Draft Evaluation Criteria.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 “INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) – COMMERCIAL ITEMS”

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1.0 General Instructions

(a) The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. 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 that the government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The solicitation issue date of 30 Apr 12 and offer due date of 30 May 12 are specified in blocks 6 and 8, respectively, of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Volume IV that the proposal is valid through 31 Dec 12.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

1.1 General Information

1.1.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist are the points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialist. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contract Specialist at the address listed below. Source selection will take place in Building P-40 at Scott AFB IL. The Contract Specialist, Ms. Jacqueline McGlone, may be reached via telephone at (618) 256-9826; via email at jacqueline.mcglone@us.af.mil; or via mail at:

HQ AMC/A7KQA

Attn: Solicitation FA4452-12-R-0002 Attn: Jacqueline McGlone 507 Symington Drive, Room W202 Scott AFB IL 62225-5022

1.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a preaward debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a postaward debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.1.3 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Contract Specialist to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

1.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

1.1.5 Oral Presentations

Oral presentations will not be permitted.

1.1.6 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via mail or picked up/dropped off by a local contractor representative.

1.1.7 Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this request by the day and time specified in the amendment (s).

1.1.8. Use of Non-Government Personnel in Source Selection

(a) It is the government’s intent to utilize non-government advisors in the conduct of this source selection. Offerors are advised that data, including proprietary data, submitted to the government in response to this solicitation will be released to non-government advisors for review and analysis.

(b) The non-government advisors who will be involved in this source selection and the manner in which they will be involved are as follows:

MITRE: Employees of this firm will serve as non-voting advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). These advisors may be required to provide advice regarding proposal strengths and weaknesses but will not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals. Non-government advisors will be prohibited from reviewing Past Performance information. All participants have signed nondisclosure agreements.

(c) Submission of offeror’s proposal in response to this request for proposal will constitute acceptance of non-governmental personnel participation as advisors in the source selection. If the offeror has any objection to non-government advisors access to its proposal information, the offeror shall provide grounds and justification for its objections to the Contract Specialist. The CO will then make a determination whether the non-government advisor(s) shall be permitted to participate in the source selection. The Contract Specialist will inform objecting offeror of the final determination, and, if the use of non-government advisors has been changed, will inform all offerors of the change.

1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.2. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraphs as noted in the table below:

Table 1.2 - Proposal Organization

Number

*Limit past performance to five pages per past/present contract submitted. Complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Attachment 1) for each contract submitted.

1.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, cover pages, table of contents, tabs, glossaries, and those noted in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2) as unlimited.

1.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) 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 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

1.2.2 Cost or Pricing Related Data

All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volume. Cost trade-off information, work hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and trade-off decisions.

1.2.3 Cross-Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is not permitted.

1.2.4 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections and will not count against page limitations.

1.2.5 Title Page

Each volume must include a title page. The title pages must show:

(a) Solicitation Number

(b) Name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail address of the offeror

1.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.2.7 Tables and Figures

Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures. This index will not count against page limitations.

1.2.8 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with 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.

1.3 Electronic Offers

Electronic offers alone, will not be accepted. However, each offeror is required to submit an identical electronic copy of their proposal on a CD no later than the required proposal due date. The CD shall be in addition to the required number of hard copies designated in Table 1.2 above. The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. The outside of the CD or the CD jacket must be labeled to correspond with the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate volume number and title, and use separate files to permit rapid location of information. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 suite of applications. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

1.4 Distribution

The “original” proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the following and mailed or hand carried to:

HQ AMC/A7KQA

Attn: Solicitation FA4452-12-R-0002 Attn: Eric Hassenplug and Jacqueline McGlone 507 Symington Drive, Room W202 Scott AFB IL 62225-5022

Access to Scott AFB for Delivery of Hand Carried Proposals: Offerors are cautioned that when hand-carrying proposals individuals not affiliated with this installation must obtain visitors’ passes prior to entrance. The Shiloh gate has been designated as the “Visitor’s Control Center.” Some delays can be anticipated for visitors to process through the “Visitor’s Control Center” and offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain visitors’ passes. Each visitor must have an on-site sponsor to obtain a visitor’s pass. Please contact Jacqueline McGlone at (618) 256-9826 for more information.

Proposals are due by 2:00pm Central Time Wednesday, 30 May 12. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions, and Withdrawals of Offers.

2.0 Volume I Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

2.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

2.2 Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

3.0 Volume II - Technical Volume

3.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Technical

In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

3.2.1.1 Technical Risk

Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance by submitting a Risk Matrix. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating (listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2). Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: PWS), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "workaround" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

3.2.2 Volume Organization

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

(1) Title Page

(2) Teaming Matrix

(3) Table of Contents

(4) List of Table and Figures

(5) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

(6) Technical Approach (Subfactor One)

(7) Staffing Approach (Subfactor Two)

(8) Configuration Management Approach (Subfactor Three)

(9) Risk Matrix

3.2.3 Teaming Matrix

A Teaming Matrix (if applicable) shall be submitted with the Technical Approach – Volume II. Teaming arrangements are encouraged. Offerors shall describe which tasks each member of their teaming arrangement will be responsible for and indicate any potential OCI concerns and mitigations.

3.2.4 Subfactor One – Technical Approach

Each offeror shall provide an integrated technical solution. The technical solution must represent the offeror’s approach to meeting overall PWS requirements. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Required documents for the offeror’s technical approach include a draft quality plan, draft testing plan, and draft training plan. Additional requirements for Subfactor One – Technical Approach is described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2 – Evaluation Factors, paragraph b. – Technical Factor.

3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach

Each offeror shall provide a plan with their approach to overall staffing of and transition to AISS II. Required documents for each offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan and a transition plan. Additional requirements for Subfactor One – Technical Approach is described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2 – Evaluation Factors, paragraph b. – Technical Factor.

3.2.6 Subfactor Three – Configuration Management Approach

Offerors shall provide their approach to overall Configuration Management and Asset Management. Required documents for each offeror’s configuration management approach include a draft configuration management plan and a draft asset management plan.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 describes the measures of merit for each Technical subfactor.

4.0 Volume III - Past Performance

4.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment 2) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter (see sample at Attachment 3), authorizing release to the government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

4.2 Early Proposal Information

Each offeror is requested to submit the information shown in Attachment 1 for each relevant contract 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification.

As soon as practicable, offerors shall e-mail the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) with section 1 completed and the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (Attachment 5) to the points of contact (POCs) the offeror has listed in the PPIS (Attachment 1). The POCs listed in the PPIS’s should represent the individuals most knowledgeable about the offeror’s performance on the identified contract or program, such as the following: (1) Contracting Officer’s Representative; (2) Program/Project Manager; (3) Contracting Officer. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by email directly to the Contract Specialist, Jacqueline McGlone at jacqueline.mcglone@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct follow-up with any POC as necessary. The SSEB will evaluate no more than six PPQs (total) for each offeror/team. If more than six PPQs are received, a maximum of six will be evaluated in the order in which they were received via email by the Contract Specialist. PPQs should be submitted to the Contract Specialist 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.

4.3 Relevant/Recent Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Attachment 1: Past Performance Information Sheets shall consist of no more than six contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. A contract is considered recent if it is an ongoing contract or if it was completed within four years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. Additionally, if applicable, offerors shall submit information concerning no more than two recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and significant subcontractor considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. However, as stated above, no more than six contracts total shall be submitted per offeror/team. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section 2 - Evaluation Factors, paragraph c. - Past Performance Factor. The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. Contractors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a confidence assessment cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

4.3.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This 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 encountered. 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 may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

4.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or 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 past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. 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 your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the government receives information from other sources.

5.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation and Price

5.1 Contract Documentation

5.1.1 RFP Standard Form 1449

Offeror is required to complete blocks 17a, 17b, 30a, 30b, and 30c of the RFP, Standard Form 1449. By completing blocks 17a, 17b, 30a, 30b, and 30c of the Standard Form 1449 the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. RFP Certifications – Complete and submit all required information (fill-ins, signatures, etc.) found in the provisions FAR 52.212-3 and DFARS 252.212-7000.

5.1.2 SF 1449 Continuation Sheet – Price

The offeror shall insert its proposed unit and extended prices based on the quantities for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN in the spaces provided (Refer to Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2, paragraph d. - Price). Price shall reflect all prices associated with providing the AISS II function. All prices shall be rounded as described in paragraph 5.2.5 below. The government has inserted Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs X006 and X007 and Labor Hour (LH) CLIN X008. CLIN X009 will remain a Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN.

5.1.3 Technical Proposal Checklist

The offeror shall complete and submit the Technical Proposal Checklist (Attachment 6) to support the completeness of their technical proposal.

5.1.4 Attachments

Attachments to the RFP include: Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 2 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); Attachment 3 – DD Form 254.

Each offeror is required to complete sections 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, and 7c of the DD Form 254 (Attachment 3). The DD254 shall be submitted in Volume IV, Contract Documents and Price.

5.1.5 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as 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. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale and Impact (if any)

Page and Paragraph Numbers

why the requirement can/will not be met

5.2 Other Information Required

5.2.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the government.

5.2.2 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations Provide company/division's street address; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; and size of business (large or small). This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s).

5.2.3 Price Completeness, Reasonableness, and Realism

The offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness, reasonableness, and realism of their proposed prices for all CLINs, including phase-in and phase-out. The pricing information submitted should fully support PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. A breakdown should also be provided for price traceability which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, estimated number of hours, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. Information shall also be segregated by the performance periods and a total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

Surge CLIN pricing shall only include the labor categories, position descriptions, and fully burdened labor rates. The Surge CLIN will be a labor hour CLIN and labor hours will be negotiated at the time of utilization.

Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

5.2.4 Price Data

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Contract Documentation and Price Volume.

5.2.5 Rounding

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. All loaded labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny. The total dollar amount for CLINs 0001 – 0008 shall be divisible by six. The total dollar amount for CLINs 0010 and 4001 shall be divisible by three. The total dollar amount for CLINs 1001 – 3009 shall be divisible by 12.

5.2.6 Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The government will provide property for the contractor to use in performance of the contract. A list of property will be given to the contract award winner prior to the start of contract performance. Refer to Section 4 of the PWS for a complete description of government furnished property, equipment, and facilities.

The government currently has approximately 112 workstations available on Scott AFB for AISS II contractor support; however this number is subject to change. This number DOES NOT constitute the number of bodies required to provide the AISS II services. It is only given as information for offerors to more accurately estimate costs.

5.2.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

At time of submitting proposal, offeror must either state affirmatively it has no OCI issues, or it must submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP), as described in PWS paragraph 6.4.1. If the award of this contract either creates or has the potential to create an actual or perceived OCI by the contractor, its employees, or subcontractors, the offeror shall submit an OIMP at the time of technical proposal. The government-accepted OIMP shall be incorporated by reference into a resultant contract.

5.2.8 Security Clearance

A minimum of one contractor personnel will be required by the DD Form 254 to have TOP SECRET clearance. Offerors shall address this requirement in Volume IV.

5 Attachments to Addendum to FAR 52.212-1:

(1) Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS)

(2) Consent Letter

(3) Client Authorization Letter

(4) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

(5) PPQ Cover Letter

(6) Technical Proposal Checklist

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the government. The government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the government source selection evaluation team 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The government intends to award one contract for the Applications, Infrastructure and Systems Support, Increment II (AISS II) program. However, the government reserves the right to make no award at all.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach Subfactor 3: Configuration Management Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk and Past Performance are of equal importance. Within the Technical factor, the subfactors are considered of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

b. Technical Factor The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated by following DoD Source Selection Procedures Methodology 2, Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process.The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach – Each offeror shall provide an integrated technical solution. The technical solution must represent the offeror’s approach to meeting the overall PWS requirements. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when your firm’s technical approach provides the following essential elements:

(a) Level 3 knowledge of software and systems listed in section 1.2 of the PWS.

(b) Expertise in Enterprise Support Services which pertains to the tasks and work specific to engineering efforts defined in the PWS sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and 2.2.7.

(c) Requirements analysis and tracking processes.

(d) Effective 24/7/365, on-call Level 3 Technical and Engineering Support of production and infrastructure systems as defined in PWS section 2.3.4.

(e) Upgrade, sustainment, and maintenance of the various MAF C2, ITV/Business System environments and infrastructures as defined in PWS sections 2.2 and 2.3.

(f) Exercising and support multiple Continuity of Operations Plans as defined in PWS section 2.3.4.1.1.1.

(g) Compliance with DODD 8570.01-M IAW PWS paragraphs 2.3.6 and 7.12.

(h) Draft Quality Plan (QP) described in CDRL B010 and PWS sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3. In the QP, provide the process your firm would use to systematically provide for early identification of non-conforming supplies or services, develops metrics to track performance trends, details the corrective actions required to ensure timely and acceptable delivery/performance in accordance with the PWS, and details their partnering approach with the government to ensure mission objectives are met. The QP shall also comply with ISO 10005.

(i) Draft testing plan as described in the PWS section 2.3.7, CDRL C002 and provide an explanation of your approach for testing. The plan must include methodology for reporting test results, managing multiple test activities, assisting in fault isolation, and managing dynamic testing schedules for multiple test events.

(j) Draft training plan as described in the PWS section 2.3.8, CDRL D002 and D003 to include an explanation of your approach for training.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach – Each offeror shall provide a plan with their approach to overall staffing of and transition to AISS II. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s proposed plan provides the following essential elements:

(a) A staffing plan containing a personnel matrix that identifies the personnel resources to perform the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall provide a logical approach that ensures timely support and shall specifically address the following requirements:

1 Process to recruit/retain/replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, training, language ability, and technical expertise/certification/security clearances commensurate with the requirements of the PWS.

2 Identification of key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS to include position descriptions identifying the educational and experience level, requisite security clearances and (IA) certifications and any other qualifications showing the key individual’s ability to be a key personnel for the services required by the PWS. Additionally, the contractor shall include the specific resumes of the key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS. Salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract should be included in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, incorporated by reference.

3 Provide a hierarchy chart displaying proposed organizational structure.

(b) Transition Plan: Offerors shall provide a plan for the transition of services that includes specific details of the timelines needed to meet all government requirements as detailed in the PWS. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. In addition, the proposed plan must provide the following transition plan requirements:

1 An explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at Task Order award in order to meet all requirements of the PWS.

2 Provide a listing of risks, their severity or probability and what actions you would take to mitigate those risks.

In arriving at a best value decision, the government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of objective requirements.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weaknesses identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section 2, paragraph a. (2). The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers; Past Performance Questionnaires; and commercial sources.

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference Section 2, paragraph a. (2)). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the scope and complexity of effort and the contractor’s ability to provide functional, technical, analytical, and management support expertise. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). Each team member’s past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate with all contracts submitted being of equal importance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

- Enclave and data replication support

- MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems software and hardware

- Training for systems utilized DoD wide to include Classroom, web based, and customized, as well as development of user manuals and CBTs

- Testing AF systems to include test plans, test reports, and JITC testing

- LAN/WAN network communication within TACC, AMC and USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Support of DoD/AF Security, accreditation and IA activities

- The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV/Business Systems

- Enclave and data replication support

- MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems…