consistent with the Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

Contingency Rates. The Offeror shall provide a Fully Burdened Fixed-Price rate for Contingency Services as outlined in the Network O&M PWS paragraph 5.9. Rates will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable and consistent with the Professional Employee Compensation Plan Travel, Other Direct Cost, and Contingency. Offerors should not change the provided information for Travel, Other Direct Costs, and Contingency. The Government will review to ensure these numbers have not been changed.

Professional Employee Compensation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

Factor II – Technical Capability The Technical Capability Evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated approach to meet the Government’s requirements and will be rated as “Acceptable/Unacceptable”. All Technical Capability Sub-Factors must receive “Acceptable” rating in order to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating for Factor II.

Failure to provide a reasonable and complete Technical Capability shall reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and will result in an “Unacceptable” determination.

The Technical Capability Factor shall be evaluated for clear demonstration of the Offeror’s proposed approach to successfully accomplish each of the five (5) Sub-Factors described below: Technical Capability is “Acceptable” if all the Sub-Factors were provided an “Acceptable” rating.

Sub-Factor 1 Program and Staffing Plan: Met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all bullets.

Sub-Factor 2 Service Operations and Stability: Met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all bullets.

Sub-Factor 3 Service Transition and Support: Met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all bullets.

Sub-Factor 4 Service Optimization: Met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all bullets.

Sub-Factor 5 Continuous Service Improvement: Met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all bullets.

Technical Capability Rating. Each Offeror will receive a single integrated Technical Capability Rating, which is the rating for the Technical Capability Factor. Each Offeror will receive one (1) of the ratings described below:

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Factor III – Past Performance Recency: For the purpose of this evaluation, “Recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last 3 years from the date of release of this solicitation. Also, at least 12 months of consecutive work must have been completed within those 3 years. A citation determined to be not recent will not be evaluated.

Relevancy: For each recent citation, a relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and PPI, including Teaming Partners and/or major Subcontractors will be made. Relevancy determinations will be applied at the citation level.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

To be considered relevant, the Offeror must show experience in criteria A, B, C, and D listed below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $10 million supporting Network Operations and Maintenance support at a Department of Defense Command Headquarters or similar U.S. Government Agency Headquarters, geographically dispersed IT enterprise (multiple supported subordinate sites/locations), and multi-national IT support (e.g. IT supports other foreign militaries); addressing two (2) or more networks supported (i.e. NIPR / SIPR).

Does not meet the criteria of Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

A. Performed Information Technology Service Desk functions (incident management, request fulfillment, access management, problem management, application management) supporting a user environment of greater than 1,000 users.

B. Performed Information Technology Network Operations and Maintenance and technical management of a Network Infrastructure Enterprise C. Performed Information Technology Operations Management providing 24x7/365 Situational Awareness and network monitoring, event management and cyber security management and countermeasures.

D. Performed continuity of mission essential IT services during real world events and exercises.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the Offeror must show experience in any of the criteria below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $5 million as a Prime or as a Subcontractor, supporting Network Operations and Maintenance support at a U.S. Government Agency, with support to geographically dispersed IT enterprise. Addressing two (2) or more networks supported (i.e. NIPR / SIPR).

Not Relevant Does not meet the criteria of Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

A. Performed Change Management processes for controlling the lifecycle of all changes for IT Services.

B. Performed service asset and configuration management for all delivered IT Services (Hardware and Software asset management).

C. Performed IT Enterprise Architecture developing and maintaining technical products supporting IT Baseline and vision.

D. Performed IT Financial and Supplier management processes to ensure proper procurement of necessary IT hardware and software meeting DoD standards and mission requirements.

E. Performed IT Knowledge Management for gathering, storing, analyzing and sharing information in accordance with best Industry practices.

Factor III – Past Performance Relevancy: For each recent citation, a relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and PPI, including Teaming Partners and/or major Subcontractors will be made. Relevancy determinations will be applied at the citation level.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

To be considered somewhat relevant, the Offeror must show experience in any of the criteria below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $5 million as a Prime or as a Subcontractor, supporting Network Operations and Maintenance support at a U.S. Government Agency, with support to geographically dispersed IT enterprise. Addressing two (2) or more networks supported (i.e. NIPR / SIPR).

Not Relevant Does not meet the criteria of Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

A. Performed IT Project Management from concept to completion of a project (including charter, project management plan, status reporting, service design, release and deployment, validation and testing and project closure).

B. Performed IT Portfolio Management from concept throughout lifecycle for IT Services.

C. Performed Transition Planning and Support to transition a closed IT project to daily service operations.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the Offeror must show experience in any of the criteria below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $5 million as a Prime or as a Subcontractor, supporting Network Operations and Maintenance support at a U.S. Government Agency, with support to geographically dispersed IT enterprise. Addressing two (2) or more networks supported (i.e. NIPR / SIPR).

Not Relevant Does not meet the criteria of Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

A. Performed continuous service improvement of IT services to improve IT service quality and efficiency and effectiveness of all enabling IT Service Management functions. Change Management processes for controlling the lifecycle of all changes for IT Services.

B. Provided recommendations to the Government for service improvements with supporting data that was measured, collected, processed and analyzed, with recommended courses of action for government decision-making.

C. Provided continuous downward cost efficiency initiatives to achieve saving funding.

Factor III – Past Performance

Quality: In evaluating the extent to which the Offeror's Present and Past Performance met mission requirements, a Quality rating will be assigned. Quality ratings will be applied for recent and relevant citations only.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Factor III – Past Performance

Performance Confidence Assessment: Each Offeror will receive a single integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance Factor. The overall confidence assessment is derived based upon the recency, relevancy and quality evaluation of all information reviewed.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Acquisition Timeline The table below provides an estimated timeline proposed in the accomplishment of the N2ITSM ID/IQ.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Questions

UNCLASSIFIED

Written Questions should be submitted no later than 12:00 PM MT on 29 April 2016 to karen.holderfield@us.af.mil and christian.freire@us.af.mil image2.jpeg image1.png image3.png image5.png