Attachment 7. Section L&M Draft - HFGCS PRS Recompete.pdf

Section L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

I. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

a. This is a 100% small business set-aside competition under NAICS code 517810, All Other Telecommunications, size standard $40M.

b. Offerors shall not submit more than one offer as the prime in response to this solicitation. Offerors submitting a prime proposal are not permitted to submit a separate proposal as a subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Small business subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes.

c. Only offers submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The Government will retain one copy of each Offeror’s proposal (FAR Subpart 4.8).

d. Offerors that do not have an active registration in System for Award Management (SAM.gov) at https://sam.gov at the time proposals are due will not be considered for award. Proposals shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail to permit the Government to adequately validate proposal statements.

1. Proprietary Information. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation shall be clearly marked and will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 USC §§ 2101-2107, implemented at FAR 3.104). Any unmarked proprietary information will be considered releasable under the restrictions of the Freedom of Information Act.

2. Availability of Funds. In accordance with DAFFARS MP 5332.7, Notice to offerors: funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse Offerors for any costs incurred.

3. Exceptions/Assumptions. If Offerors find it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation (to include the PWS and attachments), clearly identify each exception in the cover letter along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and the resulting benefit to the Government. The Government may consider any included Assumptions as an Offeror taking exception to the Government’s requirements, which may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms, conditions, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

II. SOLICITATION INFORMATION

1. The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.215- 1, unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation.

2. Communications. Communication of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Post-award notices and debriefings will be conducted IAW FAR 15.505 and 15.506, as applicable.

3. Solicitation Questions. All questions must be submitted via email to the Contract Team: andrea.palmer.1@us.af.mil, shantia.allen@us.af.mil and eledys.breighner@us.af.mil using the Atch 4, Question and Answer Matrix no later than DDMMYYYY. Questions will not be answered over the phone or submitted by any other means. Questions received after this date will be addressed at the sole discretion of the contracting officer.

4. Proposal Submission. Proposals shall be submitted via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module, IAW the procedures listed below. Proposals must be received no later than XX:00 PM/AM DDMMYYYY.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to plan accordingly, submit proposals well in advance of the designated submission deadline, mailto:andrea.palmer.1@us.af.mil mailto:shantia.allen@us.af.mil mailto:eledys.breighner@us.af.mil and ensure affirmative receipt of proposals. Contractors may follow up with the Contract Managers listed above before the due date and time via email to confirm receipt. Proposals not received by the designated submission deadline will be regarded as “late” and will not be considered.

4.1 The solicitation release will be announced via SAM.gov, but Offerors will be directed to find the solicitation documents in the PIEE Solicitation module at https://piee.eb.mil/. PIEE access can be granted to any Subcontractors in need of a confidential vehicle by which to submit direct and indirect rates directly to the Government. Company names and CAGE codes are to be emailed directly to the Contract Managers to gain access to the system. An overview of the PIEE Solicitation Module is available at https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com. All Vendors can view solicitations in the Solicitation Module by selecting “Solicitation Search” in the Award section or “Solicitation Search” under the SUPPORT section at the bottom of the page.

4.2 Search for FA4890-24-R-0009 postings. The SAM.gov site will reference back to this module. The Solicitation Module is a vendor portal for solicitations within the PIEE platform to automate and secure the process for capturing solicitations, attachments, and responses from industry. The Solicitation Module allows vendors to retrieve and respond to solicitations and communicate directly with Solicitation Managers in a secure environment. Vendors choosing to submit a proposal in the Solicitation Module must register in PIEE and submit a request for the Proposal Manager role. Training resources are provided below (there are additional resources available online as well.)

4.3 Access instructions and Account Support Contact Information:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/eb/docs/PIEE/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf.

4.4 Proposal Manager Instructions in the Solicitation

Module: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Proposal_Manager.pdf.

4.5 All PIEE Solicitation Module Web Based Training: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml.

4.6 The Government strongly recommends Offerors familiarize themselves with the system: both for retrieving information and to enable them to submit their offers in a timely manner. Offerors must not rely on the Government to assist Offerors in understanding how to use PIEE or transmit proposals within PIEE. For issues regarding PIEE, please refer to the PIEE resources and PIEE help desk, 1-866-618-5988.

4.7 Offerors are advised that DoD and Air Force cyber-security systems may significantly delay or even halt delivery of e-mails. Therefore, Offerors are strongly encouraged to plan accordingly, submit proposals well in advance of the designated submission deadline, and ensure affirmative receipt of proposals (including all proposal attachments) through use of read/delivery receipts or confirmation from the CM or Contracting Officer. In the absence of confirmation from the CM or Contracting Officer or other affirmative evidence of receipt, Offerors shall assume the proposal has not been received. It is the sole responsibility of the Prime Contractor to ensure that all submissions are received timely. If the offeror has any problems with PIEE, contact the CM, Contracting Officer, or PIEE helpdesk within 24 hours, otherwise government will assume offeror did not want to submit proposal. The Government reserves the right to permit alternate submission platforms, such as DoD SAFE. Proposals not received by the designated submission deadline will be regarded as “late” and will not be considered.

5. Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals. Offerors should propose their best business solution to this requirement. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges.

Interchanges may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Subsequent Final Proposal Revisions will not be requested after the interchanges are closed. Therefore, any price changes an Offeror considers appropriate/necessary must be submitted during the interchange process.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2021-08/Solicitation%20Module%20Overview%2020210414.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/eb/docs/PIEE/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Proposal_Manager.pdf https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml tel:8666185988

III. PROPOSAL FORMAT

6. General. Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three Volumes: I) Company Information, II) Technical/Risk, and III) Price as set forth below. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient details for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirement, but rather, it shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. The Offeror’s Technical proposal, in whole or in part, may be incorporated into the resulting contract when awarded, and thereby will become part of the terms and conditions, for the duration of the contract.

Table 1-Proposal Requirements

VOLUME TITLE CONTENTS

MAX

NUMBER

OF PAGES

I Company Information

Cover Letter

No Page Limit

Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedures

OCCI Mitigation Plan (if required)

II Factor 1 – Technical/ Risk

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach & Management Understanding 10

Subfactor 2: Management and Staffing Plan 5

Subfactor 3: Prior Experience 10

III Factor 2 – Price Price No Page Limit

Appendices No Page Limit

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

6.2 An Offeror agrees their proposal is valid for 6 months from the date of receipt of proposals and it will furnish the items and/or services identified in its proposal at the cost/price offered to the designated point(s) within the time specified in the contract.

6.3 The page limits prescribed in the table above are maximum page limits for each factor/subfactor. Cover pages, table of contents, appendices, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits. Pages submitted that exceed these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation.

6.4 All proposal information shall be submitted in PDF format except for the Pricing, which shall be submitted in the MS Excel format. Font size must be no smaller than Times New Roman size 10. The restriction on font size and page restrictions are applicable to all items provided as part of an Offeror's proposal submission (i.e., tables and charts). Margins shall not be any smaller than one inch. The proposal must be submitted with a cover/transmittal letter on company letterhead that includes the company name, address, and a Point of Contact (POC). The OCCI mitigation plan (if applicable), acronym list, cross- reference matrix, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this RFP. Each Volume shall be submitted as a separately labeled electronic file and each volume shall adhere to the table above.

6.5 Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

7. Volume I, Company Information

8.1 Volume I, Company Information shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the

RFP.

8.1.1 The Company Information Volume shall include the Offeror’s cover letter and Organizational and Consultant

Conflict of Interest (OCCI) Mitigation Plan.

8.1.2 Cover Letter. The cover letter shall not count toward the page count and shall contain the following:

a. Cover Letter Offeror’s Name

b. Address

c. CAGE code and UEI Number

d. GSA Contract Number

e. Company POC(s), phone number, and email address

f. Cognizant Security Office

g. Acknowledgement of each amendment issued.

h. Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) Certification.

i. In accordance with FAR 9.5, Offerors shall address OCCI as a statement on their cover page, which shall indicate if an OCCI does or does not exist. If an Offeror determines a potential or real OCCI issue exists, the Offeror must include a plan that describes reasonable processes and procedures to avoid or mitigate and any actual or potential OCCIs. If the plan is required, and is not provided, the proposal will not be evaluated further, and the Offeror is not eligible for award.

j. If the Offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation (to include the PWS and attachments), clearly identify each exception in the cover letter along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and the resulting benefit to the Government. The Government may consider any included Assumptions as an Offeror taking exception to the Government’s requirements, which may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

k. Statement that the Offeror’s proposal and pricing is valid for six (6) months from the proposal due date.

8.2 Security Plan. Standard Operating Procedures.

8.2.1 A Secret Facility Clearance is required. An Offeror without the requisite clearance will not be permitted as the prime contractor due to the required security classification. Offerors shall possess or acquire a facility clearance equal to the requirement on the DD254 (Attachment 2) without additional authorization (i.e., National Interest Determination (NID)) by the proposal due date. If an Offeror does not have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award. Secret Facility Clearance is not required for the JV itself if the Offeror is an unpopulated Joint Venture and all members of the Joint Venture possess a Secret facility security clearance.

8.2.2 A Joint Venture (JV) without its own FCL will not have access to classified information and all access will solely be through the cleared JV members. Therefore, a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following:

a. Identification of the JV member that will be responsible for implementing and managing all security program requirements.

b. A description of the JV and JV members’ roles and responsibilities to ensure compliance with 32 CFR Part 117, NISPOM.

c. A copy of the joint venture agreement(s) relating to the establishment of the JV and any subcontracts awarded to the individual JV members as they relate to this solicitation and all security responsibilities.

d. A completed Standard Form 328, "Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests" for the JV;

e. Execute a formal exclusion resolution stating that the JV will not require and will not have access to classified information; and

f. The two joint venture members shall execute similar resolutions excluding the JV from access to classified information.

8.2.3 Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) Certification Statement. The offeror shall provide a self-certifying statement that the offeror possesses an approved Secret FCL, to include the cage code for which the clearance is approved. Offerors that are unpopulated Joint Ventures may meet this requirement by each member of the Joint Venture possessing a - Secret facility security clearance.

8.3 OCCI Mitigation Plan: If the offeror identified in the cover letter that a potential or real OCCI exists, the offeror shall provide a plan that describes the processes and procedures they will implement to avoid or mitigate any actual or potential OCIs. The plan shall outline how the contractor evaluates, mitigates (where necessary), and re-evaluates any OCIs.

8.4 Financial Information: To expedite the responsibility determination required by FAR 9.103(b), provide documentation of the following:

a. Offeror’s adequate financial resources, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-3(a)).

i. Evidence may include official letter(s) from financial institutions demonstrating that the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitments.

b. Offeror’s organization, experience, accounting, and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-1(e)).

i. Evidence may include a list of organizational policies or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which demonstrates the organizational controls and measures of the Offeror.

ii. If providing a list, include the title of each policy or SOP, the date of each document, a brief description of each, and state to which element of FAR 9.104(e) it applies.

8. Volume II, Technical/ Risk Proposal

9.1 General. The Technical/Technical Risk proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail that substantiates the Offeror’s stated claims. The Technical/Technical Risk Proposal shall be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are important. Responses will be evaluated against the technical factors defined in this section. Provide the precise methodology your company would use to accomplish/satisfy the requirement. Address your technical solution for meeting the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 1) and address the performance standards and requirements therein. Include your approach for meeting all the areas under Factor 1, to include all Sub-factors. Offerors shall not include specific names nor submit resumes in their proposal. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. The Government will base its evaluation solely on information presented in the Offeror’s written Technical/Technical Risk Proposal.

9.2 Format and Specific Content. The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. Note: The object of the technical factor is to focus in on a significant discriminator (or discriminators) that will allow the Government to assess the proposed technical approach. Here you will need to identify your technical discriminators.

If technical subfactors are used, they should be kept to a minimum. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor 1: Technical and Management Approach Subfactor 2: Management and Staffing Plan

Subfactor 2: Prior Experience

9. Volume III, Cost/Price

10.1 General. The Offeror shall submit price proposals for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Items and basis for Labor and Cost Reimbursable (CR) basis. For all Cost Reimbursable CLINs, Offeror’s shall not alter the not-to-exceed (NTE) amount.

Offerors shall use the SF 33 CLIN Structure provided by the Government, and it must contain complete pricing for all work IAW the PWS. If an Offeror alters the NTE amounts, the price evaluators will replace them with the NTE amounts provided. All formulas shall remain present in the spreadsheet for verification. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure all formulas and calculations are accurate. The pricing shall be completed by the Offeror in accordance with their accounting policies and procedures.

For purposes of monthly invoicing and obligation tracking, the yearly totals for labor must be divisible by the total amount of months in the respective period of performance and then rounded to whole dollar totals. For the base year, the yearly totals should be divisible by 12, the option years divisible by 12, and the 52.217-8 period divisible by 6. The burden of providing a mathematically accurate and complete pricing proposal using the format provided rests with each Offeror. At the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, mathematical errors identified may be corrected with the corrected pricing applied for evaluation purposes only. In cases where a proposed yearly total is not evenly divisible to months, the total will be downward adjusted to the nearest whole dollar amount that is divisible by the total amount of months in the respective period of performance. Proposals with corrected errors that materially affect the selection of the apparent awardee may be returned through an interchange for revision prior to finalizing the source selection.

9.2 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS). Offerors shall comply with clause 52.222-43 for their price proposal regarding employees covered by SCLS. Proposed option year prices shall not include allowances for any contingency to cover increased wage or benefits costs for which contract price adjustment is provided by clause 52.222- 43.

9.3 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Offerors shall comply with clause 52.222-43 for their price proposal regarding employees covered by CBA. Proposed option year prices shall not include allowances for any contingency to cover increased wage or benefits costs for which contract price adjustment is provided by clause 52.222- 43.

9.4 Other than Cost or Pricing Data. Certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, supporting data/other than cost or pricing data is requested. Supporting data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed labor rates. Examples of supporting data includes any information reasonably required to explain the Offeror’s estimating process, including but not limited to the breakdown of indirect rates (i.e., G&A, overhead, fringe, and profit) and the judgmental factors applied, and the mathematical or other methods used to estimate, and the nature and amount of any contingencies included in the proposed price.

9.5 Rates. The Offeror shall submit price proposals on a FFP basis showing the Direct Labor Rates, Burdening Rates (i.e., fringe, overhead, G&A, M&SC, etc.), and Fully Burdened Rates. Direct Labor Rates and Fully Burdened Rates for both prime and subcontractors shall be submitted. In the event a subcontractor does not wish to provide their Direct Labor Rates to the prime contractor for the Price Proposal, the subcontractor shall submit their pricing via email to: andrea.palmer.1@us.af.mil, shantia.allen@us.af.mil and eledys.breighner@us.af.mil .

9.6 Pricing Accuracy. The burden of providing a mathematically accurate and complete pricing proposal using the format provided rests with each Offeror. Pricing errors that materially affect the pricing may be grounds for exclusion from the evaluation pool.

9.7 Price Narrative. Offerors shall a submit a clear and concise Price Narrative and provide sufficient detail so the Government can ensure the proposed price reflects the work to be performed. The intention of the Price Narrative is to correlate pricing/market data with the Offeror’s pricing structure. Offerors shall use the Price narrative to communicate their understanding of the marketplace and provide market analysis data, which the Government must be able to correlate to the Offeror’s Price and Technical Proposals. Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of a proposal.

mailto:andrea.palmer.1@us.af.mil mailto:shantia.allen@us.af.mil mailto:eledys.breighner@us.af.mil

Section M - Evaluation Award

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Source Selection Methodology

1.1 This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 (SADA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

2. Evaluations Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

2.1 Factors and Subfactors. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Combined Technical/ Risk Subfactor (1) Technical and Management Approach Subfactor (2) Management & Staffing Plan Subfactor (3) Prior Experience

Factor II - Cost/Price Factor

2.2 Relative Importance: Factor 1 is significantly more important than price.

3. Proposal Evaluation

3.1 General

The Government intends to utilize a trade-off evaluation methodology whereby Factor 1 – Technical/ Risk may be traded off for Factor 2 - Price. Factor 1- Technical/Risk is significantly more important than Factor 2 - Price. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government. 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 (SADA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SADA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit.

3.1.1 First, the Government will verify the Offeror provided all information required in Volume 1 – Company Information which will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If the Offeror failed to provide any of the required information it may render the Offeror ineligible for award, and the quote may not be evaluated further.

3.1.2 Second, the Government will evaluate Volume II, Factor 1 – Technical, and assign each subfactor a separate color/adjectival rating IAW Table 4, with each subfactor being equal in importance. To be eligible for award, each Technical Subfactor must receive a minimum rating of “Green/Acceptable”. An Offeror can have 2 weaknesses and still be considered “Green/Acceptable”. An “Red/Unacceptable” rating in any subfactor will result in an “Red/Unacceptable” rating for the overall Technical Factor, render the Offeror ineligible for award, and the quote may not be evaluated further.

3.1.3 Third, the Government will evaluate the Price Volume of each Offeror that was determined to be eligible for award.

3.1.4 Finally, the Government will consider the solicitation provisions, the assessed ratings, and the total evaluated price of quotes in determining which quote represents the best value to the Government. The comparative evaluation results will contribute to the best value selection and any technical and price tradeoffs, if necessary. The Government may or may not conduct a trade-off.

3.2 Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3.3 Volume I, Company Information. Volume I, Company Information will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If the Offeror failed to provide any of the required information or meet the requirements, it renders the Offeror ineligible for award and the proposal will not be evaluated further.

3.4 Volume II, Factor I: Technical/ Risk Evaluation. The Technical/Risk Volume shall include the offeror’s Subfactor (1) Technical and Management Approach, Subfactor (2) Management & Staffing Plan, and Subfactor (3) Prior Experience. Each subfactor will be assigned a color rating. The subfactor color ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the entire Technical/Technical risk factor. An Offeror can have a weakness and still be considered Acceptable. Responses will be evaluated against the technical/technical risk factors defined in this section. Offerors must provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodology they would use to accomplish/satisfy the requirement. Offerors must address their technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. If proposing an approach that may exceed government requirements, clearly identify, explain the advantage to the Government, and specify whether the approach will be applicable for the entire duration of the contract.

3.4.1 Prior Experience. Provide a minimum of one and maximum of five examples of projects completed, or performed for at least six months, within the last five years which demonstrate the Offeror’s experience at fully performing tasks similar in scope and complexity to the requirements of this PWS using the same, or similar, approach as proposed for Subfactor 1. At least one example should include support provided for a project with Secret clearance requirements. Each example shall include:

a) Contract number, or task order number if applicable, the project was performed under

b) Estimated annual dollar value of contract or task order the work was performed under

c) Descriptions of services provided, and locations supported

d) How the project is similar in scope to the requirements of this solicitation

e) The Offeror’s level of responsibility (prime or subcontractor)

f) Contract start and completion dates, including any options

g) Name, title, and email address of customer contact (information is current and accurate)

h) Discuss how the Offeror has successfully managed and maintained Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Communications

Systems

3.4.2 Technical/ Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

3.4.2.1 Definitions:

Strength is an aspect of the proposal that exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during contract performance; in the case of Subfactor 3, a strength is a Prior Experience project that clearly exhibits scope and complexity similar to this requirement.

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

3.4.2.2 Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

3.4.3 Subfactor 1: Technical and Management Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it includes a written technical approach that effectively demonstrates the offeror's clear understanding of all missions supported, tasks, and how the approach will yield the required results, including all criteria herein:

Criteria 1 - This criteria is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates their understanding and technical solution to meet Communications Equipment Support (PWS 3.3), for example System Capable of Planned Expansion (SCOPE) command equipment, antennas and ancillary equipment. The proposal shall clearly describe the Offeror’s approach and understanding of preventive maintenance inspections and Corrective Maintenance support as outlined in

PWS 3.4.24.

Criteria 2 - This criteria is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates their understanding and technical solution to support Facility Maintenance. The proposal shall clearly describe the Offeror’s approach to provide maintenance, repair, construction, installation, operations and services functions for Real Property and Equipment Authorization Inventory Data (EAID) in PWS 3.4.

Criteria 3 – This criteria is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates their understanding of, and solution to environmental safety and health concerns. The proposal shall clearly describe the offeror’s system and plans to manage all HAZMAT (i.e., fuels management) IAW PWS 3.4.13, and 3.4.26.

3.4.4 Subfactor 2: Management and Staffing Plan. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it includes a written management and staffing plan that effectively demonstrates the offeror's clear understanding of the tasks, skills, staffing, and management required to recruit and retain qualified personnel to meet the requirements of the PWS, including all criteria herein:

Criteria 1 - Management Plan. The offeror’s management approach demonstrates a logical and appropriate program and site-level organization structure, appropriate leadership hierarchy, and effective lines of authority and communication, to include management and integration of teaming partners and subcontractors. The management approach demonstrates the offeror’s capability to effectively manage quality, security, and other functions key to successful contract performance.

Criteria 2 - Staffing Plan. Staffing Plan. The offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates a clear understanding of PWS tasks, to include required labor categories, skill mixes and number of personnel proposed to perform the PWS tasks.

1. Demonstrates the offeror’s capability to effectively recruit, onboard, and retain personnel with the requisite experience and qualifications.

2. Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to ensure continuity of operations, manage vacancies, and mitigate disruption of support services during personnel absences or turnover.

3.4.3 Subfactor 3: Prior Experience. This subfactor will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror’s projects demonstrate the likelihood of successfully executing PWS requirements by having successfully performed requirements with similar scope and complexity.

3.5 Volume II, Factor II - Cost/Price Factor. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price; thus, Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear exceptionally low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s).

An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

Additionally, the price volume will be evaluated to ensure it is complete, and proposed prices are fair, reasonable, and balanced.

Offeror financial responsibility will be determined using general standards outlined in FAR 9.104. General financial conditions and elements of provided financial statements may be evaluated by examining available resources, funds, individual cost or pricing elements, and accounting or cost control systems.

3.5.1 Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP). Prices will be evaluated on the TOEP. The TOEP will consist of the sum of all CLINs, Firm Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursable CLINs for the transition, one 12-month based period, seven 1-year option periods, and a 6-month extended service option. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and the TOEP. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.5.2 Other Direct Costs (ODC). Incidentals ODCs are cost reimbursable under PWS 3.3.1.8.3, 3.3.1.4, 3.5.1.2, and

3.5.1.16. The Government estimates incidentals in support of HFGCS not to exceed $53,000.00 annually. When preparing the Price proposal narrative, Offerors shall use the Government provided not to exceed amount for ODCs ($53,000.00 annually) in their proposal3.5.3 Utilities. Billed charges for commercial power and water utilities are cost reimbursable under PWS 3.4.25.5 Electrical and 3.4.25.2 Water and Sewer. The Government estimates electrical utility services in support of HFGCS not to exceed $400,000.00 annually. Additionally, the Government estimates water and sewer utility services for HFGCS not to exceed $30,00.00 annually. When preparing the price proposal narrative, Offerors shall use the Government provided not to exceed amounts for power ($400,000.00) and water / sewer ($30,000.00) in their proposal.

3.5.3 Completeness. Pricing shall be determined to be complete if all price elements have been addressed in MS Excel format with accurate formulas. The Offeror shall provide a pricing narrative that includes supporting data reasonably required to explain the Offeror’s estimating process, the back-up pricing data/basis of estimate documentation is in sufficient detail that the Government is able to ensure the proposed price reflects the work to be performed, ability to provide uninterrupted, high-quality work, the Offeror’s capability to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives, as well as a complete SF 33 with provided not to exceed amounts.

3.5.4 Fair and Reasonableness. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this RFP is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. The Government will use the techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1 as the primary means of assessing price reasonableness as prescribed in DoD Class Deviation 2014-O0011- Determination of Fair and Reasonable prices. In the event the Government does not obtain adequate price competition, the Government will rely on alternate analysis techniques as prescribed under FAR 15.404-1.

3.5.5 Balance. Pricing shall be determined to be balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1.