Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri--5123 Amendment 2.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) #FA7014-23-R-0013 Atch 5

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (MAR 2023)

1. TYPE OF CONTRACT

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract. This Request for Proposal (RFP) is being issued as a Total Small Business Set-Aside using NAICS code 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and 15.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DUE DATE AND TIME

The entire and complete proposal, composed of Cover letter, Volume I, and Volume II, shall be submitted by the date and time stated in Block 8 of FA7014-23-R-0013, SF 1449. Early proposal submission is encouraged, to allow enough time to ensure entire proposal is received on time to be considered for award. Late submissions will be processed IAW FAR 52.212-1(f).

Proposal submissions shall be emailed to the following individuals by the date and time identified on the SF1449.

Margaret Santos, Contracting Officer E-mail address: margaret.santos@us.af.mil

Shataya Butler, Contract Specialist E-mail address: shataya.butler@us.af.mil

Timothy Prymak, Contract Specialist E-mail address: timothy.prymak@us.af.mil

Please send request for dropoff link to the above POCs for all files greater than 5MB.

2.2 COMPLIANCE

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors shall comply with all instructions within this section and all solicitation submission requirements, including submission requirements within the terms and conditions.

2.3 RFP QUESTIONS SUBMISSION DUE DATE AND TIME

The Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contract Specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. All correspondence in conjunction with this RFP should be directed to the CO and CS identified below:

Margaret Santos, Contracting Officer E-mail address: margaret.santos@us.af.mil

Shataya Butler, Contract Specialist E-mail address: shataya.butler@us.af.mil

Timothy Prymak, Contract Specialist E-mail address: timothy.prymak@us.af.mil

Written questions and/or inquiries must be received in accordance with the RFP. Please consolidate questions into as few requests as possible. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to all questions submitted by Offerors; however, will consider the questions received by the RFP questions submission due date and time, consolidate them, and provide responses to all parties through the SAM.gov. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted.

2.4 MARKINGS

Offerors shall 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. Classified information will not be permitted.

2.5 RFP RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

2.5.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall include all information requested by this RFP and shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and RFP. Non-compliance with the instructions provided in this RFP may result in the proposal being ineligible for award.

Deviations from the instructions will be reviewed by the CO to ensure that no contractor receives a competitive advantage.

2.5.3 Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this RFP and include the Offeror’s approach for providing all personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to provide services in support of the “Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Cyber Effects Operations (CEO), and Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority (ESS) (ICE) Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS)” requirement. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish the requirements and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but instead shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the stated requirements.

2.5.3 Elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the RFP are not unnecessary and not desired. Similarly, for oral presentations, elaborate productions are unnecessary and not desired.

2.5.4 Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2.6 PROPOSAL VOLUME ORGANIZATION/PAGE LIMITATIONS

The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The cover letter shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information. The cover letter shall be a separate document and will not be counted in the page limitations. Only proposals submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The following are further descriptions of the information that shall be provided with the proposal.

Volume / Subfolder

Title Page Limit

Volume I ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER

Narrative Summary 5

Contract Docs: Signed SF1449 and SF30, if applicable No limit

Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements No limit Security Requirement/DD254 No limit

Reps & Certs No limit

Volume II EVALUATION FOLDER

SubFolder 1 Technical Capability

Technical Approach 50 pages

Staffing and Management Plan No limit

SubFolder 2 Past Performance No limit

Narrative

SubFolder 3 Price No limit

Price Spreadsheet: Pricelist w/supporting docs

Other than Certified Cost Pricing Data, if and when applicable

Table 1. - Proposal Organization

3. PROPOSAL PACKAGE

3.1 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER

3.1.1 Narrative Summary

The offeror’s proposal shall include a narrative summary of the entire proposal that is concise, to include addressing significant risks and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price.

The narrative content shall relate to the evaluation factors/sub factors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

a. Authorized Offeror Personnel: The offeror shall provide the name, title, and phone 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.

b. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Provide company/division’s street address, county, and facility code; CAGE code; SAM Unique Entity ID (UEI); TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information shall be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor.

3.1.2 Contract Documentation

a. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the SF1449 (to include clause fill-ins).

Signature by the Offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the commercial contract terms and conditions as written in the

RFP.

b. This will be the IDIQ contract with baseline clauses and conditions. The specific prices, contract type(s), delivery requirements and period of performance will be determined at the delivery order level.

3.1.3 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors shall address all assumptions and proposed exceptions to the Contracting Officer through the Questions and Answers process prior to proposal submission.

Offerors shall 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.

3.1.4 Security Requirements/DD254

All contractors are required to hold at a minimum a facility clearance level of TOP SECRET.

Offerors shall complete the DD254 (block 6 and 8). See attached DD254 (Attachment 2) for details. To be eligible for award, an offeror must have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission. Sponsorship will not be granted.

3.1.5 Representative and Certifications

Offeror shall ensure all required representations and certifications have been filled-in/completed and are provided in their proposal.

3.2 VOLUME II – EVALUATED FOLDER

The evaluated folder shall consist of the following three (3) subfolders:

Subfolder 1 Technical Subfolder 2 Past Performance Subfolder 3 Price List (See Atch 4 Price Spreadsheet)

3.2.1 Subfolder 1: Technical Capability

Technical shall consist of two (2) documents:

Technical Approach Staffing/Management Approach

3.2.1.1 Technical Approach

Offerors shall provide a legible, clear, and coherent narrative describing its approach to fulfill the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.1 through 1.3. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate its ability to provide working knowledge and experience in each of the following areas:

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Requirements Cyber/Warfighter Communications Requirements Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority (ESS)

3.2.1.2 Staffing/Management Plan

Offerors shall provide a legible, clear, and coherent narrative describing its approach to fulfill the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.1 through 5.0.

3.2.1.2.1 Staffing Plan

The Offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan that demonstrates its capability to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel. The Staffing Plan shall address the 17 common labor categories found in Attachment 4, as well as the Offeror's proposed solution of labor categories as it relates to experience. and expertise required, including appropriate security clearances, to perform the entire range of tasks in the PWS.

The staffing plan shall describe the following:

Approach and ability to staff, including recruitment approaches/capabilities.

Method in which the company replaces personnel.

Method(s) in which the company retains current employees.

Ability to provide identified labor categories that are trained, qualified, certified, cleared personnel with appropriate security clearances to accomplish the requirements of the PWS at start date of the IDIQ.

3.2.1.2.2 Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan that fully describes its approach to manage personnel, teaming partners and/or subcontractors (if applicable) in order to efficiently and proactively manage the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract and perform the requirements stated in Performance Work Statement paragraphs 1.4 through 5.0 and address how the Offeror will provide the Government visibility into each task.

The management plan shall describe the following:

How management and control policies will be implemented How work will be controlled, reported, and reviewed Plans to ensure personnel and tasks are compliant with regulations, specifically DoD

8570.01-M Cybersecurity Baseline Certifications The approach to plan, track cost, schedule, and performance, teaming, quality, and overall oversight for multiple concurrent Task orders

3.2.2 Subfolder 2: Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide past performance information on at least three (3) contracts/work efforts, but no more than five (5). Offeror should consider subcontractor past performance submission if their proposal includes teaming/subcontracting efforts. To be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed or ongoing within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. Offeror’s proposal shall provide examples of past performance that demonstrate a likelihood of success in the contemplated effort. The evaluation of past performance information will include predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition.

3.2.2.1 Contract/Work Effort Descriptions

The Offeror shall furnish the following information for each contract/work effort submitted:

i. Company/Division Name

ii. Description of service and a detailed explanation of relevance to this requirement

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer point of contact or reference having knowledge of contract performance

iv. Contract number

v. Contract type and dollar value (per year cost and life cycle cost)

vi. Total number of FTEs

vii. Designation as a prime or subcontractor

viii. Period of Performance

ix. Completion date

x. Verified, up-to-date name, address, & telephone number of the Contracting

Officer

xi. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

xii. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

3.2.3 Subfolder 3: Price

Price Proposal shall consist of at least two (2) documents:

Part 1: Price List (see Attachment 4 Price Spreadsheet) Part 2: Narrative: PECP description, and Supporting Docs, if applicable

3.2.3.1 Price List (Attachment 4)

Attachment 4 is provided to ensure the Government is able to evaluate all price elements appropriately. The Price List shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format and include all cell formulas. Please ensure there are no protected/locked cells. Offerors are required to submit prices for the five (5) year Ordering Period.

3.2.3.1.1 Tab 1 Price List

The Offeror shall populate Tab 1 to reflect proposed labor rates. The proposed labor rates shall be Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs) to establish the price list and to include the teaming/subcontractor ceiling rates, if applicable. These proposed rates shall be the highest rates for each labor category for the Offeror’s proposed team. Offerors shall expect rates to be discounted at the task order level. In proposing rates, Offerors may not consider uncompensated overtime. This rate shall include all applicable direct and indirect rates such as Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and Profit.

Labor categories shall not be combined into composite categories. Under no circumstances will composite labor rates or categories be accepted. All labor proposed must be discretely identified by category, rate, and year utilized. All FBLRs shall be calculated per year as this will be the ceiling rates for each year. Offerors are required to fill-in fully burdened labor rate(s) for each labor category proposed to include team members or subcontractors. Team Members/Subcontractors’ labor categories shall be identified.

Team Members/Subcontractors:

Price information for each team member/subcontractor shall be furnished in the same format and level of detail as prescribed for the prime Offeror. Prime offeror shall ensure all proposed subcontractors pricing is provided by the proposal due date and time.

3.2.3.1.2 Tab 2 PECP

The Offeror shall populate Tab 2 by mapping proposed Labor Categories to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation Classification (BLS SOC) found at BLS.gov/soc Categories. The Offeror shall reflect proposed unburdened Salary (annual), Unburdened rate (hourly) and Fringe percentage.

Position title Labor Category Skill Level OMB

SOC #

Unburdened Salary

Unburdened Rate

Fringe Percentage

Asst Project Manager

Business and Financial Operations Specialist Group 2

Journeyman 13-1111 $91.14 33%

Project Manager

Business and Financial Operations Specialist Group 3

Senior

Proposed Labor rates shall correspond to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) number that applies.

Any proposed rates that significantly deviates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) SOC percentile wage estimates shall be supported with applicable data in the narrative.

Offeror’s shall provide a narrative describing direct labor escalation. Any escalation proposed shall be consistent with the average annual Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Economic Cost Index (ECI) for the previous three years. Any proposed escalation that deviates from the BLS ECI shall be supported with applicable data in the narrative. If any other indices are used to determine escalation, the index needs to be provided in the narrative.

3.2.3.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) Narrative

In addition to the Price List (Attachment 5), the Offeror shall provide a Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) IAW FAR 52.222-46. The offeror shall provide company policies and procedures that explain how employee salary is determined and the applicable fringe benefits such as holidays, healthcare, pension, 401K, etc. The Offeror shall also provide unburdened rates, which includes supporting information such as salary and fringe benefits paid to the professional employee for the National Capital Region (NCR)(U.S. Postal Codes 20762/20330) ) and/or DC Metropolitan Area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD- WV). The prime and first-tier subcontractors shall further provide company policies and procedures that explain how employee salary is determined and the applicable fringe benefits such as holidays, healthcare, pension, 401K, etc.

Any proposed rates that deviate from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC), for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains compensation data, shall be supported with applicable data in the narrative.

Benefits Table (Example):

List of Benefits Description of Benefits Paid time off (PTO) 30 days per year Holidays 10 paid holidays per year Short-Term Disability

Long-Term Disability

Life & Personal Accidental Insurance

401K / IRA Plan

Medical and Pharmacy

Dental Benefits

Vision Benefits

Flex spending account

Health Care Spending

Educational Assistance Pays 75% tuition Employee Referral Bonus

3.2.3.3 Supporting Pricing Data

Offeror’s price proposal must be based on the Offeror’s own technical proposal, the Government’s specifications, and other contractual requirements.

Note: Subcontractor/team partner(s)(if applicable) shall submit this information directly to the Government Points of Contact identified in this RFP.

For the Offeror’s price volume to be considered as complete, the Offeror shall address all price elements to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

Reminder, compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

ADDENDUM FOR FAR PROVISION FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed-Price Multiple Award IDIQ Contract to responsible Small Business Offerors whose proposals, conforming to the solicitation, provide the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors. Selections may be made to proposals with the best rated technical capability and past performance with price that is complete, reasonable, balanced, and with a realistic PECP. Non-price factors are defined as Technical Capability and Past Performance, in which Technical Capability is considered greater than Past Performance, however, when combined are significantly more important than Price.

The Government anticipates to award 3 contracts, however, reserves the right to award more or less under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

The Government will first review all documents for compliance with the solicitation. When all requested documents are received on time and confirmed compliant, then the offeror’s proposal package will be submitted for evaluation.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to process each proposal through the following steps:

Step 1 Review proposal for compliance, when proposal is determined compliant, proceed to step 2.

Step 2 Review DD254 to validate Offeror’s Industry Security Classification. When confirmed with Top Secret, proceed to Step 3

Step 3 Distribute Technical, Past Performance, and Price for evaluation. Once Evaluated proceed to Step 4.

Step 4 Make determination to conduct Exchanges and/or Discussions. If yes, proceed accordingly until ratings are accomplished. Once ratings are accomplished proceed to Step 5

Step 5 Rack and Stack ratings, determine Awardee(s)

2.2 COMPLIANCE CHECK

The Contracting Officer will perform a compliance check of all submitted information to determine eligibility for award. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offeror’s whose proposals are determined to be compliant will move into the evaluation process.

2.2.1 Submission

The below checklist is provided to identify the information required for proposal submission.

Offerors should use this table as a guide prior to submitting to ensure the proposed information is complete and ready for evaluation. Any information missing from the list below may result in a non-compliant submission, which will not be evaluated.

Volume / Subfolder

Title Reference

Volume I ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER

Narrative Summary 3.1.1

Contract Docs: Signed SF1449 and SF30, if applicable 3.1.2

Security Requirement/DD254 3.1.4

Reps & Certs 3.1.5

Volume II EVALUATION FOLDER

SubFolder 1 Technical Capability

Technical Approach 3.2.1.1

Staffing and Management Plan 3.2.1.2

SubFolder 2 Past Performance

Narrative 3.2.2

SubFolder 3 Price

Price Spreadsheet: Pricelist w/supporting docs 3.2.3.1

Other than Certified Cost Pricing Data, if and when applicable

3.2.3.2

2.2.2 Security Requirement/DD254

If the Offeror (and its *subcontractor(s)/ teaming partner(s), if applicable) does not have an active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance (as verified by the CAGE code) at the receipt of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated.

*If the Offeror’s subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s), if applicable, is not proposing any of the TS/SCI positions/roles IAW the PWS, subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s) must have a valid SECRET Facility Clearance (as verified by the CAGE code) at the receipt of proposal submission.

2.3 EVALUATION FOLDER SUBMISSION (VOLUME II)/EVALUATION FACTORS

Once determined compliant, the following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor I: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Staff/Management Plan

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

2.3.1 Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate both technical subfactors to determine an overall rating for Factor 1 Technical Capability. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating as shown below. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or higher on each element within the subfactor in order to be considered technically Acceptable under those subfactors. Overall Technical Capability rating will consist of Technical approach being significantly more important than staffing/management plan. A rating of unacceptable in either subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 Technical.

The Government intends to perform a combined technical/risk evaluation using the following adjectival ratings:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001).

Uncertainty is any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Technical risk is defined as follows:

Risk Definitions 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.

2.3.1.1 Subfactor 1 Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate how well the proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of AF/A2-6’s mission as it relates to the tasks identified in the PWS to in include certification requirements, working knowledge and experience in each of the following areas:

2.3.1.1.1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance IAW PWS 1.1

ASPECT 1: Global Air Domain.

ASPECT 2: Defense Civilian Intelligence System Support (DCIPS).

ASPECT 3: Foreign Language Office.

ASPECT 4: Chief Information Officer (ISR/CIO) Support.

ASPECT 5: UAS/RPA Operations, Airborne ISR Communications, Airborne Sensors & Future Sensing Grid Technical and Management Support.

2.3.1.1.2 Communication and Cyber IAW PWS 1.2

ASPECT 1: Ground Communications Support.

ASPECT 2: Airborne Communications Support.

ASPECT 3: Integration Support Option.

ASPECT 4: Expeditionary Communications Support.

ASPECT 5: Satellite Communications Support.

ASPECT 6: High Frequency (HF) Communications Support.

ASPECT 7: National Leadership Command Capability (NLCC) and Senior Leader Command, Control, and Communications System – Airborne (SLCS3-A) Support.

ASPECT 8: Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Support.

ASPECT 9: Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) Support.

ASPECT 10: Warfighting Integration Governance Support.

2.3.1.1.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority IAW PWS PARA 1.3

ASPECT 1: Electromagnetic Warfare.

ASPECT 2: Spectrum Support.

2.3.1.2 Subfactor 2 Staffing/Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the proposed staffing and management approach to determine the Offeror’s capability of performing the entire range of the tasks in the PWS based on the following:

2.3.1.2.1 Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Staffing Plan to determine its capability to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel. The Government will also evaluate the proposed list of labor categories to determine how well it describes the required experience and expertise, including appropriate security clearances, to perform the entire range of tasks in the PWS at the start date of the IDIQ. The Government will evaluate how well the proposed solution represent an understanding of the requirement.

2.3.1.2.2 Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for their capability of managing their personnel and teaming partners/subcontractors (if applicable), its approach to efficiently and proactively manage requirements in PWS 1.4 through 5.0, and how the Offeror will provide the Government visibility into each task.

The Government will also evaluate how well the management plan demonstrates capability in the following areas:

How management and control policies will be implemented How work will be controlled, reported, and reviewed Ensure personnel and tasks are compliant with regulations, as identified in the PWS How to plan, track cost, schedule, and performance, teaming, Quality, and overall oversight for multiple concurrent Task orders.

2.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

Past Performance will be assessed at the overall factor level to establish a performance confidence assessment rating. The Government will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team (in the case of joint ventures or where primes propose with substantial subcontractors) or on an individual basis for offerors proposing on their own. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Past Performance Evaluation/Result ratings based on the Offeror’s record of recent, relevant per criteria below, and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to services outlined in the RFP requirements.

2.3.2.1 Recency

The Past Performance will be reviewed for recency. Recent past performance is determined to be ongoing projects or projects completed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP and for a minimum of a six (6) month. Anything later than five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP and/or less than six (6) month performance is determined to be NOT recent.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy

Relevancy will be determined based on the definition provided in Table below. Each contract/work effort will receive a relevancy rating.

Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.3 Quality of Performance

The Government will assess the quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the services performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information collected, regardless of its source. A separate quality rating will not be given.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the Offeror. The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated using systems such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources, or databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency, or other sources known to the Government.

2.3.2.4 Past Performance Evaluation/Result Rating

The Past Performance Evaluation/Result rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive one integrated overall past performance evaluation/result rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful performance rating can be reasonably assigned will receive an “Unknown / Neutral” rating for the Past Performance Evaluation/Result Rating.

A strong record of recent/relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an unknown/neutral past performance evaluation/result rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The Government will use the following performance evaluation/result ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.3.3 Factor 3: Price

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, completeness, and the PECP will be evaluated for realism. Only proposals determined to be fair and reasonable, balanced, complete, with a realistic PECP will be eligible for award.

2.3.3.1 Pricelist

The proposed pricelist consisting of fully burdened rates for all five-year ordering period will be evaluated as follows:

2.3.3.1.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the average of the fully burdened labor rates of the 17 prepopulated common labor categories (see Atch 4 Pricelist tab 2) across all years.

2.3.3.1.2 Reasonableness

Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will determine prices fair and reasonable using one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). An Offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, if the cost information is needed by the Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the Offeror shall submit the other than certified cost or pricing data as requested.

2.3.3.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more labor rates is significantly over or understated. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between ordering periods or the proposed prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for escalation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Engineer ‐ Journeyman

Engineer ‐ Senior

Engineer ‐ Subject Matter Expert

Program Analyst‐ Journeyman

Program Analyst ‐ Senior

Program Analyst ‐ Subject Matter Expert

Manager ‐ Journeyman

Manager ‐ Senior

Manager ‐ Subject Matter Expert

Scientist ‐ Journeyman

Scientist ‐ Senior

Scientist ‐ Subject Matter Expert

Business Operation ‐ Journeyman

Business Operations ‐ Senior

Business Operations ‐ Subject Matter Expert

Budget Analyst‐ Journeyman

Budget Analyst‐ Senior

2.3.3.1.4. Completeness

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

2.3.3.1.5 Realism

The proposed direct rates for the five-year ordering period will be evaluated for realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s)’ (if applicable) PECP for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with proposal scope and effort IAW FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the relevant geographic area, based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys.

It must also demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical area where the work is being performed.

2.3.3.2 PECP Narrative

The compensation plan(s) will be evaluated to determine if the compensation level proposed is unrealistically low IAW the scope and effort of the PWS. The analysis will be based on labor rates in the National Capital Region (U.S. Postal Codes 20762/20330) and/or DC Metropolitan Area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV). The Government may utilize SOC rates from BLS.gov, government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. Failure to comply with the requirements in FAR Provision 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal.