Section_L_&_M_Amend_02_(27Nov18).docx

FA300218R0018 Amend 0002

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L

L. PROPOSAL PREPERATION INSTRUCTIONS

L.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

L1.1. The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award.

L.1.2. This requirement, Special Warfare (SW) Instructor Qualification Course (IQC), will be competed as a non-commercial Total Small Business Set-Aside. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offeror(s) must follow the instructions contained herein. Offeror(s) are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes: Volume I –Technical Proposal; Volume II – Price Proposal; and Volume III – Responsibility Information.

L.1.3. Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). Offerors are responsible for ensuring receipt of any communication by the following designated officials:

L.1.4. Minimum Proposal Acceptance Period. The term “acceptance period,” as used in this provision, means the time period available to the Government to award a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 180 calendar days from solicitation due date. In the space provided on the front page, block 12, of the SF 33 Offerors shall insert the number of days (not less than the 180 days specified above) the proposal is valid. Offerors may specify a longer acceptance period than the Government's minimum requirement.

L.1.5. Potential Errors. If an Offeror believes requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are unsound or ambiguous, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing via email with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4).

L.1.8. Proposals must be submitted in the electronic format as specified in L.2.2. Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the Solicitation Number, the name of the Offeror, and the Offeror’s POC name, address and phone number.

L.1.9. Offerors are cautioned that JBSA-Randolph has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass to gain entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and deliver the proposal PRIOR to the time specified for receipt. Contact the POCs in paragraph L.1.4 with questions regarding base entry. Late proposals will be processed IAW FAR 52.215-1(c)(3) “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals” and FAR 15.208 “Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals”.

L.2. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS: Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits

L.2.1. The Offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization table below. The titles, contents of the volumes, page limits and number of copies shall be as follows:

L.2.2. Mail or hand deliver required electronic copies on CD or DVD of each volume to the following:

Ms. Audrey Talamantez Mr. Robert Brachhold

338 SCONS/PKD

2021 First St. West JBSA-Randolph TX 78150-4302

L.2.3. Labeling. All proposal volumes shall be submitted on separate CD/DVDs. Include on the label of each CD/DVD the volume number, title, solicitation identification, company/joint venture name, and point of contract e-mail and phone number. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1(e), "Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data,” and FAR 3.104-4, “Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.”

L.2.4. Page Format Restrictions and Limitations.

L.2.4.1. Page Format. All volumes shall be submitted in both Microsoft Word/Excel (version Office 2010 or higher). Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including “foldouts” used for charts, tables, or diagrams (see L.2.4.5). Pages shall be typed. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, typing shall be single space, 12 font size, and Times New Roman font style. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 10 font size, Times New Roman. Margins on all four edges of each sheet shall be at least one inch. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers may fall within the defined margin area. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued, as well as to the initial proposal.

L.2.4.2. Page Limitations. Compliance with page count limits will be verified. Page limitations will be placed on responses to ENs. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters when forwarding the ENs to the Offeror(s). Any supporting documentation that is in response to an EN, not to include change pages, will not be subject to page limitations.

L.2.4.3. Pages Counted. Pages exceeding page limitations will not be read or evaluated, instead, such additional pages will be deleted/removed from the proposal. Each page shall be counted except the following: the Quality Control Plan, cover pages, title pages, table of contents, lists of tables and drawings, glossary of acronyms, cross-reference matrix, and blank pages.

L.2.4.4. Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

L.2.4.5. “Foldouts”. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 10 font size, Times New Roman.

L.3. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (Factor 1)

L.3.1. Technical proposals must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in offeror’s proposals. Each offeror shall submit a complete proposal in accordance with these instructions. The Government may consider any failure to comply with these instructions to be indicative of what could be expected from an offeror during contract performance and may consider it a weakness of the proposal. The Government reserves the right to incorporate all or parts of the offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

L.3.2. The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. However, the government reserves the right to identify and assign risk(s), not identified by the offeror in their proposal. Moreover, the government is not bound by an offerors assignment of a risk. Additionally, offerors are encouraged to call attention to perceived strengths.

L.3.2.1. Mission Solution/Capability: “What the courses will look like” (Subfactor 1)

L.3.2.1.1. Clearly define the notional schedule/agenda to include design rationale in relation to how PWS Appendix D concepts are incorporated.

L.3.2.1.2. Describe how digital classroom technology will be fused with up to date learning methods in unorthodox learning environments. This includes training tank areas, field training areas, physical fitness/human performance training areas and standard classrooms.

L.3.2.1.3. Describe how experiential activities for outdoor and indoor instruction will integrate real world instructional experience from SW or Special Operation Forces (SOF) type lessons learned into instructional methods in the courseware. Demonstrate how these activities will be introduced to the experienced SW operator demographic that ranges from the E-5 SW NCO through E-7 SW SNCO with at least 2 recent deployments in multiple weather environments.

L.3.2.1.4. Identify and describe the use of materials, training aids, and activities that will be incorporated and used during all SW instructor courses (e.g. training aids and equipment to include mobile training tablets, computers, display units to whiteboard, paper copy handouts and outlines, etc.).

L.3.2.1.5. Thoroughly describe the foundational and philosophical approach the offeror expects to bring to the course design for all SW instructor courses. Detail the course learning objectives and daily expectations in order to meet anticipated outcomes.

L.3.2.2. Staffing Plan: (Subfactor 2)

L.3.2.2.1. Provide a staffing plan that identifies and provides:

a) The title, full or part time status, and duties for all personnel the offeror plans to employ to accomplish requirements of the PWS as proposed (management, administration, curriculum development, sustainment, enhancement, and adjustment, course instruction, quality control, etc.) for the mobilization period as well as all periods of full performance. Also, include a salary breakout for all planned instructor personnel

b) Approach used to determine cross utilization of instructor personnel if applicable

c) Approach to provide backup capability for “one-deep” positions

d) A list and explanation of work to be accomplished via subcontract if applicable.

L.3.2.2.2. Explain how a fluctuation in student load (causing excess or deficient contractor facilitators) will be managed to ensure required student to instructor ratios are maintained or exceeded.

L.3.2.3. Courseware: (Subfactor 3)

L.3.2.3.1. Provided detailed plan and schedule for courseware development, with dates, to include internal milestones as well as formal reviews with Government participation for the kick-off meeting, 25/50/75 and 100% complete briefings/milestones as well as courseware validation.

L.3.2.3.2. Provide a comprehensive plan for how the offeror will remain up-to-date on changes within the SOF community in regards to updated tactics, training, and procedures. Provide a comprehensive plan for how the offeror will be able to adjust and translate training methods and information through a digital delivery platform and incorporate these changes into courseware within a reasonable period of time.

L.3.2.4. Quality Control Plan: (Subfactor 4)

L.3.2.4.1. The Offeror shall provide a Quality Control Plan that describes how they will ensure that the contract requirements are met while maintaining safety. The plan must describe inspector and/or superintendent assignment controls and clearly demonstrate that quality is the contractor’s (not the Government’s) responsibility. Address the proposed skill levels, experience and training of the quality control positions in relation to the required work disciplines.

L.3.2.4.2. Describe number of tasks planned per inspector, frequency, and a plan, including tools and methods, for identifying and documenting performance problems concerning subcontractors and/or in-house personnel.

L.4. VOLUME II – PRICE/CONTRACT FORMS (Factor 2)

L.4.1. Volume Organization. The Price/Contract Forms volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1. Table of Contents

1. Summary Page

1. Glossary/Acronym Abbreviation List

1. Price Data (Section B on SF33)

1. Pricing Model (Section J, Attachment 2 of RFP)

1. Statement of Compliance with applicable SCA WD(s) and CBA(s)

1. Teaming Arrangement(s) and/or Letters of Intent

1. Subcontracting

1. Contracting/Other

1. Verification of Small Business Size

Data beyond that required by section L.4. shall not be submitted, unless it is essential to document or support the Offeror’s price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price volume (Volume III/Factor III). Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

L.4.2. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). If at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the PCO to determine price reasonableness. The proposed prices shall be based on the Offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I/Factor I) and the Government’s PWS requirements. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a fair and reasonable price.

L.4.3. Table of Contents. The table of contents should provide a list of titles for the contents of the price volume organized in the order in which they appear.

L.4.4. Summary Page. The summary page shall provide an overview of the overall pricing that clearly demonstrates the total price of the proposal for the aggregate of all FFP CLINs described in section L.4.7 for mobilization and all subsequent years

L.4.5. Glossary/Acronym Abbreviation List. Provide a glossary for a list of terms or abbreviations with accompanying definitions, if necessary, in order to explain or define difficult or unusual words, terms and expressions.

L.4.6. Pricing Data (Section B of RFP). The offeror shall propose and insert a whole dollar unit price, with no decimal places, for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Line Item identified, which will be used to calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The total extended amount for the FFP CLINs must equal, to the dollar, the unit price multiplied by the quantity of units. Amounts should mirror amounts input into the Pricing Model.

L.4.7. Pricing Model (Attachment 2). The Offeror shall complete the electronic Pricing Model attached to the RFP at Attachment 2, IAW the instructions contained in the Pricing Model. The sum total of all base and option year FFP CLINs will form the Offeror’s TEP.

L.4.8. Statement of Compliance with applicable Service Contract Act Wage Determination(s) and Collective Bargaining Agreement(s)*. The contractor shall submit the correct Wage Determination(s) (WD) based on location(s) of training, as part of their price proposal. The WD information shall include the specific labor categories utilized in the proposal. WD information can be found at http://www.wdol.gov. Upon determination of the place(s) of performance, the PCO will obtain the WD(s) for the location(s) proposed and ensure that the correct WD(s) were used for the proposal. In the event that the proposal does not include a required WD or CBA the proposal may be ineligible for award.

a) The offeror shall provide a Statement of Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS). The offeror shall provide a statement acknowledging:

1. Compliance with the requirements of the SCLS WD(s);

1. The prices proposed for labor covered by the SCLS WD(s) were formulated in consideration of the rates specified in the document as required for covered contractor personnel; and

1. The proposed wage and benefit rates covered by the SCLS WD are not escalated beyond the basic period of performance (FAR 52.222-43(a) and (b)).

* Note: If a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is applicable, offerors shall conform with FAR 22.1008-2 Successorship with Incumbent Contractor Collective Bargaining Agreement.

L.4.9. Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete, verifiable information as to the arrangement, including any previous teaming endeavors on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Submit information relative to the formation, organization and operation of the business unit. Information shall include cost and revenue sharing agreements and any other information which describes the business arrangement.

L.4.10. Subcontracting. Prime offerors shall submit a listing of the proposed subcontractors showing the following for each subcontractor:

1. A description of the effort

1. Type of contractual arrangement

1. Total subcontract price

1. Prime’s determination for subcontractor prices being fair and reasonable

L.4.11. Contracting/Other. The offeror shall provide the following:

L.4.11.1. Completion of blocks 13, 14 (Offeror may sign and date each Standard Form (SF) 30 acknowledging receipt of each amendment to the solicitation), 15, 16, 17 and 18 and signature and date for blocks 17 and 18 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. Signature by the Offeror on the SF 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

L.4.11.2. Offerors must complete and provide all necessary clause fill-ins in Sections I through K. Ensure compliance with RFP requirements if using the annual representations and certifications electronically via the System for Award Management website at https://sam.gov. However, clauses 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, and 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters are not in the SAM system and the fill-ins must be accomplished in the RFP.

L.4.11.3. Submit a letter, signed at the vice-president level or equivalent or higher, that identifies the individual(s) with the authority to obligate or otherwise bind your company to the resulting contract and, if necessary, future contract modifications. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

L.4.11.4. Provide company/division's name, street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; and TIN.

L.4.11.5. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions. The Offerors shall list any exceptions to, or deviations from, any of the clauses or requirements to the RFP along with the justification.

L.4.12. Verification of Small Business Size. The offeror is required to provide complete financial statements for the last three years, as well as year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. If a new business without three years of financial statements, then the offeror must provide a statement indicating such and provide financial statements for as many years as possible. The year-end financial statements must be certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or at least by an authorized officer of the organization.

L.5. VOLUME III – RESPONSIBILITY INFORMATION

L.5.1. Responsibility. To assist in determining contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9.104, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to demostrate the following:

L.5.1.1. Adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see L.5.2. for additional instructions).

L.5.1.2. Ability comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

L.5.1.3. Satisfactory performance record or rational for lack of relevant performance history.

L.5.1.4. Necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

L.5.1.5. Qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

L.5.2. Financial Resources. To assist in determining contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9.104, the Offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length.

L.5.2.1. Offerors shall address their fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of invoice payments.

L.5.2.2. If the Offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, evidence of availability and the maximum lines of credit that may be available must be identified and must be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort. Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source. Documentation to support the amounts must also be included.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS

M. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection, in which competing offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations.

This source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315.3, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. The offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, Environmental Impact Analysis Process – Statement of Assurance, and all other information required by Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration.

A contract may be awarded to the offeror: 1) who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented; 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, 3) whose Technical proposal for subfactors 1, 2, and 3 received a Technical Rating of Outstanding, Good, or Acceptable with a rating of Acceptable for Subfactor 4; 3) whose price was determined fair and reasonable; and 4) whose proposal is determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the Government.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for the SW IQC program.

M.1. Discussions. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Price, or Past Performance volumes. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.1.1. If discussions are held, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2. Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the PCO determines and the SSA agrees 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 with the SSA’s approval 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. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the PCO determines and the SSA agrees that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

M.3. Evaluation Factors for Award. Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following two (2) factors:

M.3.1. Relevant Importance of Factors and Subfactors. All Technical Subfactors are equal in importance except for Mission Solution/Capability, which is deemed more important than the other two adjectivally rated Subfactors combined. Subfactor 4 will be rated on an Acceptable/Unaccpetable basis. An offeror must be rated Acceptable in Subfactor 4 to be eligible for award. IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical is significantly more important than Price. The Government is not required to pay what the Government perceives to be a substantial amount more for a higher rated proposal if it is determined that it is not in the Government’s best interest to do so.

M.3.2. Subjective tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and price. The Government’s determination on how much more it will pay for a higher rated proposal with regard to Technical will be determined through a subjective assessment after consideration of the level of benefit the Government could expect as compared to the higher price.

M.4. VOLUME I/FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

M.4.1. The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on an assessment of how well the offeror addressed each of the technical criteria. Statements such as “will comply,” “noted and understood,” “in accordance with best/industry practices/standards,” etc. without supporting narrative are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or paraphrase the PWS language will not be considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

M.4.2. Ratings for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will be evaluated utilizing ratings in Tables 1a and 1b below. A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned, see DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1a: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3

Table 1b: Technical Risk Ratings

Description

M.4.3. Ratings for Subfactor 4 are defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Technical Ratings for Subfactor 4

M.4.4. Assignment of Ratings. Ratings will be assigned at the Subfactor level; the evaluation will roll-up into a single, comprehensive rating for the entire technical proposal. Strengths, weakness and deficiencies, will be identified at the Subfactor level and will contribute to the overall technical rating. Favorable assessments will consider the benefit, impact, and feasibility of additional commitments (strengths) by the offeror.

M.4.5. Strength. A significant, outstanding or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s processes. A strength also is proposed innovations and efficiencies that enhance cost, schedule and performance, are of benefit to the Government and can be made contractually binding.

M.4.6. Weakness. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful task order performance. Weaknesses introduce performance risk and the assignment of a technical rating may be impacted by existence of weaknesses.

M.4.7. Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government/PWS requirement. Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement; this will be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal and the proposal may be rendered un-awardable or may receive a lower technical rating.

M.4.8. Subfactor 1 – Mission Solution/Capability. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 1: MISSION SOLUTION/CAPABILITY

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.1.1. Clearly define the notional schedule/agenda to include design rationale in relation to how PWS Appendix D concepts are incorporated.

M.4.8.1. The offeror’s notional schedule/agenda utilizes all available facilitation hours in a way that is creative, interactive, dynamic, effective, engaging and professional.

M.4.8.2. The offeror’s schedule/agenda includes limited to no white space (with the exception of reasonable breaks), allows time for reflection, time to revisit objectives/ remediation and learning reinforcement.

M.4.8.5. The offeror’s description and design rationale is reflective of the target demographic and interweaves the majority of Appendix D.

L.3.2.1.4. Identify and describe the use of materials, training aids, and activities that will be incorporated and used during all SW instructor courses (e.g. training aids and equipment to include mobile training tablets, computers, display units to whiteboard, paper copy handouts and outlines, etc.).

M.4.8.6. The offeror’s proposal identifies and describes courseware materials and training aids that are user friendly, relevant, and provide a mechanism for SW instructor candidate reflection, note taking, or journaling.

M.4.8.7. The offeror’s proposal describes simple reference material that is designed to reinforce learning.

M.4.8.8. The offeror’s proposal identifies and describes activities that are relevant, meaningful, and designed to achieve learning objectives.

L.3.2.1.5. Thoroughly describe the foundational and philosophical approach the offeror expects to bring to the course design for all SW instructor courses. Detail the course learning objectives and daily expectations in order to meet anticipated outcomes.

M.4.8.9. For all SW instructor courses the offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of the associated concept, goals, mission and overall objective.

M.4.8.10. The offeror’s outline of learning objectives and daily expectations are in line with PWS Appendix D learning outcomes.

M.4.8.11. The offeror’s foundational and philosophical approach to course design is in line with SW character traits as stated in PWS Section 1.0.

M.4.9. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 2: STAFFING PLAN

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.2.1. Provide a staffing plan that identifies and provides:

1. The title, full or part time status, and duties for all personnel the offeror plans to employ to accomplish requirements of the PWS as proposed (management, administration, curriculum development, sustainment, enhancement, and adjustment, course instruction, quality control, etc.) for the mobilization period as well as all periods of full performance. Also, include a salary breakout for all planned instructor personnel

1. Approach used to determine cross utilization of instructor personnel if applicable

1. Approach to provide backup capability for “one-deep” positions

1. A list and explanation of work to be accomplished via subcontract if applicable.

M.4.9.1. The offeror’s approach demonstrates an adequate staffing and contract management plan to ensure requirements of the PWS are accomplished.

M.4.10. Subfactor 3 – Courseware. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 3: COURSEWARE

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.3.1. Provided detailed plan and schedule for courseware development, with dates, to include internal milestones as well as formal reviews with Government participation for the kick-off meeting, 25/50/75 and 100% complete briefings/milestones as well as courseware validation.

M.4.10.1. The offeror’s proposal provides a detailed plan and schedule for courseware development.

M.4.10.2. The offeror’s proposal reflects thoughtful risk management approaches for ensuring courseware is approved and ready for on-site performance day-one after mobilization ends.

M.4.10.3. The offeror’s proposed schedule allows adequate flexibility and time for changes or course corrections and redirections.

M.4.10.4. The offeror’s proposal demonstrates reasonable time allotted between each milestone review.

M.4.10.5. The offeror’s proposed review milestones are commensurate with both workload and approach.

M.4.10.7. The offeror’s proposed schedule takes into account holidays and weekends and includes all mandatory review points as defined in the Instructions and in the PWS.

M.4.10.9. The offeror’s proposal provided a comprehensive plan for continuous improvement of the courseware and its facilitation.

M.4.11. Subfactor 4 – Quality Control Plan. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 4: QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

This Subfactor is met when:

M.5. Volume II/Factor II – Price

M.5.1. Completeness. The Government will review the Volume II in its entirety for completeness IAW Section L instructions.

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, data other than certified cost or pricing data is required to be submitted per Section L of the RFP and will be evaluated IAW the criteria contained herein for price fair and reasonableness and balance pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based on the Offeror’s proposed approach. If the PCO determines that adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) no longer exists, or that price fair and reasonableness cannot be determined, the PCO may request and evaluate certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, to make a determination of price fair and reasonableness.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be automatically calculated in the offeror’s filled out Attachment 2. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision.

M.5.2.1. Reasonableness/Balance/Fairness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prices and data submitted as required by Section L, for price fairness, reasonableness, and balance pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based upon each Offeror’s proposed approach. Price is considered to be reasonable when it represents a price that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prevailing market prices. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

M.3.2.2. Six Month Extension. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all options periods will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

M.3.2.3. Price Discrepancies. Any discrepancy between amounts input into the Pricing Model and amounts input into Section B will be considered a minor or clerical error and require resolution through an Evaluation Notice.

M.5.3. Verification of Small Business Size. In addition to review of all submitted financial statements, the Government may utilize the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as well as other resources made available to assist with the verification of the offeror’s small business size status.

M.6. Volume III – Responsibility Information

M.6.1. Responsibility Information is not an evaluation factor. However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.104. The Contracting Officer may use any sources available to support their determination of an offeror’s responsibility or non-responsibility, to include, but not limited to, Volume III information, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

M.6.2. Additional Information. Since the Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government may request that an offeror submit additional information so a responsibility determination can be made. A request for additional information will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306.