Atch 2 PAI Alerting ITO and Eval Criteria 20 April 26.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) HAF/A2 Publicly Available Information (PAI)

Enterprise Alerting Service

FA701426R0008

Attachment 2

ADDENDUM TO RFO PROVISION 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

INTENT

The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract as a result of this solicitation.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is being issued using NAICS code 541511. This is a full and open competitive source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) Part 12 and 15.

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with RFO 15.2 as supplemented. The Government intends to award a FFP contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors.

1.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DUE DATE AND TIME

The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III, shall be submitted by the date and time stated in Block 8 of Solicitation FA701426R0008, SF1449. Late submissions will be processed IAW RFO 52.212-1(c). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the Government has received the proposal by the stated due date. All times listed in the RFP are Eastern.

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

SF1449.

Capt Richard Snyder, Contracting Officer (CO) E-mail address: richard.snyder.12@us.af.mil

Kevin Harrington, Contract Specialist (CS) E-mail address: kevin.harrington.3@us.af.mil

1.2 COMPLIANCE

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors shall comply with all instructions within this section, the following paragraphs will be evaluated for compliance: 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12.

1.3 MARKINGS

Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW RFO 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and RFO 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Classified information will not be permitted.

1.4 RFP RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

1.4.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall include all information requested by this RFP and shall be submitted IAW these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and RFP. Non-compliance with the instructions provided in this RFP will result in the proposal being ineligible for award.

1.4.2 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 to provide services in support of the “AF/A2 Publicly Available Information (PAI) Alerting Service” requirement. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish all 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.

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

1.4.4 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.

1.5 RFP DISCREPANCIES/AMBUIGITIES

If an Offeror believes that any portion of this solicitation contains a perceived error, omission, or is otherwise unclear, the Offeror shall immediately contact the CO and CS via e-mail, clearly describing the portion of the solicitation in question and the impact the discrepancy or ambiguity has on the Offeror’s ability to prepare their proposal.

1.6 COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without negotiations in accordance with RFO Part 15.203. If the Government determines it is necessary to negotiate, the rationale and procedures in doing so will be conducted in accordance with RFO Part 15.204. Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be used by the Contracting Officer for Clarification of an Offeror's proposal in accordance with RFO Part 15.202(a)(2), and if determined necessary, negotiations. Offeror's responses to ENs for the price and technical factors will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein.

Failure by an Offeror to respond to ENs by the prescribed date and time, will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

1.7 COMMUNICATIONS

All exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the CO and CS. E-mail will be used to transmit such information to Offerors. The Government intends to send answers to questions by amendment to the solicitation and posting them to SAM.gov. Question submission due date will be provided on SAM.gov.

The CO and the CS are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. 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, the Government may consider questions received by the RFP questions submission due date and time, and at the Government’s discretion, consolidate them and provide responses to all parties through SAM.gov. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted.

1.8 ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

All referenced documents for this solicitation can be found on SAM.gov, the authoritative source for Government Contract Opportunities. Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. Offerors may contact the CO if they are unable to locate any of the referenced material.

1.9 PROPOSAL RECORDS

In accordance with RFO Subpart 4.7, the Government will retain one copy of each Offeror’s proposal.

1.10 DEBRIEFINGS

Offerors desiring a debriefing shall make their request in accordance with the requirements of RFO

15.206 or 15.301, as applicable. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing. Post-award debriefings shall follow the debriefing guidance of R-DFARS 215.301.

1.11 PAGE FORMAT

1.11.1 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. Each page shall be counted except the following: title pages, cover pages, table of contents, tab indexing, glossaries, and list of tables and figures.

1.11.2 Page Size and Format

1.11.2.1. General Page Instructions.

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. Proposal pages must be in English and legible, if illegible, the Government reserves the right to exclude Offeror.

1.11.2.2 Table and Chart Instructions.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures may be used to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.

1.11.2.3 Submission Format.

The Offeror shall submit each volume in electronic format. The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Adobe PDF and/or MS Office Suite (i.e., Excel, Power Point, Word, etc.), as applicable.

Offerors shall use separate electronic files for each proposal section listed in Table 1 to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal.

1.12 PROPOSAL VOLUME ORGANIZATION/PAGE LIMITATIONS

1.12.1 The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. 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.

1.12.2. Proposal Due Date: The proposal due date and time for this solicitation is identified in the SAM.gov announcement. OFFERORS ARE INSTRUCTED TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE

GOVERNMENT POCS REGARDING ANY REQUESTS TO EXTEND THE RFP DUE DATE.

OFFERORS MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH REQUEST.

Proposals received after the due date and time will be considered late and will not be considered in the evaluation/validation process. Proposal submission for this solicitation will be electronic via email to the CO and CS. The transmittal of large files >10Mb or CUI documents (proposal documents) must be submitted via DODSAFE. Email the CO and CS to request a DODSAFE link.

Table 1 - Proposal Organization Table 1 – Proposal Organization

PROPOSAL SECTION TITLE PAGE LIMIT

Volume I - Administrative

File name: CompanyName_PAI_I_Executive Summary CompanyName_ PAI_I _1449

CompanyName_ PAI _I_FinancialResources CompanyName_ PAI _I_COI

CompanyName_ PAI_I_Affordability CompanyName_ PAI_I_Commerciality

Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter No Limit Signed SF1449 and SF30, if applicable No Limit

Financial Resources No Limit Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan (if applicable) 10 Pages

Affordability 5 Pages Commerciality 1 Page

Volume II – Technical File name: CompanyName_PAI_II_Technical

CompanyName_EULA_PAI_II CompanyName_PAI_II_PWS

CompanyName_PAI_II_Oralpresentation Technical Solution 25 Pages

Commercial End User License Agreement (EULA) No Limit

Atch 3 PWS Submission No Limit Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration 3 .csv Files Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation 60 minutes/45 Slides

Volume III – Price File name: CompanyName_ PAI_III_Price

Price Template and supporting documents 1 Page

2. PROPOSAL VOLUMES

The following details the specific instructions for each volume:

2.1 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

This volume shall be organized according to Table 1 above. Each Offeror shall complete and submit the documents in this section, which must be submitted by the date and time specified for receipt of proposals. Failure to provide the information will result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

2.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary /Cover Letter.

The Offeror shall provide a cover letter with all the following information: Name, Address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), SAM.gov registration/expiration date, proposal validity statements, Contracting Point of Contacts (POCs) (name, email address and phone number), Socio-economic status, and Executive summary of the proposal. The proposal validity statement shall be valid through 180 calendar days from the proposal due date. The Offeror shall be registered in the SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition. If the Offeror’s SAM.gov registration expires prior to the proposal validity date, the Offeror shall assert its intent to renew the registration in the Executive Summary.

2.1.2 Completed SF1449 and Amendments (if applicable)

Offerors are to acknowledge the solicitation SF1449 and any amendments by signing the cover page and returning it with its proposal.

2.1.3 Financial Resources.

In accordance with RFO 9.104-1(a), the Offeror shall provide a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements. The Offeror shall also provide evidence to support the explanation. Evidence may include official letter(s) from (a) financial institution(s) demonstrating that the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitment.

2.1.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan.

Offerors shall submit an assessment of potential or actual Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues, if any, as related to this contract vehicle and future work. Initial notification shall be made to the PCO and CS as soon as they become known. OCI issues include, but may not be limited to, the inability to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, the inability to objectively perform contract work, or the unfair competitive advantage created by current or previous contractual efforts with the Government. If an actual or potential OCI exists, the Offeror shall submit a mitigation plan with the proposal. The Contracting Officer will review the submitted mitigation plan and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government. Submission of mitigation plans are only required if the Offeror is aware of potential or actual OCI issues related to this procurement. If the Offeror believes no potential or actual OCI issues exist, this shall be so stated. Offerors are to use RFO 9.5 for more information on OCI. If an OCI mitigation plan is deemed to be unacceptable or an OCI is not mitigable then the Government will deem the Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1.5 Affordability

Offerors are advised that excessively high proposed price will be considered unaffordable and receive no further consideration. Any proposal that is over $321M (total contract value) will be considered unaffordable. Offerors are instructed to provide the total price of their proposal in this section.

2.1.6 Commerciality

Offerors are instructed to provide written attestation of the commerciality of their product IAW the definition of Commercial Products in RFO 2.101.

2.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

The Technical Volume shall consist of the following:

Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) Factor 2: Technical Demonstration Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation)

Offerors Technical Solution (Narrative), Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submission), and Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation) shall address the following topics and demonstrate the Offerors ability in all objectives:

Table 2 – Objectives/Delivery Method

Objectives Delivery Method

1 Offerors submission of completed Atch 3 Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAI Template detailing Offerors proposed solution to the SOO

Narrative

2 Compliance with Data Provider's Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

Narrative

3 Offerors alerting capability to users via, at a minimum; web-browser user interface, API, Push mode (text message or email), as selected by the user.

Narrative, Presentation

4 Compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information.

Narrative

5 Offerors low-bandwidth** capability for degraded communications use. Narrative, Presentation

6 Offerors detection of emerging events in near* real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

Presentation, .csv

7 Offerors scalability to support the full operational requirements and user base across all elements of the DoW enterprise.

Presentation

8 Offerors delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria Presentation, .csv

9 Offerors comprehensive data coverage across all geographic locations critical to DoW operations by leveraging a wide variety of social media, news, and other publicly available information sources, including the most popular regional social media and news platforms.

Presentation

10 Offerors translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the Presentation, option to view in original language. .csv 11 Offerors map display interface with event locations. Presentation 12 Offerors search capability by user for events by text and location. Presentation 13 Offerors source attribution in alerts and notification to the user before they leave the service’s web interface.

Presentation

14 Offerors data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

Presentation, .csv

15 Offerors pre-configurability of Common Interest Profiles. Presentation 16 Offerors custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

Presentation, .csv 17 Offerors comprehensive help desk service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Presentation

18 Offerors solution design for intuitive use, minimal required training for basic operations, and comprehensive training support for users.

Presentation

19 Offerors process for seeking DISA approval for mobile app delivery on government devices, if not already approved.

Presentation

20 Offerors enrollment of existing users into their product (if applicable) to ensure uninterrupted to existing DoW PAI users.

Presentation

* Near real-time is defined as the minimized latency between the actual occurrence of an event and the system's generation of the corresponding alert.

** The Government considers a "low-bandwidth capability" to be any technical approach that ensures reliable alert delivery and essential platform interaction when the user's connection to the internet is severely degraded, constrained, or slow (e.g., via satellite communications or congested cellular networks).

Acceptable approaches include, but are not limited to, the examples provided: text-based email or SMS summaries, compressed data payloads, lightweight API polling, or a specific "low-bandwidth/text-only" UI mode for the mobile or web application. Offerors should propose the technical method they believe best achieves reliable alerting in these degraded environments.

2.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Solution

Offeror’s technical solution shall be provided in narrative format using Adobe PDF and/or MS Office Suite (i.e., Excel, Power Point, Word, etc.), as applicable. The Offeror’s technical solution shall be a narrative on how the Offeror will meet the needs of the applicable objectives in Table 2 as follows:

• Objective 1 - Submission of completed Atch 3 Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAI Template detailing Offerors proposed solution to the SOO (Atch 3 is not included in the 25 page limit). Offerors are free to edit the PWS minus paragraphs 1, 5, 7, and 8.

• Objective 2 - Compliance with Data Provider's Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

• Objective 3 - Alerting capability to users via, at a minimum; web-browser user interface, API, Push mode (text message or email), as selected by the user.

• Objective 4 - Compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information.

• Objective 5- Low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use.

2.2.2 Factor 2: Technical Demonstration

2.2.2.1 Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Offerors are instructed to submit three (3) .csv files capturing the alerts generated by their product for the following below listed topics and regions, demonstrating their ability to meet the following objectives from Table 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum, over the specified 72-hour period below:

• Objective 6 - Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Objective 8 - Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Objective 10 - Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Objective 14 - Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Objective 16 - Offeror’s custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

Offerors are instructed to use the following 72-hour period; 12am 23 April 2026 to 11:59pm 25 April 2026 to generate alerts for the following topics and regions (all times Eastern);

• North Africa geographic area. This area is defined as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara disputed area (.csv file 1)

• Cybersecurity area (.csv file 2)

• Global area for high urgency alerts (.csv file 3)

2.2.2.2 Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation Product Demonstration/Oral presentations shall be provided using Microsoft PowerPoint. The number of slides shall not exceed 45. Offerors are instructed to submit their PowerPoint presentation with their proposal. Offerors will not have an opportunity to revise the PowerPoint after the submission due date has closed. PowerPoint slides will serve as supplemental information to the Product Demonstration.

PowerPoint slides will not be presented at the live demonstration.

Offerors will be contacted about scheduling the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation. The Government anticipates the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation to take place within two (2) weeks from the proposal submission due date. The Government reserves the right to reschedule the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Government attendees will be identified at the time of the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation. If an Offeror fails to schedule the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation as instructed, the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated and will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

The location for the Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation will be at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland or Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC. The Government reserves the right to change the site at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Offerors may not present any classified information in either their proposals or their Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation.

Price Proposal and Contract documentation will NOT be included in the oral presentations. All pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal.

The Government requires a demonstration of the offeror's actual, live production environment, operating on live, unscripted data. The Government expects a live demonstration of real-time alerts using the natural flow of PAI as it is ingested by the system at that time. Demonstrations relying solely on pre-staged scenarios, curated historical data environments, isolated sandboxes, or instances populated exclusively with pre-selected content will not satisfy the requirement to demonstrate live capabilities.

During the Offeror’s Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation, they will be given time to set up and then be allowed 60 minutes to demonstrate the live capabilities of their product. Offerors are instructed to demonstrate the objectives labeled ‘presentation’ in Table 2 as follows:

• Objective 3 - Offeror’s alerting capability to users via, at a minimum; web-browser user interface, API, Push mode (text message or email), as selected by the user.

• Objective 5 - Offeror’s low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use.

• Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Objective 6 - Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Objective 7 - Offeror’s scalability to support the full operational requirements and user base across all elements of the DoW enterprise.

• Objective 8 - Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Objective 9 - Offeror’s comprehensive data coverage across all geographic locations critical to

DoW operations by leveraging a wide variety of social media, news, and other publicly available information sources, including the most popular regional social media and news platforms.

• Objective 10 - Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Objective 11 - Offeror’s map display interface with event locations.

• Objective 12 - Offeror’s search capability by user for events by text and location.

• Objective 13 - Offeror’s source attribution in alerts and notification to the user before they leave the service’s web interface.

• Objective 14 - Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Objective 15 - Offeror’s pre-configurability of Common Interest Profiles.

• Objective 16 - Offeror’s custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

• Objective 17 - Offeror’s comprehensive help desk service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

• Objective 18 - Offeror’s solution design for intuitive use, minimal required training for basic operations, and comprehensive training support for users.

• Objective 19 - Offeror’s process for seeking DISA approval for mobile app delivery on government devices, if not already approved.

• Objective 20 - Offeror’s enrollment of existing users into their product (if applicable) to ensure uninterrupted to existing DoW PAI users.

The Government will provide a TV and/or monitor in order for the Offeror to present. Offerors are instructed to bring: a laptop to present their product, a range of laptop to TV/monitor cables to ensure proper hookup, some form of Wi-Fi hookup (Wi-Fi at the Government location cannot be guaranteed so Offerors must bring a backup), and any power cables for their equipment.

Base access is required. All guests 18 and over are required to have a state or federally issued REAL-compliant photo ID. The CO and CS will reach out to the Offeror contract POC to set up base access.

Presentations must be done in person and no more than two presenters per Offeror.

Offerors shall not use any type of video during the oral presentation, whether as pre-recorded presentations or as part of the Offeror’s briefing materials. No external consultants will be allowed to represent an Offeror in the product demonstration.

Note 1: The Government reserves the right to ask questions after the 60-minute presentation following a break for consultation. The Questions & Answers (Q&A) session will be considered in the Offeror’s technical evaluation. Q&A may permit clarification-exchanges between Government and offeror IAW RFO 15.202. Such clarifications will not, however, permit offerors to materially alter the technical or cost elements of their proposals and therefore, will not constitute negotiations.

Note 2: IAW RFO 15.202(a)(3), Oral Presentations will be recorded. If an Offeror refuses to have their Oral Presentation recorded, they will be determined Unacceptable and not further evaluated. Offerors are advised to follow RFO 15.202(a)(3) regarding any terms or conditions presented in the Oral Presentation as they must also be incorporated in the Offeror’s written proposal.

2.3 VOLUME III - PRICE

The price Volume shall consist of the following:

Price Template (see Attachment 4 Price Proposal Template)

2.3.1 Price Template (Attachment 4)

Attachment 4 is provided to ensure the Government is able to evaluate all price elements appropriately.

The Price Template 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 their enterprise PAI alerting tool for the base period + four option periods. The price template (atch 4) is included in the 5-page limit identified in table 1.

IAW 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 2.1.6 Affordability, Offerors are advised of the Government’s affordability cap of $321M (total contract value). To be considered for award, the total proposed price shall not exceed $321M.

Offerors may submit any supporting documents along with their price template.

ADDENDUM FOR RFO PROVISION 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with RFO 15.2 as supplemented. The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors. Selections may be made to compliant proposals with the best rated technical capability with price that is complete, reasonable, and balanced. Non-price factors are defined as Technical, in which Technical is considered significantly more important than Price.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government will use a best value tradeoff where technical is significantly more important than price. Subject to the Government's evaluation of proposals IAW the steps outlined below, if it is determined an offeror is ineligible from moving onto the next subsequent step, they will not be informed they have been eliminated from consideration for award until after the final award decision has been made. Doing so accounts for the Government's intent to not conduct negotiations IAW RFO 15.203, therefore negating establishment of a competitive range subject to RFO 15.204. If, however, the Government determines negotiations will be conducted, and a competitive range established, offerors will be informed they have been eliminated from consideration for award IAW RFO 15.204.

The Government evaluation methodology is as follows:

Step 1. Review all proposals for compliance, via evaluation of Volume I Administrative. All compliant proposals will proceed to step 2. Non-compliant proposals will not move to Step 2.

Step 2. Evaluate Technical Factor 1: Technical Solution. Only acceptable technical solutions will move onto Step 3.

Step 3. Evaluate Technical Factor 2: Technical Demonstration, Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic

Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions). Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher will move onto Step 4.

Step 4. Evaluate Technical Factor 2: Technical Demonstration, Subfactor 2b: Product

Demonstration/Oral Presentation. Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher will move onto Step 5.

Step 5. Evaluate Price. Only prices determined to be fair and reasonable, balanced, and complete are awardable.

Step 6. Conduct tradeoff, determine Awardee.

3. PROPOSAL VOLUME EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 2.1. The Government will evaluate the factors as outlined below:

Volume I - Administrative Volume II - Technical Volume III - Price

3.1 VOLUME I - ADMINISTRATIVE

This volume will be evaluated for compliance of submitted information required to be considered eligible for award. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offerors whose proposals are determined to be compliant will be further considered.

3.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the Offeror’s Company Executive Summary/Cover letter to ensure the following information is provided:

• Name

• Address

• CAGE Code

• UEI

• SAM.gov registration/expiration date. The Offeror shall be registered in SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition. If the Offeror’s SAM.gov registration expires prior to the proposal validity date, the Offeror shall assert its intent to renew the registration in the Executive Summary.

• Proposal validity statements. The proposal validity statement shall be valid through 180 calendar days from the proposal due date.

• Contracting POCs (name, email address and phone number)

• Socioeconomic status

• Executive summary of the proposal.

If the Offeror fails to provide any of the above, the Offeror will be determined noncompliant and will not advance to the next step.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides all information in paragraph 3.1.1

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide all information in paragraph 3.1.1

3.1.2 Completed SF1449 and Amendments (if applicable) (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the SF1449 and all amendments (if applicable) for the Offerors signature.

If the Offeror fails to provide a signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable), the Offeror will be determined noncompliant and will not advance to the next step.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides the signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable)

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide the signed SF1449 and amendments (if applicable)

3.1.3 Financial Resources (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

Based on the Offerors written submission, the Contracting Officer will determine if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with RFO 9.104-1(a). Offerors determined nonresponsible are not eligible for award in accordance with RFO 9.103 and will not be further evaluated.

Compliant Definition Offeror provides a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements. The Offeror shall also provide evidence to support the explanation.

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror fails to provide a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements and/or the Offeror fails to provide evidence to support the explanation.

3.1.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan (if applicable) (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review the submitted mitigation plan (if applicable) and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government. If an OCI mitigation plan is deemed to be unacceptable or an OCI is not mitigable then the Government will deem the Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Compliant Definition Offeror stated no OCI exists or Offeror adequately provides a response that resolves the actual or potential OCI and/or provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government.

Non-Compliant Definition Offeror did not specify whether an OCI exists or Offeror’s response does not resolve the actual or potential OCI and/or does not provide adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government.

3.1.5 Affordability (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

Proposals priced in excess of $321M (total contract value) will not be further evaluated and eliminated from consideration for award.

Compliant Definition Offerors proposal does not exceed $321M Non-Compliant Definition Offerors proposal exceeds $321M

3.1.6 Commerciality (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

Only Commercial Products IAW with the definition of Commercial Products in RFO 2.101

Compliant Definition Offerors provides written attestation their product is commercial IAW the definition of a Commercial Product in RFO 2.101.

Non-Compliant Definition Offerors product is not commercial or offeror does not provide written attestation their product is commercial IAW the definition of a Commercial Product in RFO 2.101.

3.1.7 RFP Compliance (Compliant/Non-Compliant)

The Contracting Officer will review Offeror’s proposal for compliance to Addendum to RFO Provision 52.212-1, General Instructions paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12.

Compliant Definition Offerors proposal meets the requirements stated in paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12

Non-Compliant Definition Offerors proposal does not meet the requirements stated in paragraphs 1.3, 1.11, and 1.12

3.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) Factor 2: Technical Demonstration Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation (Presentation)

3.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Solution (Narrative) (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Each of the below objectives of the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on an acceptable/unacceptable rating, as defined for each listed objective below from Table 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Any objective assigned an unacceptable rating is not eligible for award. To note, objectives 3 and 5 must also be addressed in the Offeror’s Product Demo/Oral Presentation as prescribed by Table 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum.

• Objective 1 - Offeror’s submission of completed Atch 3 Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAI Template detailing Offeror’s proposed solution to the SOO. *Note, the PWS submitted by the apparent awardee will become property of the Government.

Acceptable Definition Offeror utilized Atch 3 PWS template. Offeror incorporated quality control measures, deliverables, and tasks in the PWS to meet the needs of the RFP and SOO Unacceptable Definition Offeror failed to utilize Atch 3 PWS template.

Offeror failed to incorporate quality control measures, deliverables, and tasks in the PWS to meet the needs of the RFP and SOO

• Objective 2 - Compliance with Data Provider's Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

Acceptable Definition Offeror certified, in writing, their compliance with all Data Provider’s Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD 3115.18

Unacceptable Definition Offeror did not Offeror certify, in writing, their compliance with all Data Provider’s Terms of Service/Fair Use, in accordance with DoDD

3115.18

• Objective 3 - Ability to send alerts to users via, at a minimum; web-browser user interface, API, Push mode (text message or email), as selected by the user.

Acceptable Definition Offeror’s solution provides alerts through web-browser user interface, API, and Push mode (text message or email)

Unacceptable Definition Offeror’s solution does not provide push alerts through web-browser user interface, API, and

Push mode (text message or email)

• Objective 4 - Compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information.

Acceptable Definition Offeror certifies, in writing, their compliance with the Privacy Act, IC Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD

3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information

Unacceptable Definition Offeror fails to certify, in writing, their compliance with the Privacy Act, IC

Commercially Available Information (CAI) Policy Framework, and DoDD 3115.18, DoD

Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information

• Objective 5 - Ability to provide a low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use.

Acceptable Definition o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that transfers data over low-throughput links (i.e., simulating 10-20 seconds to send a CCTV snapshot) o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that can capture data while disconnected and immediately sync essential information once a link is re-established o Offeror demonstrated ability to provide a solution that reduces visual quality, disables non-essential data transfers, and switched to text-based communication when bandwidth is low

Unacceptable Definition o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that transfers data over low-throughput links (i.e., simulating 10-20 seconds to send a CCTV snapshot) o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that can capture data while disconnected and immediately sync essential information once a link is re-established o Offeror failed to demonstrate ability to provide a solution that reduces visual quality, disables non-essential data transfers, and switched to text-based communication when bandwidth is low

3.2.2 Factor 2: Technical Demonstration

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 Subfactor 2a to be able to present a Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation in Subfactor 2b. A rating of unacceptable in either subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 2 Technical Demonstration.

Subfactor 2a when evaluated is significantly more important than price.

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

Table 3 - 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 RFO 15.001.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 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 any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO 15.001.

Technical risk is defined as follows:

Table 4 – Risk Definitions Risk Definitions Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, 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, 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, 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.

Subfactor 2a: Live Area/Topic Specific Demonstration (.csv Submissions) The Government will evaluate Offerors on Subfactor 2a as related to the following objectives from Table 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. The evaluation will be based upon the Offeror’s .csv submissions IAW the 52.212-1 Addendum, paragraph 2.2.2.1, using the above technical/risk rating method in Table 3.

• Objective 6 - Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.

• Objective 8 - Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Objective 10 - Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Objective 14 - Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Objective 16 - Offeror’s custom alert filter capability based upon location, event type, time, and with user-selected key words.

The evaluation of the .csv files will be a comprehensive assessment composed of distinct quantitative and qualitative components. As a baseline, the Government expects the .csv files to reflect the complete, raw, and unedited production output of the system; manual curation to artificially inflate scores is strictly prohibited.

The Government will assess the .csv files on the following definitive objectives:

• Quantitative Assessment:

o Timeliness: This will be objectively assessed by comparing the time delta between the actual occurrence of a reported event and the alert timestamp in the .csv submission.

Shorter time deltas, demonstrating near real-time capability, will be evaluated more favorably as a comparative discriminator.

o Filtering Effectiveness (Signal-to-Noise Ratio): This will be measured by calculating the ratio of relevant alerts (signal) to irrelevant alerts or false positives (noise) within the unedited submission.

• Qualitative Assessment:

The following objectives will be evaluated based on the professional judgment of the Government's technical evaluation team, relying solely on the offeror's native data structure and any provided data dictionary (narrative explanations within the .csv are not permitted):

o Data Veracity & Quality: The team will assess the trustworthiness of the information based on elements like confidence scores, corroborating data, and the presence of clear data source references (as plain text).

o Relevance & Comprehensive Coverage: The team will assess the overall relevance of the alerts to the specified topics, as well as the breadth and depth of the offeror's global collection capabilities.

o Translation Quality: The team will assess the quality, accuracy, and clarity of provided English translations from non-English sources.

The .csv submissions will be evaluated on the following qualitative aspects:

o Relevance: The entire premise of the topical . evaluation, which requires .csv files for specific regions (North Africa) and topics (Cybersecurity, high urgency alerts), is designed to test the relevance of the offeror's solution. The ability to filter based on user-defined criteria is a core evaluated objective.

o Data Quality and Veracity: The evaluation criteria for the .csv submission explicitly include “Offeror's detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated.” Near real-time will be objectively assessed during evaluation by comparing the time delta between the reported event's occurrence and the alert timestamp provided in the .csv submission. Shorter time deltas will be evaluated more favorably.

o Signal-to-Noise Ratio: The government will be assessing the offeror's ability to provide relevant, actionable alerts while filtering out irrelevant information. A submission with a high volume of low-quality or irrelevant alerts would not meet the standard for effective “detection of emerging events” or delivery based on “user-defined criteria.”

Subfactor 2b: Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation Offerors assigned a combined technical/risk rating of acceptable or higher in Subfactor 2a will be notified by email of the date and time of their Product Demonstration/Oral Presentation.

The Government will evaluate Subfactor 2b specific to that provided and presented by Offeror’s in their Product Demonstrations/Oral Presentations and PowerPoint submission. This will be based upon the following applicable objectives from the 52.212-1 Addendum Table 2, with application to the above technical/risk rating method at Tables 3 and 4:

• Objective 3 - Offeror’s alerting capability to users via, at a minimum; web-browser user interface, API, Push mode (text message or email), as selected by the user.

• Objective 5 - Offeror’s low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use.

• Objective 6 - Offeror’s detection of emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated. (near real-time will be objectively assessed during evaluation by comparing the time delta between the reported event's occurrence and the alert timestamp provided in the .csv submission. Shorter time deltas will be evaluated more favorably.)

• Objective 7 - Offeror’s scalability to support the full operational requirements and user base across all elements of the DoW enterprise.

• Objective 8 - Offeror’s delivery of (push) alerts to users based on user-defined criteria

• Objective 9 - Offeror’s comprehensive data coverage across all geographic locations critical to

DoW operations by leveraging a wide variety of social media, news, and other publicly available information sources, including the most popular regional social media and news platforms.

• Objective 10 - Offeror’s translation capabilities for all alerts into English, with the option to view in original language.

• Objective 11- Offeror’s map display interface with event locations.

• Objective 12 - Offeror’s search capability by user for events by text and location.

• Objective 13 - Offeror’s source attribution in alerts and notification to the user before they leave the service’s web interface.

• Objective 14 - Offeror’s data source references used to generate alerts, without enabling direct hyperlinking.

• Objective 15 - Offeror’s pre-configurability of…