Updated_Section_L_and_M.docx

Information System Support Services (IS3)

Section L - Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

Section Content:

1.0 - Program Structure Objectives

2.0 - General Instructions

3.0 - Volume I, Contract Documentation

4.0 - Volume II, Technical

5.0 - Volume III, Past Performance

6.0 - Volume IV, Price Proposal

7.0 - Required Attachments

1.0. Program Structure and Objectives

The program structure and objectives can be discovered in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 2 Scope. The project will be awarded as a Task Order on the NETCENTS-2 Application Services small business vehicle in accordance with FAR Part 16 order procedures.

2.0. General Instructions

(a) This section of the Instructions provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the Instructions and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP), CDRL’s, and PWS. Offerors are advised that submissions that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided herein may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or exclusion from further consideration.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. IAW section L, para 2.2.2, Contractor shall provide cross-reference matrices to facilitate traceability. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Air Force has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

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

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A SF1447, blk. 11) of the Solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

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

(f) Questions regarding this solicitation will be accepted thru 15 SEPT 2016. All questions should be e-mailed to the primary POC, Heike Bell, heike.bell.1@us.af.mil.

2.1. General Information

2.1.1 Contact Information: Ms. Bell is the main POC for this acquisition and the Contracting Officer (CO), Chris Neering is the alternate POC. Any questions or concerns you may have should first be addressed in writing to the main POC at (AFMC OL_H/PZABA, ATTN: Heike Bell, 6050 Gum Lane, Bldg 1215, Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820), or e-mailed to heike.bell.1@us.af.mil; if he cannot be reached the alternate POC should then be contacted at (AFMC OL_H/PZAAA, ATTN: Chris Neering, 6050 Gum Lane, Bldg 1215, Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820), or e-mailed to heike.bell.1@us.af.mil; unless otherwise directed in the applicable provision (e.g., pre-proposal conference questions are forwarded to (christopher.neering.1@us.af.mil). Responses will be publicized unless notified that the information is contractor sensitive.

2.1.2. Debriefings: The government reserves the right to establish a competitive range, based on the number of responses in Phase I of the solicitation process. If a competitive range is used, the CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(B)(4). Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the award decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(B)(4).

2.1.3. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available at the contractor’s request. Please send requests to heike.bell.1@us.af.mil.

2.1.5. Oral Presentations: Oral presentations will not be allowed.

2.1.6. Communications: Exchanges of information between the Air Force and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit sensitive or proprietary information should be noted as such.

2.2. Proposal Organization

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2) below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders. The contents of each proposal volume are described in this Section (L) and summarized in the table below:

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

(a) SF 1447 Reps & Certs

(b) Exceptions

(c) Authorized Personnel

(d) Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

1 E-copy 2 Hardcopies 5 single-spaced pages, Times New Roman font, size 12

II

Technical/Technical Risk – Factor One Technical -

(a) Knowledge

(b) Complexity of Skill

(c) Infrastructure - Information System Support Services

(d) Application Services

(e) Management Services

(f) Management Approach Technical Risk –

(a) Schedule

(b) Performance

1 E-copy 2 Hardcopies 60 single-spaced pages, Times New Roman font, size 12

III

Past Performance – Factor Two

(a) Project Submissions

1 E-copy

2 single-spaced pages per submission, Arial 9-point font

IV

Price – Factor Three

(a) Price Schedule

1 E-copy

No Limit

2.2.1. Page Limitations: Page limitations are identified in Table 2.2—Proposal Organization and explained below. Offerors are advised that the limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be evaluated or considered for award purposes; rather, they will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except cover/title pages, cross-reference matrices, tables of contents, tabbed dividers, acronym lists and glossaries.

2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

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

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each surface of a foldout shall be counted as a separate page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point font. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.2. Cross Referencing: Each Volume (I – IV) of a proposal addresses a specific factor, therefore, shall be submitted, evaluated, and considered based solely on the information contained therein (i.e. each volume “stands alone”). Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. The offeror shall provide a cross reference matrix/table/note (e.g., exhibited below) in a clear and similar format to the exhibit shown below. The effect of the cross reference is to draw (at the beginning of a Section) the evaluators’ attention to the criteria the Offeror’s addressing, indicating the proposal information as it relates to Sections L and M, PWS, CLIN numbers, and CDRL references.

Table 2.2.2 – Cross Referencing

2.2.3 Table of Contents: Each volume Table of Contents shall delineate and identify subparagraphs within the volume. Tab indexing within a volume is optional.

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

2.2.5. Binding and Labeling:

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.2.6. Each page within a section shall be numbered consecutively.

2.2.7. Each page that contains proprietary information shall be marked inside the header and footer of each page with the following statement “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104-4 and 2.101)”

2.3. Electronic Offers: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. Electronic offers For electronic copies, indicate on each CD-R the volume number and title. (NOTE THAT “CD-RWs” CANNOT BE READ, EVALUATED, OR CONSIDERED. If multiple volumes are being included on one CD-R, then the volumes shall be in different folder and the CD-R be clearly labeled. Contractors may submit separate clearly marked CD-Rs if they choose. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of proposal Volumes I, II, III, shall be submitted in a format readable by Adobe’s Portable Document Format (PDF). Electronic copies of Volume IV shall be submitted using Microsoft’s Excel format. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

2.4. Distribution

Provide to the Contracting Officer (address below) two (2) hardcopy and one (1) electronic proposal. The "original" proposal shall be identified and signed by the offeror’s authorized representative and the “copy” should be identified. All requested copies must be received by the due date identified on the front page of the RFP. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and hard copies delivered to:

AFMC OL_H/PZABA

ATTN: Heike Bell 6050 Gum Lane, Bldg 1215 Hill AFB, UT 84056-5825

Electronic proposals shall be sent to Ms. Bell, heike.bell.1@us.af.mil.

Include Solicitation Number FA8250-16-R-0011 on the address label/email title.

3.0 Volume I. – Contract Documentation

3.0.1 The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Air Force for preparing the contract document and supporting file.

Table 3.0 – Contract Documentation

(a) SF 1447/ R&C

(b) Exceptions

(c) Authorized Personnel

(d) Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

1 E-copy

5 single-spaced pages, Times New Roman font, size 12

3.1 Solicitation and Representation/Certifications:

The offeror's proposal documentation volume shall include (a) a signed copy of the Solicitation, and Sections A through K;

3.1.1. Section A: Offerors shall complete blocks 11, 13, 15, & 27. Offerors shall complete price proposal in accordance with Sections J, L, & M therefore blocks 21 & 22 don’t apply to this Solicitation. Signature by the offeror on SF 1447, blk. 27 constitutes an offer, which the Air Force may accept.

3.1.2. Section B: Do not complete Section B; pricing information is submitted in the Pricing Volume.

3.1.3. Section C: N/A

3.1.4. Section E: N/A

3.1.5. Section F: Delivery schedule will be defined at contract award.

3.1.6. Section G: N/A.

3.1.7. Section H: N/A.

3.1.8. Section I: N/A.

3.1.9. Section K: Complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements. Note: if the Offeror has previously registered with the Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) database, a referral to a current record is sufficient.

3.2. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 - Solicitation Exceptions Solicitation Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale

Page and Paragraph Numbers

why the requirement can/will not be met

3.3 Authorized Contractor Personnel

3.3.1. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate (as to this proposal) your firm contractually and those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

3.4 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

3.4.1 Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must 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, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

3.5 Contractor Teaming Arrangement

3.5.1. It is the responsibility of the contractor to demonstrate to the government that it can successfully perform the contract requirements. Teaming arrangements may be considered in the Management Approach sub-factor, criteria 4.1.4.2 of the Technical evaluation, which will contribute to the contractor’s overall score. The use or non-use of a teaming arrangement will not add nor detract in the evaluation process as the overall level of confidence in the ability to succeed is what will be evaluated. However, the contractor’s Teaming Arrangement description should clearly illustrate their subcontractors’ aptitude for the assigned portion of contract work.

4.0 Volume II. – TECHNICAL

4.0.1 The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the six Technical sub-factors with associated criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, the offeror will provide the actual methodology they would use for accomplishing/satisfying these sub-factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for the offeror to merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

Table 4.0 – Technical/Technical Risk

II

Technical– Factor One Technical Sub-factors

(a) System Sustainment

(b) System Development

(c) Server and Database Administration

(d) Information Assurance and Cybersecurity

(e) Miscellaneous Technology

(f) Management Approach Technical Risk Sub-factors

(a) Schedule

(b) Performance

60 pages, single-spaced, Times New Roman, 12-point font for entire proposal

4.1. Factor 1 –Technical / Technical Risk (Volume II)

Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with risk ratings outlined in Table M2 (refer to section M). Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on schedule and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: PWS or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as sub-factors. Propose a realistic "work‑around" or risk mitigation strategies for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

4.1.1. Sub-factor 1 System Sustainment (IAW PWS Paragraph 3.1)

4.1.1.1 Submit methodology to provide individuals with expert ability to research and issue resolution knowledge to review, research and diagnose customer identified bugs in the system, resolve the bug and report back to the customer

4.1.1.2 Submit methodology to provide individuals with in-depth knowledge of logistics business process to include, spares requirements review, planning for DLA managed consumables, depot supply chain management and financial, personnel and engineering project approval processes. In addition, submit methodology to provide individuals with knowledge of low demand, low density supply chain management programs

4.1.1.3 Submit methodology to provide individuals with experience using Microsoft Access, Classic ASP, .NET and SQL development practices, as well as understanding of standard coding and deployment procedures

4.1.1.4 Submit methodology to provide individuals with knowledge of pertinent legislation and DoD/Government wide regulations to ensure policy and planning decisions comply with all applicable legal requirements, and to assess the impact of new or changed legislation or directives.

4.1.2. Sub-factor 2 System Development (IAW PWS Paragraph 3.2)

4.1.2.1 Submit capability to research, analyze and integrate multiple sets of authoritative data and business process needs into a cohesive system that meets confidentiality, data integrity, authentication and non-repudiation requirements

4.1.2.2 Submit capability to exercise the highest degree of creativity and innovation in applying mature judgement and discretion in developing effective, agile information technology solutions to business process problems and issues and documenting in a data dictionary, or equivalent, code changes that occurred as part of the development

4.1.2.3 Submit capability to perform system testing, document findings and communicate them to the program manager and resolve the findings prior to code release and customer acceptance testing

4.1.2.4 Submit capability to resolve complications in planning, organizing and conducting work brought about by conflicting program goals and objectives, conflicting and competing priorities, and budgetary constraints

4.1.2.5 Submit methodology to track and report current status of development efforts, projected timelines, including any delays and way ahead

4.1.3. Sub-factor 3 Server and Database Administration (IAW PWS Paragraph 3.4.1-3.4.2)

4.1.3.1 Submit capability to provide support to information systems within development, test and product environments that addresses life cycle support specific to development, integration and testing, implementation, and lifecycle sustainment highlighting offeror’s staff experience. In this section, also address associated program risks and quality standards: CMMI, ISO or equivalent

4.1.3.2 Submit capability to provide operational support for servers, clusters, storage area networks, storage systems and networked attached storage that addresses routine maintenance and availability

4.1.3.3. Submit capability to provide database administration, including research (with the software developer as required), analysis and resolution of identified issues to existing information systems and improvement of information system performance that are related to database degradation or corruption

4.1.3.4 Submit methodology to provide individuals with in depth knowledge with the ability to assess system requirements (security and performance), evaluate risk and report them to the program manager and implement procedures to log, alarm and report security violations to the security manager

4.1.4. Sub-factor 4 Information Assurance and Cybersecurity (IAW PWS Paragraphs 3.5 and 4.5)

4.1.4.1 Submit methodology to meet Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and cybersecurity regulation and guidance and ensure desired levels of protection for systems and data are achieved that addresses measuring and reporting compliance and performance of both information system and software certification and accreditation activities are tracked to completion

4.1.4.2 Submit methodology to provide individuals with in-depth knowledge of the Risk Management Framework (RMF), Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to support compliance with security and interoperability

4.1.4.3 Submit capability to complete authority to operate packages and mitigate findings/vulnerabilities to an acceptable level to facilitate package approval

4.1.4.4 Submit methodology to individuals with in-depth knowledge of information assurance policies/guidelines to ensure that technical and compliance orders are implemented within specified timeframe or the appropriate mitigation strategy is implemented and approved

4.1.5. Sub-factor 5 Miscellaneous Technology (IAW PWS Paragraphs 3.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.2, 4.4)

4.1.5.1 Submit capability to provide Automated Data Process Equipment Custodial responsibilities and maintain compliance with Air Force Instruction 33-112 that addresses methodology to maintain a current inventory, process to ensure accountability during movement of equipment, and process to ensure re-utilization management of excess equipment, (IAW PWS paragraph 3.7)

4.1.5.2 Submit methodology to provide individuals with knowledge of and experience with development system architecture diagrams based on functional, technical and data requirements using Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DodAF) guidance to support Air Force enterprise architecture initiatives, (IAW PWS paragraph 4.2.1)

4.1.5.3 Submit capability to provide software testing support for a wide range of software(COTS and GOTS) to support the supply chain mission and ensure that the software is certified by the Air Force prior to use within the organization, (IAW PWS paragraph 3.8)

4.1.5.4 Submit methodology to provide a tracking mechanism to receive requests associated with information systems, new equipment requests, permission changes, in/out-processing, and Defense Logistics Agency standard desktop related technical problems, (IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.4, 3.9)

4.1.6. Sub-factor 6 Management Approach

4.1.4.1 Submit methodology to support set of disciplined, mature and continuously improving processes for administering all contract efforts with an emphasis on cost-efficiency, schedule, performance, responsiveness and consistently high-quality delivery of a high volume of complex requirements, so that cost, schedule, and quality requirements are tracked, communicated to the government, and ultimately attained, (IAW PWS paragraph 5.8.2)

4.1.4.2 Submit Staffing Plan to demonstrate capability to recruit, retain, and replace highly qualified employees with in-depth knowledge of information technology subjects, including software sustainment, development, agile, standard development processes, cybersecurity, server and database administration and hardware and software troubleshooting techniques to support the full range of IT requirements included in the PWS chain management, determine problem areas, and recommend solutions to improve overall IT support. In the event that there is employee turnover, submit capability to replace with an equally qualified employee and/or ensure requirements continue to be met, (IAW PWS paragraph 5.8.2)

4.1.4.3 Submit capability to integrate often diverse and sometimes politically sensitive issues and requirements for MSDIS and LDLD Requirements Management System and provide an integrated and cohesive approach for problem resolution with the information system program manager

4.1.4.4 Submit Transition Plan to ensure a smooth transition of services outlined in the PWS and a Communication Plan to ensure transparency of information provided among contract employees, program manager and Contract Officer Representative, (IAW PWS paragraph 5.8.2)

4.2. The summary exhibit (below) is provided to aid the offeror in preparing its Technical Volume.

Table 4.2 – Technical Volume

(a) Research, diagnose and resolve bugs

(b) Logistics business process to include, spares requirements review, planning for DLA managed consumables, depot supply chain management and financial, personnel and engineering project approval processes. In addition, submit methodology to provide individuals with knowledge of low demand, low density supply chain management programs

(c) Microsoft Access, Classic ASP, .NET, SQL and standard coding practices

(d) DoD legislation and policy

(a) Research, analyze and integrate multiple sets of authoritative data and business process needs into a cohesive system that meets confidentiality, data integrity, authentication and non-repudiation requirements

(b) Exercise the highest degree of creativity and innovation in applying mature judgement and discretion in developing effective, agile information technology solutions to business process problems and issues and documenting in a data dictionary, or equivalent, code changes that occurred as part of the development

(c) Perform system testing, document findings and communicate them to the program manager and resolve the findings prior to code release and customer acceptance testing

(d) Resolve complications in planning, organizing and conducting work brought about by conflicting program goals and objectives, conflicting and competing priorities, and budgetary constraints

(e) Track timelines and completion towards a development requirement

Three Server and Database Administration

3.4.1, 3.4.2

The offeror’s proposal should be explained in sufficient detail to portray confidence the contractor has sufficient KSA

(a) Provide support to information systems within development, test and product environments that addresses life cycle support specific to development, integration and testing, implementation, and lifecycle sustainment highlighting offeror’s staff experience. In this section, also address associated program risks and quality standards: CMMI, ISO or equivalent

(b) Provide operational support for servers, clusters, storage area networks, storage systems and networked attached storage that addresses routine maintenance and availability

(c) Provide comprehensive database administration

(d) Ability to assess system requirements (security and performance), evaluate risk and report them to the program manager and implement procedures to log, alarm and report security violations to the security manager

Four Information Assurance and Cybersecurity

3.5, 4.5

The offeror’s proposal should be explained in sufficient detail to portray confidence the contractor has sufficient KSA

(a) meet Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and cybersecurity regulation and guidance and ensure desired levels of protection for systems and data are achieved

(b) Risk Management Framework (RMF), Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

(c) authority to operate packages and mitigate findings/vulnerabilities to an acceptable level to facilitate package approval

(d) information assurance policies/guidelines to ensure that technical and compliance orders are implemented within specified timeframe or the appropriate mitigation strategy is implemented and approved

Five Miscellaneous Technology

3.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.2, 4.4

The offeror’s proposal should be explained in sufficient detail to portray confidence the contractor has sufficient KSA

(a) Compliance with ADPE equipment custodian responsibility

(b) Architecture diagrams that comply with DoDAF and AF enterprise architecture

(c) Software testing

(d) Help Desk Support- tracking received requests

Six

Management Approach 5.8.2

The offeror’s proposal should be explained in sufficient detail to portray confidence the contractor has sufficient KSA

(a) Mature, continuously improving process to administer contract tasks and employees

(b) Staffing Plan

(c) Integrate issues and requirements develop a cohesive problem solving approach

(d) Transition and Communication Plan

5.0 Volume III. – Past Performance

Table 5.0 – Past Performance

(a) Project Submissions

2 pages per submission, single-spaced, Arial, 9-point font

5.0.1. Offerors shall submit (utilizing Section L, Attachment - ONE—Project Submissions) between four to six projects (two-page per project) describing past projects they believe are recent and relevant to those contemplated in the Solicitation and PWS. The projects may be a combination of projects from the Prime contractor or any subcontractor partners. Projects shall demonstrate the same knowledge, skills, and abilities as documented in the staffing plan. (4.1.42). Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. The government will accept Past Performance from subcontractor. For details on providing subcontractor information, please refer to Section L paragraph 3.5, Contractor Teaming Arrangements.

5.1 Projects

5.1.1. Information (projects) submitted in response to Section L, Para. 5.0.1. must be for those efforts that the Offeror considers most relevant to demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. Submit projects utilizing Section L, Attachment - ONE—Project Submissions Form. Responses should be succinct, go directly to objective, problems encountered/corrective actions, relevance, and limited to the space provided. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, refer to Section M.

5.1.2. Complete Blocks on the Project Submissions Form as indicated. Modify Area “B” such that it’s clear that a project is submission “one,” “two,” “three,” etc and if the offeror (your firm) performed as a prime or sub-contractor for the project. If a project submission represents work performed on a non-government contract, complete the Form (in area C) utilizing the commercial “equivalent” to the extent possible. If a project was completed under a “multiple-award contract”, as outlined in FAR 16.504, use one submission to demonstrate its relevance and separate submission(s) (noting both the parent award and TO in “C2”) to demonstrate a TO’s relevance (note that different “multiple-awards” may be submitted separately). Otherwise, complete the “(fill-in)” blocks with the appropriate response (offerors may choose to delete the “(fill-in)” prompt).

5.1.3. Block E(1): For Small Business concerns or if no SBSP was required, indicate “No.”

5.2 Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Section L, Attachment - ONE—Project Submissions as described above. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M, provision M002 - Evaluation Factors, paragraph M002(c), page 8 - Past Performance Factor.

5.2.1 Specific Content.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical sub-factors (if used) and Cost/Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

6.0 Volume IV. – Price Proposal

Table 6.0 - Price

IV

Price – Factor Three

(a) Contract Price

No Limit on Contract Price documentation

6.1. General Information

6.1.1: The primary purpose of the cost proposal is to provide the Government with a clear understanding of how the cost estimates and prices were developed. The cost-price evaluation factors are price, reasonableness, balance, and the TEP, as defined in section M of this RFP. It is the Offeror's responsibility to provide enough information in the Cost/Price proposal to support the evaluation factors.

6.1.2: Submit the price proposal in accoradance with guidance in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. Word documents and Excel spreadsheets must be editable and not password protected. The paper and electronic copies shall be identified in all respects. Scanned documents in PDF files are NOT acceptable for the Cost-Price Proposal Volume.

6.1.3: In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offer shall be required to submit pricing data.

6.1.4: The offeror shall complete the pricing worksheet (Section L Attachment-TWO) detailing the hours and rates for each year IAW with the instructions contained thereon.

6.1.5: Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees The offeror shall submit a professional employee compensation plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The offeror shall detail the base labor rate, fringe, all other burdens, and profit/fee contained in labor rates to facilitate comparisons in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

7.0. Section L – Required Attachments

Section L, Attachment - ONE: Project Submissions Provide the information requested in this attachment for each contract/program (limit of four) being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding the contracts you identify. The “(fill in)” text may be deleted. Limit responses to the space provided.

A. Offeror Information (if project’s was completed by proposed sub-contractor annotate both firms’ info.)

1. Offeror Name: (fill in)

B. Project (one, two, three, or four)+

1. Title of Program: (fill in)

C. Project Contract Specifics++

3. Contract Type: (fill in)

4. Period of Per.: (fill in)

5. Org. Contract Value (exclude un-ex. options): (fill in)

6. Current Contract Value (exclude un-ex. options) (explain if diff. from “C5”): (fill in)

7b. Telephone: (fill in)

7c. Email: (fill in)

8b. Telephone: (fill in)

8c. Email: (fill in)

9b. Telephone: (fill in)

9c. Email: (fill in)

D. Project Description+++

1. Project Narrative (objectives, relationship to IS3’s, problems encountered/corrective actions.): (fill in)

3. Scope.

3a. (fill in)

4. Complexity.

4a. (fill in)

E. Project Sub-contracting Plan (if applicable)

1. Plan required (FAR 52.219-9): (Y/n) (If yes, complete data for two most recent periods)

3. If actual is less than goals explain: (fill in)

+ If project “one” delete “two, three, four,” et seq. and indicate whether offeror performed as prime, or sub-contractor.

++ If project’s a Multiple Award KT use “parent” KT as one project & note KT# and TO# for separate TO submissions.

+++ Portray the relevance of your project to IS3’s objectives, size, scope, and complexity.

Section L, Attachment - TWO: Labor Rate Matrix Complete the attached matrix (also shown below) based on the directions included in the spreadsheet.

Information Support Services (IS3)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

(a) This is a competitive task order issued against the NETCENTS-2 Application Services, Small Business in accordance with FAR Part 16 ordering procedures. Failure to meet a requirement (i.e. submission of a non-conforming proposal) may result in an offer being determined unacceptable and excluded from further consideration. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The AF will evaluate and select offer(s)—from concern(s) determined responsible (FAR – Part 9)—based upon an integrated assessment of the Proposals. A best value basis means price and non-price factors will be considered (utilizing a tradeoff process) in light of the Air Force’s perception of its best value and it may make award to other than the lowest priced or most highly-rated proposal.

(1) This acquisition will be a Small Business competition utilizing selection methodology to provide an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government may award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the higher-rated technically acceptable offeror outweighs the cost or price difference. While the Government evaluation team and the Decision Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Air Force will award a single Fixed-Price task order on the NETCENTS-2 Application Services Small Business.

(c) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Air Force may reject any proposal that, as a result of its evaluation, is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors:

(1) For award purposes, offers will be evaluated based on the following factors listed in descending order of importance. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

(2) The government reserves the right to award to a higher-priced contractor whose technical ability and past performance record justify the additional cost and who represents the best value.

(3) A competitive range will be established by the contracting officer

a. Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

1. Technical Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The Technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the rating listed in Table M1.

2. The Offeror Evaluation Scoring Sheet is for quantifying subjective or qualitative data for analysis purposes. It offers a procedure for arriving at consensus among a group of knowledgeable persons.

3. The evaluator will score each technical proposal from 0-12 or 15 for one of the sub-factors in association with sub-factor area, 12 or 15 indicating the highest compliance level.

4. Scoring for the technical portion will evaluate the following six sub-factors. Five sub-factors are rated equally and one (System Development) is weighted slightly higher.

· System Sustainment

· System Development

· Server and Database Administration

· Information Assurance and Cybersecurity

· Miscellaneous Technology

· Management Approach

5. Five of the sub-factor contains four criteria and one (System Development) has five criteria causing it to be weighted slightly higher. Each sub-factor area will be assessed a value as follows:

3 Points: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple (2+) strengths and no deficiencies.

2 Points: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

1 Point: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

0 Points: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. A score of “0” in any area will render the contract unawardable.

*Note: An integrated assessment of all factors and sub-factors will be performed in order to determine the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the U.S. Government, a resulting score of 1 and above on each and all technical sub-factors is required in order for the offer to be eligible for award.

6. The areas under each sub-factor will be added for a maximum sub-factor score of 12 for five sub-factors and 15 for the remaining sub-factor. The sub-factor score is 0. All six sub-factor areas will then be added for a maximum technical score of 75 and minimum technical score of 0 and documented on the Offeror Evaluation Scoring Sheet. The combined maximum possible score for technical (75 points) and technical risk (36 points) is 111 possible points.

b. Factor 2: Past Performance The contracting officer shall seek relevant past and present performance information on all NETCENTS prequalified offerors based on (1) the past and present contracts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Past performance will be accepted from sub-contractors. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced prequalified offerors if none of the lower priced prequalified offerors receive a High Confidence performance assessment. The purpose of the past and present performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The past and present performance assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Unknown Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Table 3. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. In the event that Phase One of the solicitation process yields a large number of interested parties, the government reserves the right to establish a competitive range. If the government decides to establish a competitive range, offers determined to be within the competitive range will be evaluated for award. Offers outside of the competitive range will be excluded from competition, and the offerors will be notified.

c. Factor 3: Cost/Price Prequalified offers shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined as identified in Section (d), page 11 for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated using one or more techniques to determine Balance and Price Reasonableness (discussed more in subparagraph (d)). Delivery terms not meeting the indicated minimum delivery requirement will render the proposal non-responsive.

(3) Relative Importance of Factors for award: The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is most important, Factor 3 (Cost/Price) next in importance, and Factor 2 (Past Performance) is least important.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

The…