LEAP_Solicitation_002.docx

FA330017R0036

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDAS

ADDENDAS

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Jan 2017)

(b) Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers, is tailored as follows: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers. Offerors may specify a longer acceptance period than the Government’s minimum requirement.”

(c) The following is inserted as new paragraph (m) of the provision:

(m) Proposal Preparation Instructions.

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of four (4) separate parts; Volume I - Summary and Miscellaneous Data, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Volume III – Past Performance Information and Volume IV – Price Proposal.

B. Specific Instructions:

1. VOLUME I – SUMMARY AND MISCELLANEOUS DATA.

(a) The offeror shall provide a concise summary and master table of contents of the entire proposal.

(b) Standard Form (SF) 1449. Complete blocks 12, 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions and in the on-line Representations and Certifications at www.sam.gov. Return the provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items, along with the proposal. For other provisions and clauses in the solicitation, the offeror is required to submit the pages that require an offeror fill-in.

(d) Submit an acknowledgment of the all solicitation amendments, if issued.

(e) If none proposed, submit an Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations, or Waivers.

(f) 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.

(g) Communications. Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the following Buyer and Contracting Officer: justin.holmly@us.af.mil and gail.vendel@us.af.mil prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx .When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below:

(h) Responsibility Determination and Supporting Documentation: To assist in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-3(a), the offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length. The offeror shall address a fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments. The offeror must provide complete financial statements for one (1) fiscal year and year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. The year-end financial statements must be certified by an independent accounting firm. If the offeror intends to rely on internally available working/operation capital, documentation of availability must be submitted. If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from external sources, documentation of availability and maximum lines of credit available (based upon the inclusion of this contract effort) must be submitted. Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source.

IAW FAR 9.104-5, the offeror is required to comply with the submission regarding FAR 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters. Since it is the Government’s intent to make Award Without Discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1, the Government may request that an offeror submit additional information so a responsibility determination can be made. This request for additional information will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306. An incomplete proposal may be considered to indicate lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable” and eliminated from further consideration.

2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – General. The written technical volume shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

(a) Provide a detailed approach to accomplish/satisfy all subfactors. By submitting a proposal, the offeror affirms that its organization will perform all requirements specified in the RFP and PWS.

(b) The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) Glossary

(3) Summary Page

(4) Subfactor 1 – “How-to-Instructions”

(5) Subfactor 2 – Management Plan

(6) Subfactor 3 – SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan

(c) Summary Page(s). To aid the Government’s understanding, provide a summary of the offeror’s proposed technical approach and how the approach will efficiently and effectively meet the requirement. The summary page(s) shall not exceed two (2) pages.

Subfactor 1 – “How-to-Instructions” (Live Demonstration). (See 52.212-2) The contractor shall provide “How-to-Instructions” describing his/her approach and process that conveys how the contractor’s virtual school technology will satisfy the requirements at PWS paragraph 2. At a minimum, the contractor must provide “How-to-Instructions” describing the contractors approach and process to support the following objectives:

1. Access and Navigation: Demonstration of how the virtual school technology will provide a fully collaborative environment that meets the requirements at PWS paragraph 2.1.1

2. Classroom Tools: Demonstration of how the virtual school will provide synchronous online language instruction with little-to-no lag time, delay or connection failure to participants at any location. The technology must be equipped with a variety of internet-enabled devices with wired or wireless internet connections, to include non-DOD commercial networks and Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) connections in accordance with the PWS paragraph 2.4.

3. Helpdesk Actions: Demonstration of how the contractor will provide helpdesk support, including remotely accessing a classroom to fix a problem within three (3) minutes of notification, IAW PWS paragraph 2.5. A simulated malfunction must be called in and helpdesk must resolve the issue within 3 minutes of initial call.

4. Scheduling: Demonstration of how the virtual school will build language cohorts based upon LEAP participant scheduling needs IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.2.

5. Registration: Demonstration of how the virtual school will manage the class registration system and record all information for each registration including language, level, participant information, materials and equipment. Demonstration of how the system will assist participants with placement in the appropriate class level and class type, IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.1.

6. Participant Tracking: Demonstration of how the virtual school will track every class, class start and stop times, participant attendance, and downtime during class (as well as causes and actions taken) and maintain a web-based system to manage classes, participants and records IAW PWS paragraph 2.2.4.

7. Redundancy: Proof of system redundancy to include power, servers, databases and internet bandwidth to ensure no interruptions in service or classes in the event that its primary infrastructure fails or goes down IAW PWS paragraph 2.12.

8. Resource Library: Demonstration of the search capability of the resource library to allow users to utilize full text search to locate any resource material and be organized to allow searches of resources and materials by language, level, date, and file type in accordance with PWS paragraph 2.11.

9. A remote live demonstration of the “How-to-Instructions” for validation, IAW PWS paragraph 2. How-to-Instructions shall include link to offeror’s platform (i.e., login information)

Subfactor 2 – Management Plan. (See 52.212-2) The contractor shall provide a management plan describing his/her approach and process that conveys how the contractor will satisfy the requirement at PWS paragraph 3. At a minimum, the Management Plan shall describe the contractor’s approach and process to support the following objectives:

1. Find, vet, and hire native speaking eMentors of their respective language, for all languages listed at PWS paragraph 3.2; and qualified in accordance with PWS paragraph 3.4.

2. Provide eMentors that are trained and certified for LEAP instruction, know how to utilize all facets of the virtual classroom, and will be capable of conducting training at the elementary or survival level through professional level proficiency IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.3.

Subfactor 3 – SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan. (See 52.212-2) The contractor shall provide a SAMPLE Language Curriculum Plan that conveys how the contractor will design curriculum, and language IAW PWS paragraph 3.5. At a minimum, the SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan shall describe the contractor’s approach and process to support the following objective.

Curriculum Development and Design: The SAMPLE Curriculum must be designed based on the Instructional System Design (ISD) model in accordance with PWS paragraphs 3.5.1. and the attached guidelines from the ’Twelve Domains of Culture’. Please see attachment 6 titled ’Twelve Domains of Culture’.

c. The technical volume shall not exceed 60 pages per Subfactors 1-3. The page limit does not include the Title Page, Table of Contents, any list of Acronyms or Definitions. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

d. Page size will be 8 1/2” x 11” except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed11” x 17.”

e. Typing shall be double spaced, in Times New Roman font, and not be less than 12 pitch. Offeror’s are allowed to use a smaller text font for charts, tables and diagrams. No smaller than 10 pt. additionally, offeror’s can single space within tables.

f. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not desired or required.

g. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

h. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL - Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal. The Past Performance volume shall be prepared in accordance with all instructions contained within this Section FAR 52.212-1. Only references for past efforts/contracts of relevance are desired.

(a) Volume Organization. The Past Performance volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1. Table of Contents

1. Glossary

1. Summary Page

1. Past Performance Information (PPI) – 5-page limit

1. Organization Structure Change History

1. Subcontractor Letters of Consent

1. Client Authorization Letters, See Attachment 5 – Sample Client Authorization Letter

(b) Summary Page. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past contracts. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of the offering company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts identified for the past performance evaluation. Since the Government intends to consider past and present performance information provided by other sources as well, the “roadmap” should be applicable to contracts the Government receives information on from other sources.

If applicable, describe the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner for whom the Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with paragraph e below.

(c) Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts completed in the Past Three (3) Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and/or quality of completed and/or ongoing contracts. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems, such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. (See 52.212-2(d)(3))

(d) Performance Surveys/Questionnaires: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) shall be used by the offeror in obtaining and providing past performance information. The government requires the offeror to send out a PPQ to each of the Points-of-Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Proposal (paragraph (e) below).

The offeror shall send out the PPQ (RFQ, Attachment 3), using the Past Performance Evaluation Cover Letter provided within same attachment, to each of their references.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEND OUT THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RESTS SOLELY WITH THE OFFEROR.

Past Performance Questionnaire: For each of the three (3) submitted contracts found to have some relevance to the instant acquisition, the Past Performance Team will contact the points of contact identified in the PPQs. A telephone interview will be conducted utilizing the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 3). The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

(e) Past Performance Information (PPI): Utilizing the PPI Sheet (RFP, Attachment 2), submit information on no more than three (3) recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort. One (1) of the past performance references may be for a subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work). “Recent” is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within three (3) years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the proposed effort. If an offeror has no past performance history of relevance, the offeror must affirmatively state it possesses no past performance history of relevance. (See 52.212-2(d)(3)(C)(1)).

(f) The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance regarding (i) predecessor companies, (ii) will take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience, and/or (iii) will take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(g) Specific Content: Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This could result in a rating of Substantial or Satisfactory Confidence.

(h) If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past contracts of relevance.

(i) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from each subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of its past performance information to the prime contractor (RFP Attachment 4). If the subcontractor does not consent, include a statement to that effect.

4. VOLUME IV – PRICE PROPOSAL

(a) This Part shall contain a completed Schedule of Supplies/Services, continuation sheets of SF 1449, blocks 19 – 24.

(b) Insert proposed unit price(s) and extended amount(s) in the Schedule of Supplies/Services for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including all option periods. The extended amount must equal the unit price multiplied by the number of units. It is imperative that mathematical calculations are correct; particular care should be taken to ensure the amounts match when using the EXCEL program and the rounding of figures, limited to two decimal places.

(c) Extreme care should be exercised to ensure that no price data of any kind are included in any other Part of the proposal.

(d) Price Reasonableness: The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition for this acquisition 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 Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit additional data other than certified cost or pricing data for the Contracting Officer to determine price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to a contractor whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

C. Point of Contact: The Contracting Officer (CO) and/or the Contract Specialist are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns IN WRITING to the individuals listed below. The deadline for all questions, concerns and/or requests for clarification is 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. The Government will not respond to submissions past the deadline. Contact information is as follows:

D. Contract Award: The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

E. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes these instructions contain errors, omissions or are unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale as well as remedies the offeror is asking the Contracting Officer to consider as related to the omission or error.

(End of Addendum)

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15; and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. 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 subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Attachment 1. Detailed preparation instructions are included in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(m), Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1, “How-to-Instructions” (Live Demonstration). This subfactor is met when the offeror successfully demonstrates “How-to-Instructions” showing how their approach and process will satisfy the objectives of the of the PWS requirements in Table 2 below: The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Table 2: Subfactor 1: “How-to-Instructions” (Live Demonstration)

(1) Access and Navigation: Demonstration of how the virtual school technology will provide a fully collaborative environment that meets the requirements at PWS paragraph 2.1.1

(2) Classroom Tools: Demonstration of how the virtual school will provide synchronous online language instruction with little-to-no lag time, delay or connection failure to participants at any location. The technology must be equipped with a variety of internet-enabled devices with wired or wireless internet connections, to include non-DOD commercial networks and Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) connections in accordance with the PWS paragraph 2.4.

(3) Helpdesk Actions: Demonstration of how the contractor will provide helpdesk support, including remotely accessing a classroom to fix a problem within three (3) minutes of notification, IAW PWS paragraph 2.5. A simulated malfunction must be called in and helpdesk must resolve the issue within 3 minutes of initial call.

(4) Scheduling: Demonstration of how the virtual school will build language cohorts based upon LEAP participant scheduling needs IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.2.

(5) Registration: Demonstration of how the virtual school will manage the class registration system and record all information for each registration including language, level, participant information, materials and equipment. Demonstration of how the system will assist participants with placement in the appropriate class level and class type, IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.1.

(6) Participant Tracking: Demonstration of how the virtual school will track every class, class start and stop times, participant attendance, and downtime during class (as well as causes and actions taken) and maintain a web-based system to manage classes, participants and records IAW PWS paragraph 2.2.4.

(7) Redundancy: Proof of system redundancy to include power, servers, databases and internet bandwidth to ensure no interruptions in service or classes in the event that its primary infrastructure fails or goes down IAW PWS paragraph 2.12.

(8) Resource Library: Demonstration of the search capability of the resource library to allow users to utilize full text search to locate any resource material and be organized to allow searches of resources and materials by language, level, date, and file type in accordance with PWS paragraph 2.11.

(9) A remote live demonstration of the "How-to-Instructions" for validation IAW PWS paragraph 2. How-to-Instructions shall include link to offeror's platform (i.e., login information).

1. Access and Navigation: Access to classrooms must be simple; and the offeror’s live demonstration must clearly show how the virtual school technology will provide a fully collaborative environment that meet the requirements at PWS paragraph 2.1.1

1. Classroom Tools: The offeror’s live demonstration must show how the virtual school will provide synchronous online language instruction with little-to-no lag time, delay or connection failure to participants at any location. The technology must be equipped with a variety of internet-enabled devices with wired or wireless internet connections, to include non-DOD commercial networks and Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) connections in accordance with the PWS paragraph 2.4.

1. Helpdesk Actions: The offeror’s live demonstration must show how the offeror will provide helpdesk support, including remotely accessing a classroom to fix a problem within three (3) minutes of notification, IAW PWS paragraph 2.5. A simulated malfunction will be called in and helpdesk must resolve the issue within 3 minutes of initial call.

1. Scheduling: The offeror’s live demonstration must show how the virtual school builds language cohorts based upon LEAP participant scheduling needs IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.2.

1. Registration: The offeror’s live demonstration must show how the virtual school manages the class registration system and records all information for each registration including language, level, participant information, materials and equipment. Demonstrate how the system assists participants with placement in the appropriate class level and class type, IAW with PWS paragraph 2.2.1

1. Participant Tracking: The offeror’s live Demonstration must show how the virtual school tracks every class, class start and stop times, participant attendance, and downtime during class (as well as causes and actions taken) and maintains a web-based system to manage classes, participants and records IAW PWS paragraph 2.2.4.

1. Redundancy: The offeror’s live demonstration must show proof of system redundancy to include power, servers, databases and internet bandwidth to ensure no interruptions in service or classes in the event that its primary infrastructure fails or goes down IAW PWS paragraph 2.12.

1. Resource Library: The offeror’s live demonstration must show the search capability of the resource library allowing users to utilize full text search to locate any resource material and is organized to allow searches of resources and materials by language, level, date, and file type in accordance with PWS paragraph 2.11.

(9) Offeror provided an accurate login to access the remote live demonstration of the How-to-Instructions platform.

Subfactor 2 – Management Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s management plan describes his/her approach and process that conveys how the offeror will satisfy the objective of the PWS requirements in Table 3 below: The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Table 3. Subfactor 2: Management Plan

(1) Find, vet, and hire native speaking eMentors of their respective language, for all languages listed at PWS paragraph 3.2; and qualified in accordance with PWS paragraph 3.4.

(2) Provide eMentors that are trained and certified for LEAP instruction, know how to utilize all facets of the virtual classroom, and will be capable of conducting training at the elementary or survival level through professional level proficiency IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.3.

(1) The offeror’s management plan, adequately described his/her approach and process that conveys in detail, how the offer will find, vet, and hire native speaking eMentors of their respective language, for all languages listed at PWS paragraph 3.2; and qualified in accordance with PWS paragraphs 3.4.

(2) The offeror’s management plan, adequately described his/her approach and process that conveys in detail, how the offeror will provide eMentors that are trained and certified for LEAP instruction, know how to utilize all facets of the virtual classroom, and will be capable of conducting training at the elementary or survival level through professional level proficiency IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.3.

Subfactor 3 – SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan.

This subfactor will be met when the offeror’s SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan conveys how the offeror will design curriculum, and language to meet the objective of the PWS requirements in Table 4 below: The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Table 4. Subfactor 3: SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan

Curriculum Development and Design: The SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan must be designed based on the Instructional System Design (ISD) model in accordance with PWS paragraphs 3.5.1. and the attached guidelines from the ’Twelve Domains of Culture’. Please see attachment 6 titled ’Twelve Domains of Culture’.

Curriculum Development and Design: The offeror’s SAMPLE Language and Curriculum Plan adequately describe, in detail his/her approach and process to design based on the Instructional System Design (ISD) model in accordance with PWS paragraph 3.5.1. and the attached guidelines from the ’Twelve Domains of Culture’. Please see attachment 6 titled ’Twelve Domains of Culture’.

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 3), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with 52.212-1(m)B.4(e), does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(B) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 5 below:

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $10 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Also, provide language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write all at least 50 of the languages listed in the PWS, paragraph 3.2.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $5 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Also, provide language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write all at least 25 of the languages listed in the PWS, paragraph 3.2.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $2 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Also, provide language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write all at least 15 of the languages listed in the PWS, paragraph 3.2.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

(C) Sources. The Government will seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(D) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment will consider things such as: the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

1. Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limitied Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 6.0.

Table 6. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

1. Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The price of a six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be added to the proposed price as a third (3rd) option. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of all Firm Fixed Price CLINs for the base period and all option periods.

1. The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Option Year 2 = CLIN Unit Price.

1. Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.

1. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and conduct the Technical Evaluation solely on the offer with the lowest TEP. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Once the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for the offeror. If this offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be evaluated or considered.

If the offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest-priced offer for Technically Acceptability and if determined Technically Acceptable, proceed to conduct a Past Performance Evaluation on that offeror. The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the offeror with a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating (if found) and all technically acceptable offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating; unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions. For example: five technically acceptable offers are received; the offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Addendum)

LEAP eMentor RFP Attachments

FA3300-17-R-0036

Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Subcontractor Consent Letter Sample Client Authorization Letter

ATTACHMENT 2

RFP FA3300-17-R-0036

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. Limit the number of past efforts submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraphs __ and ___, respectively, of Addendum FAR 52.212-1 Volume 3, Past Performance of this solicitation.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division): ____________________

CAGE Code: ____________________

DUNS Number: ____________________

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Program Title: ____________________

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer _____________________________________________

2. Contract Number __________________________________________________________

3. Contract Type __________________________

4. Period of Performance __________________________

5. Original Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

6. Current Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

7. If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief explanation of the reason ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D. Brief Description of Effort as __Prime or __Subcontractor (Please indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition)

E. Completion Date:

1. Original date: ____________________

4. How Many Times Changed: ____________________

5. Primary Causes of Change: ____________________________________________________________________________________

F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts, provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles).

1. Program Manager and/or Name ____________________

Site Manager Office ____________________

Telephone __________________

FAX Number _______________

2. Contracting Officer: Name ____________________

Office ____________________

Telephone__________________

FAX Number_______________

3. Administrative Name ____________________

Contracting Officer: Name ____________________

Office ____________________

Telephone __________________

FAX Number _______________

G. Address any technical (or other) area about this contract/program considered unique.

H. For each of the applicable subfactors under the Addendum FAR 52.212.2, Volume 2, Technical, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor.

I. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

(If FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, if applicable, insert the paragraph below to comply with the past performance evaluation requirement of DFARS 215.305(a)(2).)

J. Include relevant information concerning your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, on the contract you are submitting.

(If FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if included, insert the paragraph below to comply with the past performance evaluation requirement of DFARS 215.305(a)(2).)

K. Identify whether a subcontracting…