Attachment_15_-_GAP-CIE_Section_L_v4_(Final).pdf

Attachment 15

SECTION L

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL

PREPARATION

Solicitation # FA8707-12-R-0014

Date: 31 May 2013

NOTICE TO OFFERORS:

The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an

Offeror for any costs.

L1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

L1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. 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. The response shall consist of the volumes as identified in

Table 2.0.

L1.2. The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the PCO to determine the reasonableness.

L1.3. POINT OF CONTACT (POC)

The PCO is the sole POC for this acquisition. Address any questions, clarifications or concerns you may have to the PCO.

AFLCMC/HBCC

Attn: Mr. Lee Smales

901 SAC Blvd, STE 2H11

OFFUTT AFB, NE 68113

Phone: (402) 232-7367 or DSN: 272-7367

Fax: (402) 294-6786

E-Mail: smalesl@stratcom.mil

All inquiries must be made in writing and submitted electronically to the above e-mail. A copy of the e-mail shall also be sent to ausenbaj@stratcom.mil. Offeror's will receive a notice of receipt. If they do not, it is their responsibility to follow-up by contacting the PCO.

Only written (inquiries) questions will be accepted. Written inquires will be answered in writing and provided to all Offerors via posting(s) to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at www.fbo.gov.

L1.4. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE PERIOD AND DUE DATE

The proposal acceptance period/due date is specified in Table 2.1. The Offeror shall make a clear statement that its offer is valid for at least 210 days beyond the due date. Late proposals will be rejected from consideration. If any proposal is received late, the PCO will promptly notify the Offeror that its proposal was received late. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to confirm the Government has received the proposal.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/far/FAR15.DOC#b154062 mailto:smalesl@stratcom.mil mailto:ausenbaj@stratcom.mil http://www.fbo.gov/

L1.5. BROCHURES, DOCUMENTATION, BINDING, AND ARTWORK

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

L1.6. DISCREPANCIES

If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale.

L1.7. DISPOSITION OF PROPOSALS

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain the

“original” copy of all proposals and supplemental documents provided. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy all extra copies of proposals and additional documents submitted.

L1.8. PROPOSAL CLARITY

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the

Government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements. The Offeror shall provide a matrix cross-referencing back to the requirements documents. The Offeror shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the contractor’s capabilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in its proposal.

The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

L1.9. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, incorporated as an attachment in

Section J, identifies the security clearance requirements and classified material handling requirements of this contract.

L1.10. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY (GFP)

Government Furnished Property is identified as an attachment to the Transition Statement of Objectives

(SOO) in Attachment 6 of the solicitation.

L1.11. ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on FedBizOpps at www.fbo.gov. Potential

Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

L1.12. COMMUNICATIONS

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the

PCO. Email may be used to transmit such information to Offerors. When email is used, the Subject line shall read “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104”. Encrypted emails shall also be used to the maximum extent practicable. Source selection information may also be transmitted via fax or

U.S. Postal Service.

L1.13. DEBRIEFINGS

The PCO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505, Pre-award

Debriefing of Offerors.

http://www.fbo.gov/ file:///C:/Users/AUSENBAJ/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/%23T2101 file:///C:/Users/AUSENBAJ/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/%23b3104

The PCO will also notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.506, Post-award Debriefing of Offerors, as applicable.

L2.0. ORGANIZATION OF PROPOSALS

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table 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 contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 2.0 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME ITO Paragraph

Number

VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I L3.0 Executive Summary Original plus one (1) hard copy, and on consolidated

CD-ROM/DVD.

3 pages

II L4.0 Technical

Subfactor 1

Subfactor 2

Subfactor 3

Subfactor 4

Technical Risk

*Subfactor 5

Original plus four (4) hard copies, and on consolidated

CD-ROM/DVD.

73 pages

20 pages

30 pages

10 pages

10 pages

3 pages

No Limit

III L5.0 Past Performance Original plus three (3) hard copies, and on consolidated

CD-ROM/DVD.

15 pages

III *Table of Contents 3 pages

III *Summary Page 3 pages

III Contractor’s Past Performance

Information Document

15 pages

[5 references @ 3 pages each (see para. L5.3.1.3.1)]

III Past Performance Questionnaire

Tracking Record

No page limit

III Past Performance Assessment

Report

No page limit

III Consent Letters No page limit

III Client Authorization Letters No page limit

III *Organization Structure Change

History

2 pages

III *Quality Awards 2 pages

IV L6.0 Cost/Price (Attachment 7, Cost/Price Model shall be returned as part of the Price

Proposal)

Original plus three (3) hard copies, and on consolidated

CD-ROM/DVD.

No page limit

V L7.0 Contract Documentation Original plus two (2) hard copies, and on consolidated

CD-ROM/DVD.

No page limit

* The individual page limitation does not count toward the respective volume page limitation.

L2.1. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

L2.1.1. 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 (for paper copies) will not be returned to the Offeror.

Excess pages shall be destroyed along with excess copies of all unsuccessful proposals (ref. L1.7). For electronic submission, no hidden fields, macros, comments, etc. will be read. All information must be written clearly and be easily accessible. Page limitations may also be placed on Evaluation Notices

(ENs), if required. The page limitations for ENs, if any, will be identified in the correspondence forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. When both sides of a sheet of paper display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Each page shall be counted except: cover pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrix, tabs, and glossaries.

L2.1.2. PAGE SIZE

Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than Times New Roman

10 point. Use at least 1-inch margins on all sides of each page. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

L2.1.3. TABLES, CHARTS, GRAPHS, AND FIGURES

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 when printed. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as two pages. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, and not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point.

L2.1.4. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Proposals shall not contain classified information.

L2.1.5. ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Offeror shall submit all volumes in electronic format using IBM-compatible, virus-free CD-

ROM/DVD(s). On each CD-ROM/DVD indicate the Offeror’s name, solicitation number, volume, and title. The Offeror shall consolidate all Volumes onto one CD-ROM/DVD. WinZip shall be the compression/ decompression program used if files are required to be compressed. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and usable by Microsoft Office 2007 (MS Word, MS Excel, PowerPoint or PDF format viewable with standard Adobe Acrobat Reader X). Hidden fields, comments, macros, etc. shall be omitted, and read passwords on files shall not be used. The files shall be consistent and uniformly named to allow for easy distinction between Volume, Tab, etc. The documents submitted in electronic format, if printed, should match the original paper copy. In the event there is a discrepancy between the content found in a paper copy and an electronic copy, the paper copy shall take precedence. The receipt of the paper copy shall constitute the timely receipt of the formal

L2.1.6. CROSS-REFERENCING

L2.1.6.1. VOLUME CROSS-REFERENCING

To the greatest extent practicable, the Offeror shall write each volume on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. The

Government will assume that any information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume has been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use conserves space without impairing clarity.

L2.1.6.2. SOLICITATION/PROPOSAL CROSS-REFERENCE MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS

The Solicitation/Proposal Cross-Reference Matrix (CRM) shown below provides an example of preliminary cross-references among elements of the RFP. The Offeror shall fill out the CRM indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the ITO, Evaluation Criteria, SOW, CLIN and Contract

Data Requirements List (CDRL) references found therein. The Offeror may include more detail in the

CRM if needed to provide clear links between elements.

If the CRM conflicts with any other requirement, direction or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Additionally, to the extent this matrix discloses details as to the extent or manner by which the Government intends to evaluate Offeror‘s proposals for award, Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M) references in the matrix are for information purposes only and the Government is obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of the

Evaluation Factors for Award of the solicitation.

SOLICITATION CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX

Requirements

Document

Sec L Sec M CLIN CDRL Proposal WBS

SOW Para. 2.1

Software Delivery

4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.3.4

2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.3.3.3, 2.3.3.4

CLIN

CDRL

A017

SOW Para. 2.2

Program

Management

4.3.2.1 2.3.2.1 CLIN

CDRL

A009, A010, A013

SOW Para. 2.3

Meeting Support

4.3.2.1 2.3.2.1 CLIN

A011

SOW Para. 2.4

Systems Engineering, Architecture and

Integration

4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.3

2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.2.3

CLIN

A001

SOW Para. 2.5

Requirements

Management

4.3.2.3 2.3.2.3 CLIN

SOW Para. 2.6

Requirements

Analysis

4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.3

2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.2.3

CLIN

SOW Para. 2.7

Architecture

Analysis

4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.3

2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.2.3

CLIN

SOW Para. 2.8

System Integration

4.3.2.2 2.3.2.2 CLIN

A012

SOW Para. 2.9

Contractor

Development Test &

Evaluation

4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.4 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.4

CLIN

CDRL

A005, A006, A007, A016

SOW Para. 2.10

GDT&E Integration

Support

4.3.2.4 2.3.2.4 CLIN

A017

SOW Para. 2.11

Information

Assurance

4.3.2.5 2.3.2.5 CLIN

A016

SOW Para. 2.12

System Security

Engineering

4.3.2.5 2.3.2.5 CLIN

SOW Para. 2.13

Certification and

Accreditation

4.3.2.5 2.3.2.5 CLIN

A015, A016, A017

SOW Para. 2.14

Training

4.3.2.3 2.3.2.3

SOW Para. 2.15

Configuration

Management

4.3.2.2 2.3.2.2 CLIN

A012

SOW Para. 2.16

Technical Reviews

4.3.1.1,4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.3

2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.2.3

CLIN

A002, A003, A004

SOW Para. 2.17.1

On-site support

4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.2 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2

CLIN

SOW Para. 2.17.2

Exercise &

Contingency

4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.2 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2

CLIN

0003/000

SOW Para. 11

Transition

4.3.4.1 2.3.4.1 CLIN

L2.1.7. TAB INDEXING

Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Indexes and tabs do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

L2.1.8. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

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

L2.1.9. BINDING AND LABELING

Each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder, which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet shall be included in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification and the

Offeror's name. 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.

L2.1.10. DISTRIBUTION

Only one (1) copy of the proposal shall be marked “Original”. Proposals shall be addressed to the PCO and delivered to the following address:

AFLCMC/HBCC

Attn: Mr. Lee Smales

901 SAC Blvd, STE 2H11

OFFUTT AFB, NE 68113

Offerors should call 402-294-2332, or the PCO directly at 402-232-7367, prior to delivering the

If mailing, the outside of the envelope or box(es) should be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Offerors are cautioned that Offutt AFB, NE and USSTRATCOM have visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME

DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HANDCARRYING PROPOSALS.

Proposal volumes shall be due by the following dates and times as shown in Table 2.1 - Proposal Due

Date and Times, shown below.

In addition to the copies specified in Table 2.0 - Proposal Organization, each Offeror shall submit one copy of their proposal to the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)/Defense

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices by the date and time specified in the RFP. Additionally, subcontractors performing over 15% of the effort and/or those subcontractors issued a Cost

Reimbursement, Time & Materials or Labor Hour contract, shall submit a copy of their cost/price proposal to their respective DCAA/DCMA office. These copies are to be electronic or paper, depending on the preference of the receiving agency. Be sure to advise DCMA and the DCAA for Prime and

Subcontractors that the proposal is “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information--See

FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104”.

Table 2.1 - Proposal Due Date and Times

VOLUME TITLE DATE AND TIME

I Executive Summary NLT 3:00 p.m. local (Offutt AFB) 30 calendar

Days after RFP release

II Technical NLT 3:00 p.m. local (Offutt AFB) 30 calendar

Days after RFP release

III Past Performance NLT 3:00 p.m. local (Offutt AFB) 30 calendar

Days after RFP release

IV Cost/Price NLT 3:00 p.m. local (Offutt AFB) 30 calendar

Days after RFP release

V Contract Documentation NLT 3:00 p.m. local (Offutt AFB) 30 calendar

Days after RFP release

Days are expressed in Calendar Days. If Due Date ends on a weekend (Sat or Sun), the deadline will be the following Monday.

L3.0. VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

L3.1. NARRATIVE SUMMARY

The Narrative Summary is a summary of the entire proposal and should be clear and concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. This should be a "big picture" explanation and provide the Offeror’s overall approach and supporting rationale for the management/operation of the GAP-CIE requirements. Within the Narrative Summary, the Offeror shall state that its proposal is valid for the timeframe designated in paragraph L1.4 Proposal

Acceptance Period and Due Date. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. The Narrative Summary will not be evaluated.

L3.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

L4.0. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL VOLUME

L4.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

L4.2. FORMAT AND SPECIFIC CONTENT

L4.2.1. VOLUME ORGANIZATION

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

(1) Table of Contents

(2) List of Table and Drawings

(3) Glossary

(4) Cross Reference Matrix

(5) Maintenance/Enhancement Delivery Sample Task - Subfactor 1

(6) Software Development Lifecycle Process - Subfactor 2

(7) Staffing - Subfactor 3

(8) Transition Plan - Subfactor 4

(9) Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns - Subfactor 5

(10) Technical Risk

L4.2.2. TECHNICAL

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

L4.3. TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

L4.3.1. SUBFACTOR 1 – MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT DELIVERY SAMPLE TASK

Under this subfactor, Offerors shall prepare detailed descriptions of their requirements analysis and proposed technical solutions for the Drop 16 baseline Discrepancy Reports (DRs), shown in L4.3.1.4 below. The proposed technical approach should be consistent with their software development lifecycle processes described in Subfactor 2 of this solicitation. The bidder’s library provides the detailed information for the Drop 16 baseline, including the source code and page source.

L4.3.1.1. Offerors shall decompose each DR into detailed requirements to the Software Requirement

Specification (SRS) level. Using these detailed requirements, the Offeror shall demonstrate their approach for providing a technical solution to the DR in the context of GAP CIE Drop 16.

L4.3.1.2. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe changes required in the GAP CIE Drop 16 baseline to support each detailed requirement. The Offeror shall map the detailed requirements to the software architecture component and identify opportunities for any overlapping efforts. The Offeror shall then analyze the software changes required and document the changes to a level of detail expected for a

Detailed Design Review.

L4.3.1.3. The Offeror’s proposal shall describe their tests to validate resolution of the DRs and the steps the Offeror will take to verify the design does not affect the overall user experience. The level of detail shall be to the Software Test Description product level.

L4.3.1.4. Maintenance/Enhancement Delivery Sample Task Deficiency Reports (DRs)

DR 10977:

Issue: The automatic confirmation email to a feedback message from a user does not contain the text of the comment.

Description: When a user submits feedback, the system sends an automatic confirmation email to confirm that feedback has been submitted. The automatic confirmation email does not contain the text of the comment.

Desired outcome: The automatic confirmation that the system sends shall contain the text of the feedback comment.

DR 8638:

Issue: Users can only retrieve Global Strike Options (GSOs) from a single endpoint.

Description: The current design does not support situations such as a user from STRATCOM who needs to retrieve data from the exercise end-point while a user from EUCOM needs to access the real-world

GSOs.

Desired outcome: Provide a mechanism to consume either real world or exercise Global Strike Options

(GSOs) at the same time. Model this after the Theater Battle Management Core System (TBMCS) implementation that allows users select a particular TBMCS source.

DR 10953:

Issue: Training information is hard to find.

Description: It is not intuitive to go to the Help menu or “What’s New” to find out about training.

Desired outcome: Add training tab to Homepage.

DR 10928:

Issue: There is no way to create a Contact List from the Contacts Portlet.

Description: There is no way to create a Contact List from the Contacts Portlet.

Desired outcome: Add a PDF icon to the Contacts Portlet. When clicked, the button shall generate a

Contact List as a PDF document using existing implementation patterns.

DR 10898:

Issue: Selecting smaller fonts does not increase the lines available on PDF slide.

Description: A user creates three adhoc slides with 22 or more lines of text. Then they use the embedded rich text editor to put 8pt font in one slide, 10pt font in another, and12pt font in the third. They generate a PDF, online briefing, or preview containing the three adhoc slides. They navigate to the three slides.

Then these slides will still have 22 lines of text. Smaller fonts only lead to more space between lines.

14pt and larger fonts reduce lines of text, while smaller fonts do not increase the amount of text that fits on the slide.

Desired outcome: If a slide is full and uses a font size at or below 12pt, the line spacing shall decrease accordingly and permit additional lines on the slide. The slide spacing shall not decrease to the point that lines of text touch each other and inhibit readability.

DR 10943:

Issue: Community Favorites shows odd behavior with bad URLs.

Description: If someone enters in a malformed URL, it no longer shows in the Community Favorites drop down selection. For instance, if the link starts with “http:/htp://,” it will cause unexpected behavior.

Good URLs put in Community Favorites after/below the poorly formed URL do not show. If a portal admin enters several URLs, they have to recheck each one and look for the bad URL.

Desired outcome: GAP CIE shall check URLs for proper formatting. User input, such as URLs, shall not cause the drop down list of URLs to lose functionality.

L4.3.2. SUBFACTOR 2 – SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LIFECYCLE PROCESS:

Based on the requirements described in the GAP CIE SOW, other elements of the Request for Proposal

(RFP), and documentation contained in the Bidder’s Library, the Offeror shall address the following.

L.4.3.2.1. The Offeror shall define and describe their overall programmatic approach, methodology, processes, and tools (including Government insight, timely financial status, key decision forecasting) to effectively manage the sustainment and maintenance of the GAP CIE program.

L4.3.2.2. The Offeror shall define and describe their overall System Integration and Configuration

Management processes (to include management of COTS/GOTS/FOSS version changes as directed by policies, methods ensuring consistency between various government and contractor baselines, change management for baselines on which maintenance work has already started, and maintenance and verification of database cutover scripts) IAW GAP CIE SOW requirements.

L4.3.2.3. The Offeror shall define and describe their overall Requirements Management, Requirements

Analysis, Systems Engineering, Architecture Analysis, and Technical Review processes and practices (to include transformation of requirements (or deficiencies) into design artifacts, validation of the detailed requirements with Government customers, and implementation of the design into software deliveries)

IAW GAP CIE SOW requirements.

L4.3.2.4. The Offeror shall define and describe their overall Testing approach to validate resolution of technical requirements for each software delivery, with no adverse effects on existing capability.

L4.3.2.5. The Offeror shall define and describe their Information Assurance (IA) processes and procedures (to include System Security Engineering concepts and methods, usage and implementation of security analysis tools, design support during the software production process, and Certification and

Accreditation practices) IAW GAP CIE SOW requirements.

L4.3.3. SUBFACTOR 3 – STAFFING

L4.3.3.1. The Offeror shall describe their leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, reach back capability, including uninterrupted support for one-deep positions, emergency and contingency support, and their ability to surge in the event additional funding is received for unplanned delivery orders.

L4.3.3.2. The Offeror shall describe their plan to adequately staff the contract with personnel, including on-site support, having appropriate qualifications, certifications, skills, and experience to successfully complete GAP CIE software deliveries. The Offeror’s staffing plan should reflect the skill mix and labor categories of the team proposed to meet the SOW requirements. The skill mix and labor categories should be consistent with the skill mix and labor categories shown in the cost price model, and consistent with the proposed processes under Subfactor 2, Software Development Lifecycle Process.

For planning purposes, Offerors should have a staffing plan to accommodate the planned Government maintenance budget below. NOTE: These are planning amounts only. There is no guarantee of funding beyond the contract minimum which will be met at contract award. Additionally, the budget numbers shown below do not correspond to the technical hours reflected in the GAP CIE cost/price model at

Attachment 7.

GAP CIE Planned Budget

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

$4.3M $4.4M $4.5M $4.5M $4.5M $4.6M

L4.3.3.3. The Offeror shall describe their processes to provide Contractor employee training, and security clearances, that are appropriate for assigned responsibilities/areas.

L4.3.3.4. The Offeror shall describe the methodology that will be utilized for recruiting, hiring, retaining, and replacing employees (especially those with security clearances) throughout the life of the contract.

L4.3.4. SUBFACTOR 4 – TRANSITION PLAN

The Offeror shall provide a Transition Plan which will be incorporated into the initial Delivery Order

(DO). The content of the plan shall be in accordance with the Transition Statement of Objectives

(TSOO) at Attachment 6 of this solicitation. This Transition Plan shall not exceed ten (10) pages and shall be submitted in an attachment as part of Volume II.

L4.3.4.1. The Offeror shall provide a detailed Transition Plan describing the phase-in approach (to include activities and resources) to successfully achieve the Transition Responsibilities and Timeline

Expectations as specified in the TSOO. The plan shall maximize the Offeror’s ability to assume full operational responsibility with no interrupted support or degradation of service/capabilities for the GAP

CIE Application.

L4.3.5. SUBFACTOR 5 –EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

The Offeror, unless otherwise exempt due to being a small business concern, shall submit their most recent Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Review of Contractor's Subcontracting

Program, DCMA Form 640 or equivalent in its entirety. The Subcontracting Program review is in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DCMA and the U.S. Small

Business Administration, dated November 12, 2009. The MOU between DCMA and the U.S. Small

Business Administration is located at http://guidebook.dcma.mil/37/MemorandumofUnderstanding.pdf.

Offerors that do not have a DCMA Form 640 or equivalent shall submit a response for this subfactor certifying the Offeror does not have a DCMA Form 640 or equivalent. The DCMA Form 640 or equivalent, or certification if DCMA Form or equivalent does not exist, shall be delivered under the

Technical Volume (Volume II), but will not be counted in the overall page count for the Technical

Volume (Volume II).

L4.4. TECHNICAL RISK

Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating, shown at

Section M paragraph M2.2.2. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work-around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

L5.0. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE

Limited to no more than five (5) separate contracts with three (3) pages per contract listed. Only references for same or similar type contract desired.

L5.1. CONTENT OF PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME

The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall contain the following:

Table of Contents

Summary Page

Contractor’s Past Performance Information Documents http://guidebook.dcma.mil/37/MemorandumofUnderstanding.pdf

Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record

Past Performance Assessment Reports

Consent Letters

Client Authorization Letters

Organization Structure Change History

Quality Awards

L5.2. SUMMARY PAGE

The Summary shall describe the role (for the proposed GAP CIE requirement) of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner/joint venture partner that the Offeror is required to provide Past

Performance Information Documents pursuant to paragraph L5.3.1.3.

L5.3. CONTRACTOR’S PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

L5.3.1. RECENCY AND RELEVANCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

L5.3.1.1. Offeror’s shall provide past performance information on contracts considered relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the GAP CIE requirements. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government may consider in determining relevance, see Section M paragraph M2.4.1.2, Relevancy Assessment. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance; however, the

Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort. 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. Where problems existed, clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming these problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. The evaluation of past performance may take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that may perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. If an Offeror submits an IDIQ contract as part of past performance they must also indicate which specific Task/Delivery Orders they consider most relevant for this acquisition.

L5.3.1.2. Contracts submitted for review shall also be recent. In determining recency, the Government will only consider work performance under an effort existing on or after 31 May 10. Additionally, the

Government will not consider any new contracts awarded, or where performance began, on or after 1

January 2013, due to limited performance history of these efforts.

L5.3.1.3. Offeror shall submit Past Performance Information Documents in accordance with the format contained at Section J, Attachment 8. This information is required on the Prime Offeror and any subcontractors and/or teaming partners/joint ventures who are proposed to perform 15% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, or who perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Each Past Performance Information Document is limited to 3 pages. The required documentation is as follows:

L5.3.1.3.1. The maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents an Offeror may submit is five (5), of which two (2) must be from the Prime Offeror.

L5.3.1.3.2. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for recent and relevant contracts: For contracts considered recent and relevant IAW paragraphs M2.4.1.1 and M2.4.1.2, provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

L5.3.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE TRACKING RECORD

Offeror shall send out, and confirm receipt and submission of, the Past Performance Questionnaire at

Section J, Attachment 10, to each of the Offeror’s major subcontractors’ and/or teaming partners’/joint venture (e.g., each entity’s) Points of Contact (POC) identified in the Past Performance Questionnaire

Tracking Record at Section J, Attachment 11. The responsibility to send out and track the receipt and submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the Offeror. For each questionnaire, complete and sign a letter containing substantially the same information as in the Sample

Questionnaire Cover Letter at Section J, Attachment 9. Cover letters shall be printed on company letterhead. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that at least two POCs (i.e. Procuring

Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent; Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract

Administrator or equivalent; or Program/Project Manager or equivalent), per relevant contract, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the due date for the past performance proposal volume. Each of the Offeror’s POCs shall e-mail the completed Past

Performance Questionnaire to Mr. Lee Smales at smalesl@stratcom.mil, and Ms. Cindy Parks at parksc@stratcom.mil or fax it directly to Mr. Lee Smales or Ms. Cindy Parks at 402-294-6786. Please have your POCs call Mr. Smales or at 402-232-7367 or Ms. Parks 402-294-8924 before faxing their response. Once the Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered Source Selection Information and shall not be released.

L5.3.3. PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTS

This information is required on the contracts submitted IAW the Past Performance Information

Documents paragraph above. If an evaluation method other than a Contractor Performance Assessment

Report (CPAR) has been used in conducting performance assessments (e.g. an Award Fee notification letter, a subcontractor’s prime Contractor performance evaluation, etc.) that form/documentation shall be submitted. The offeror shall immediately notify the PCO listed above if a CPAR or other evaluation form has been accomplished on the offeror’s existing work but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information. Provide the contract number, point-of-contact, and phone number from which the past performance information shall be obtained. This information shall be provided to the PCO as soon as any difficulty occurs and before the proposal due date.

L.5.3.4. CONSENT LETTERS

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because the Offeror is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past performance information to the Offeror during exchanges. (Reference Section J, Attachment 12:

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter for the Release of Past Performance Information to the

Prime Contractor.) In an effort to assist the Government in assessing past performance relevancy and confidence, request the sample consent letter be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent letter shall be submitted as part of the Past

Performance Information Volume, but will not be considered in the page count of this Volume. Should the Offeror not submit a completed Consent Letter for major subcontractors and/or teaming partners/joint venture, the Government will only discuss past performance information directly with the prospective subcontractor and/or teaming partner/joint venture that is being reviewed. If there is a problem with the proposed subcontractor and/or teaming partner/joint venture’s past performance, the

Offeror can be notified of a problem, but no details may be discussed without the subcontractor and/or teaming partner/joint venture’s permission.

mailto:smalesl@stratcom.mil mailto:parksc@stratcom.mil

L5.3.5. CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTERS

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance.

(Reference Section J, Attachment 13: Client Authorization Letter).

L5.3.6. ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE CHANGE HISTORY

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your

"roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. This information is required on the Offeror, major subcontractors and teaming/joint venture partners.

L5.3.7. QUALITY AWARDS

Offeror may describe any quality awards and certifications, for contracts considered recent IAW paragraph L5.3.1.2, that indicate the Offeror, major subcontractors, teaming contractors/joint venture partners possesses the necessary skills to perform the services required. Such awards or certifications include, for example: incentive or quality awards pertinent to the performance of work associated with relevant past performance. Describe when the award or certification was received.

L6.0. VOLUME IV – COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

L6.1. All cost/price information shall be addressed within the cost/price volume only. All Offerors shall complete and submit the Section J Attachment 7, GAP CIE Cost/Price Model within Volume IV, to establish their proposed cost/price of the GAP CIE effort for a five year ordering period. Instructions for completing the cost/price model are included under the “Instructions” tab of the model. Using the

Cost/Price Model, the summation of the proposed costs for CLIN 0001, Software Delivery vXX; CLIN

0002, GAP CIE Performance Incentive Fee; CLIN X004, ODC/Travel; CLIN X005, GAP CIE Onsite

Support; and CLIN 0009, GAP CIE Transition will serve as the basis for determining the Offeror’s proposed cost/price. The total proposed price will be reflected in the “Grand Total” tab. The cost/price proposed for CLINs X004, X005 and 0009 will also be used as the basis for awarding the initial delivery order at contract award.

Each Offeror’s proposal shall represent its best efforts to respond to the GAP CIE requirements, and provide sufficient detail to demonstrate reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed cost/price rests with the Offeror. Any inconsistency between proposed performance and cost/price shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for the estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on cost/price must be explained.

A significant inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise a question of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its ability to perform within the proposed cost constraints, which may cause the proposal to be rejected. The information requested in the proposal is required to enable the Government to determine that the proposed cost/price is realistic, fair and reasonable.

The Cost Volume shall identify the point of contact, mailing address, telephone, fax number and branch codes for the cognizant DCAA/DCMA office for the Offeror, subcontractors performing over 15% of the effort, and those subcontractors issued a Cost Reimbursement, Time & Materials or Labor Hour contract.

L.6.2. Direct Labor Rates

Using their proposed processes and staffing strategies, Offerors shall propose labor categories and applicable hours for each of the functional areas (regardless if those functional areas will be invoiced directly to individual DOs after contract award or not) specified in the “0001Skill Mix Hours” tab. The

Government has pre-loaded the number of Total Hours under each year of the IDIQ ordering period.

The Total Hours represent an estimate of hours for pricing purposes only, and may or may not be indicative of the actual budget and/or additional funding sources in a given year.

Offerors shall propose labor categories and hours for themselves and their subcontractors under each functional category (regardless if those functional areas will be invoiced directly to individual DOs after contract award or not) during each ordering period shown on tab “0001Skill Mix Hrs.” The total sum of the hours proposed at the Client Site and Contractor Site, for the Prime and the subcontractor(s), shall be equal to the preloaded Total Hours for the given ordering period. For example, if the pre-loaded Total

Hours in the year 1 is 80,323, the sum of the Offerors and subcontractors hours should also equal 80,323.

The distribution of the total hours across the functional areas should be consistent with the Offerors proposed process and staffing strategies. Functional areas that may be indirectly charged on individual

DOs should still be accounted for on tab “0001 Skill Mix Hrs.” The total hours proposed for each labor category in a given ordering period shall then be used to establish the hours, and ultimately the cost/price, for the corresponding ordering period under tabs “0001Prime” and “0001Sub”.

Under tabs “0001 Prime” and “0001 Sub” direct and indirect rates will be calculated for each year of the ordering period using the information proposed by the Offeror under tab “Loading Factors.” These fully burdened rates (excluding fee) for each labor category shall also be populated in tab “IDIQ Rate Table” by the Offeror. The labor rates established at the time of price competition for the GAP CIE IDIQ will be incorporated into the awarded contract and shall represent the maximum labor rates that may be used to propose/award future Delivery Orders. Although all labor categories and applicable hours identified on tab “0001 Skill Mix Hrs” should be reflected in tabs “0001 Prime” and “0001 Sub”, only labor categories for functional areas that will be direct charged to individual DOs shall include a direct labor rate. For those functional areas that will be indirectly charged to individual DOs, the Offeror should use

$0.00 as a direct rate. In the event the same labor category is direct charged under one functional area and indirect charged under another, the Offeror shall have two entries for that labor category. Offerors are encouraged to ensure appropriate labor categories are included in the “IDIQ Rate Table”. The

Government does not desire an exhaustive list of Labor Categories that “could be” used on future delivery orders, but rather a list of labor categories that most accurately represents the skill mix of the team Offerors propose to meet the SOW requirements based on their process and staffing strategies.

Although circumstances may require labor categories to be added, the Government intends to minimize the number of changes to the “IDIQ Rate Table” after contract award.

L6.3. CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) STRUCTURE

L.6.3.1. SOFTWARE DELIVERY vXX (CLIN 0001/CPIF) Future software delivery efforts will not be estimated by the Offeror during this source selection. Rates established in the “IDIQ Rate Table” will be included in the awarded GAP CIE IDIQ contract and shall be used by the awardee when proposing all future DOs under this contract. The target fee of 5% is earnable under this CLIN.

L6.3.2. GAP CIE SCHEDULE/PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEE (CLIN 0002/FFP) IAW

Attachment 4, Incentive Fee Plan, a Schedule/Performance Incentive is earnable for each software delivery. The Schedule/Performance Incentive is not obligated until the PCO’s decision is executed through contract modification. The maximum fee earnable under this CLIN is 6%.

L6.3.3. OPERATIONAL BASELINE DELIVERY/SUPPORT (CLIN 0003/CPFF) Given the nature of software sustainment and maintenance, there may be times when updates/patches and/or technical support is required to maintain the operational baseline during a software development cycle. For the purpose of this contract, this CLIN will capture those type efforts. Examples include, but may not be limited to, emergency production patches, break–fix type requirements, exercise and contingency support, and Tier 1, 2, or 3 type technical support.

Specific tasks will be identified on individual DOs. A fixed fee of 5% is earnable under this CLIN.

L6.3.4. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS) AND TRAVEL (CLIN X004/COST) Offerors are hereby informed that costs under this CLIN will be on a cost reimbursable basis only. However, this does not preclude the application of associated burden(s) (e.g. G&A, Material Handling, etc.) for those costs.

L6.3.4.1. Offerors shall use the “CLIN X004 ODC & Travel” tab in the GAP CIE Price Model to identify required ODC’s and Travel for each year within the ordering period. Note: Exercising option

CLINs are at the sole discretion of the Government and are not guaranteed.

L6.3.4.2. For any proposed travel required to meet the GAP CIE SOW requirements, the Offeror shall include estimated number of trips,…