DRAFT_RFS_Mobile_App_Team_Prototype_Process.docx

Request for Solution (RFS) Business and Enterprise Systems (BES) Program Executive Office (PEO)

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Authority

Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371b (“Other Transactions for Prototypes”), the BES is interested in awarding up to three (3) funded agreements to nontraditional and traditional defense contractors to carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, and components of a mobile application environment. The prototype process seeks to enable the Government to staff and manage a mobile applications development team that delivers mobile applications across multiple devices (iOS, Android, etc.). The mobile applications will access operational systems (in and outside of the BES portfolio) in varying hosting environments to include cloud. The information provided in this RFS is intended to ensure that to the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures are used when entering into agreements to carry out this prototype project.

1.2 RFS Procedures

This RFS is seeking proposals for innovative, commercial solutions to allow PEO BES to establish a scalable process for evaluation of customer mobile application requirements, defining required resources, costing the activities for fulfillment of mobile application development and sustainment, and managing multiple customer mobile requirements across a number of development and sustainment cycles. In this context, innovative means any new process or business practice or any new application of an existing process or business practice that contributes to the ability of the warfighter to use existing or planned enterprise systems, programs, or platforms in a mobile environment. This request is open to industry partners meeting the criteria in 10 U.S.C. 2371b and includes the following process:

Step 1: Three (3)-page proposal resulting in down-select of up-to six (6) companies Step 2: Oral Solution Presentation and full price proposal from companies selected in Step 1

This RFS is considered a competitive process. The Government does not anticipate paying companies for initial proposals (with Rough Order of Magnitude); solution presentations (oral portion or written copy); or price proposals. The Government may engage in interchanges with companies to include interchanges during the review of initial proposal, during the oral presentation, or after the oral presentation. The Government intends to fund up to three (3) Agreements, but may choose to fund fewer or no agreement(s).

A prototype project can generally be described as a preliminary pilot, test, evaluation, demonstration, or agile development activity used to evaluate the technical or manufacturing feasibility or military utility of a particular technology, process, concept, end item, effect, or other discrete feature. Prototype projects may include systems, subsystems, components, materials, methodology, technology, or processes. For this project, BES seeks to prototype a process allowing BES to provide mobile application support Air Force (AF)-wide as well as for other Department of Defense (DoD) entities. The creation of this process will include the evaluation of novel applications of commercial technologies/processes to manage Air Force and other DoD Business Systems mobile application requirements for operational and future systems.

1.3 Expected Results of Prototype Project

As a result of this project, the Air Force expects a prototype of a business process that will allow the BES PEO to receive requirements for mobile application development and services from any entity in the Air Force enterprise and appropriately staff for the requirement; provide the cost of executing the requirement; provide the appropriate platform selection; and provide a plan to the requiring program office (the user) for executing the development or service, including schedule for completion. The company(ies) that receive an agreement will be expected to produce a prototype business process and execute that process through a real-world use-case, providing feedback to the Air Force on the results of the use-case. See Attachment 2 for a sample use-case. This is an example only and may not be the use-case provided for testing.

Once the prototype process is delivered and the use-case completed, the Government will use all the information garnered from the process to produce a BES mobile business plan. This business plan will be posted for general industry comments. SINCE THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE THE RESULT OF THIS EFFORT TO ALL OF INDUSTRY, THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS TO RECEIVED UNLIMITED RIGHTS TO USE, MODIFY, REPRODUCE, PERFORM, DISPLAY, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSE TECHNICAL DATA IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY MANNER, OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, OR TO HAVE OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO.

1.4 Step 1 Proposal Due Date and Time and Expected Schedule for Evaluation and Award

Step 1 initial three (3) – page proposals are due by 4:00 pm CT on 23 August 2018. If a company is selected to proceed to Step 2, a date and time will be set for the oral solutions presentation through coordination with the company and BES personnel.

Estimated Schedule for Evaluation and Award Step 1 - Initial Proposals Received – 23 August 2018 Step 1 – Initial Proposal Evaluations Completed – 30 August 2018 Notification: Proceeding or Not Proceeding to Step 2 – 31 August 2018 Step 2 – Oral Solutions Presentations – 5- 7 September 2018 Step 2 – Oral Solutions Presentations/Price Proposal Evaluations Finalized – 11 September 2018 Negotiation of Final Agreement(s) – 13 September 2018 Award Agreements – 14 - 20 September 2018

SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS

"Other Transaction for Prototype Projects” refers to this type of Other Transaction Agreement (OTA). This type of OTA is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2371b for prototype projects directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or for the improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. This type of OTA is treated by DoD as an acquisition instrument, commonly referred to as an "other transaction" for a prototype project or a Section 2371b "other transaction".

“Prototype”, in this case is a process which directly enhances mission effectiveness for the Air Force enterprise and all related systems and subsystems by providing a strategic solution for Air Force mobile application implementation and use.

“Nontraditional Defense Contractor” means as the term is defined in section 2302(9) of Title 10, of the United States Code (U.S.C.). A “Nontraditional Defense Contractor” means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

“Innovative” means--

(1) any new technology, process, or method, including research and development; or

(2) any new application of an existing technology, process, or method.

SECTION 3 - PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSAL (STEP 1)

In order to mitigate unnecessary expenditure on the part of companies whose efforts will not align with the needs of the BES PEO, the proposal requested is limited to three (3), single-sided pages with no less than 11-point font. The proposal shall address the following problem statement: PEO BES lacks a process for evaluation of customer mobile application requirements, defining required resources, costing the activities for fulfillment of mobile application development and sustainment, and managing multiple customer mobile requirements across a number of development and sustainment cycles. PEO BES desires a standard, documented business process that enables the Government to staff and manage a mobile applications development team that delivers mobile applications across multiple devices (iOS, Android, Windows Mobile, etc.). The mobile applications will access operational systems (in and outside of the BES portfolio) in varying cloud or DISA environments. Certain factors will influence the process. These factors include, but are not limited to:

· Development environment (access from the AF Network, cloud development, agile software development, software tools, mobile device specifications (memory, storage, etc.)

· Open source vs COTS development environments

· AF and DoD connectivity across a Cloud Access Point (CAP)

· Use of mobile cloud services (type of service, cost, etc.)

· Determining costs to support multiple clients

· Evaluation of varying complexity of mobile application needs

· Scalability to support varying volume of customer projects

· Compatibility with AF lifecycle systems engineering processes (end-to-end requirements traceability, configuration/change/baseline management)

· Personnel skillsets and/or certifications requirements specific to particular architectures and solutions (e.g. changing personnel landscape with enlisted programmers)

· Adaptability of evolving technologies (e.g. adapt processes to take advantage of new mobile services, technology insertion into the process, etc.)

Proposals shall include:

1. A short description of your company’s commercial process(es) and how they generally addresses the problem statement listed above.

2. Short project descriptions for work performed for clients using process(es) that address the problem statement

3. For each example provided, include contact information: name, telephone number, and email address of customers/clients supported by the processes discussed. Please ensure that contact information is current in order to facilitate an expedient review.

Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

1. Example projects provided demonstrate support of client requirements that vary in magnitude of complexity and scale.

2. Example projects provided demonstrate sustainment of applications over time

3. Example projects provided demonstrate experience in native code deployed in a cloud environment.

4. Example projects provided demonstrate experience in cross-platform code deployed in a cloud environment.

5. Examples projects the processes being applied multiple times (i.e. successful repetition of the process)

The Government will provide one of the following ratings based on the company’s ability to meet the five (5) criteria listed above:

Outstanding: Provides superior demonstration of the company’s ability to establish and execute a process to address the problem statement. Collectively, example projects demonstrate all five (5) of the above-listed criteria. Overall, clients confirmed satisfaction with performance.

Excellent: Provides superior demonstration of the company’s ability to establish and execute a process to address the problem statement. Collectively, example projects demonstrate three (3) of the five (5) above-listed criteria. Overall, clients confirmed satisfaction with performance.

Acceptable: Provides adequate demonstration of the company’s ability to establish and execute a process to address the problem statement. Collectively, example projects demonstrate two (2) of the five (5) above- listed criteria. Overall, clients confirmed satisfaction with performance.

Unacceptable: Provides little demonstration of the company’s ability to establish and execute a process to address the problem statement. Collectively, example projects demonstrate one (1) or none of the five above-listed criteria. Clients were not contacted as projects did not meet above-listed criteria, or overall, clients were displeased with performance.

The Government anticipates selecting up to six (6) companies to participate in Step 2.

SECTION 4 - PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF SOLUTION PRESENTATIONS (STEP 2)

1. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or proposals are not desired.

2. Use of a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is strongly encouraged.

3. Foreign-Owned businesses may be a submitter alone or through some form of teaming arrangement with one or more United States-owned businesses. However, the ability to obtain an agreement based upon a submission may depend upon the ability of the Foreign Owned business to obtain necessary clearances and approvals to obtain proscribed information.

4. Oral presentations may be face-to-face, via telephone, or via teleconferencing (if possible). If your company is selected for Step 2, the Government will coordinate with you to determine your preferred method of presenting

The solution presentation shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) slides, not including the title slide. One (1) hardcopy and one (1) email or CD copy of the presentation shall be provided to the Agreements Officer within one day of the oral presentation.

Title Slide

Company Name, Title, Date, Point of Contact Name, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address.

Process Concept

Describe the unique aspects of your process solution and its application to the PEO BES problem statement.

Company Experience

Incorporate a brief overview of the company and a real-world example of having used the proposed process. This example should be one of those provided during Step 1.

SOLUTION PRESENTATION BASIS OF EVALUATION

Oral presentations will be evaluated using the following criteria:

How well the vendor’s approach addresses the following –

1. Development environment (access from a network, cloud development, agile software development, software tools, mobile device specifications (memory, storage, etc.)

2. Open source vs Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) mobile development environment

3. Use of mobile cloud services (type of service, cost, etc.)

4. Determining costs to support increases or decreases in the volume of mobile applications to be developed and scalability of the process

5. Varying complexity of mobile application needs

6. Evaluation of varying volume of customer projects

7. Compatibility with AF lifecycle systems engineering processes (end-to-end requirements traceability, configuration/change/baseline management)

8. Personnel skillsets and/or certifications requirements specific to particular architectures and solutions (e.g. changing personnel landscapes)

9. Adaptability of evolving technologies (e.g. adapt processes to take advantage of new mobile services, technology insertions)

The Government will further evaluate the relevancy of the proposed solution to the problem statement and the degree to which the proposed concept provides innovative, unique and/or previously under-utilized capabilities.

The following ratings will be used:

Outstanding: The proposed solution is directly relevant to the problem statement; the solution includes innovative, unique and/or previously under-utilized capabilities; and the solution demonstrates a clear understanding of all of the above-listed criteria.

Excellent: The proposed solution is relevant to the problem statement; the solution includes innovative, unique and/or previously under-utilized capabilities; and the solution demonstrates a clear understanding of the majority of the above-listed criteria.

Acceptable: The proposed solution is somewhat relevant to the problem statement; the solution includes innovative, unique and/or previously under-utilized capabilities; and the solution demonstrates a clear understanding of some of the above-listed criteria.

Unacceptable: The proposed solution is not relevant to the problem statement; the solution includes no innovative, unique and/or previously under-utilized capabilities; or the solution demonstrates a clear understanding of one (1) or fewer of the above-listed criteria.

Price

Provide a price for submission of a prototyped process and execution of a real-world use-case as outlined in Attachments 1 and 2. Include prices for milestones payments as outlined in Attachment 3. Prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar both for milestones and for the total price.

Price Evaluation:

Proposed prices for completion of the prototype(s) will be evaluated for reasonableness (price is not so high as to be more than what a reasonable person would expect to pay) and realism of price (price is not so low as to indicate a lack of understanding). Evaluation to determine reasonableness and realism of price will be determined by using one or more of the following methods:

· Comparison to other prices proposed with the oral presentation

· Historical prices

· Established price lists or catalog prices

· Parametric or cost estimating relationship tools

· Expert technical analysis of a unique process

Prototype

Explain which of the following best applies for this prototype project:

1. There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent in the prototype project;

2. All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors;

3. At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds from sources other than the Federal Government

SECTION 4 – AWARDS AND KNOWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Upon favorable review and available funds, the Government may choose to make up-to three (3) awards to obtain a prototype process and use-case execution. Awards will be fixed price and will be made using Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs). OTAs allow federal agencies to implement faster and streamlined methods and do not carry all the requirements of traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation-based procurement contracts. The Agreements Officer will negotiate directly with each awardee on the terms and conditions of the OTA, including any changes required to Attachment 1 in order to ensure a clear understanding of scope of the prototype.

To receive an award, one of the following must be present:

· There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent in the prototype project;

· All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors;

· At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds from sources other than the Federal Government

To receive an award, Companies must have a Dunn and Bradstreet (DUNS) number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM). This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. In general, to invoice and receive payment after award of an OTA, Companies must register in Wide Area Work Flow. The Agreements Officer will provide assistance to those Companies from whom a white paper is requested. The company must be considered a responsible party by the Agreements Officer, and is not suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and is not prohibited by Presidential Executive Order, or law from receiving such award.

The following are expected to be included in the terms and conditions of the awarded OTA(s):

Term of the Agreement – The Term of the Agreement is expected to be two (2) months from the effective date. The effective date is the date on which the Agreements Officer (AO) signs the fully negotiated agreement.

Agreement Payments – The Government anticipates including two (2) payment milestones for each company party to the Agreement. These milestone are as follows:

1. Midterm Review and Draft Prototype Process (including update on use-case)

2. Final Outbrief and Final Prototype Process (including final results of use-case)

Modification Provisions – As a result of meetings or progress results, there may be a need to change the Agreement’s scope, objectives, or term in order to benefit the BES mobile prototype process. The company party to the Agreement or the Government may initiate a modification request. If the company submits the request to the Government, the technical, chronological and financial impact of the proposed modification should be included with the request. The AO will be the approving authority for all modifications.

Stop Work or Suspension of Work – The Government retains the unilateral right to stop or suspend work performance if it is in the Government’s interest to do so. The AO may direct the company party to the Agreement, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt all or any part of the work for the period of time that the AO determines appropriate for the convenience of the Government. If the performance of all or any part of the work is, for an unreasonable period of time, suspended, delayed, or interrupted

1. by an act of the AO in the administration of the Agreement, or

2. by the AO’s failure to act within the time specified in this contract (or within a reasonable time if not specified), an adjustment shall be made for any increase in the cost of performance of this contract (excluding profit) necessarily caused by the unreasonable suspension, delay, or interruption, and the Agreement modified in writing accordingly. However, no adjustment shall be made for any suspension, delay, or interruption to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or interrupted by any other cause, including the fault or negligence of the company party to the Agreement

Termination Provisions – Termination of the agreement may occur under any of the following three (3) circumstances, or under other circumstances as negotiated by the parties to the Agreement:

TBD

Disputes Article – The parties to the Agreement shall communicate with one another in good faith and in a timely and cooperative manner. Any disagreement, claim or dispute between the Government and the company concerning questions of fact or law arising from or in connection with the Agreement, and whether or not involving an alleged breach of this Agreement, may be raised under this Article. Whenever disputes, disagreements, or misunderstandings arise, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the issue(s) involved by discussion and mutual agreement as soon as practicable. Failing resolution by mutual agreement, the aggrieved Party shall document the dispute, disagreement or misunderstanding by notifying the non-aggrieved Party in writing documenting the relevant facts, identifying unresolved issues, specifying the clarification or remedy sought and documenting the rationale as to why the clarification/remedy is appropriate. Within five (5) working days after providing notice to the non-aggrieved Party, the aggrieved Party may, in writing, request a decision by Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO) (AFLCMC/PK) and notify the non-aggrieved Party that a decision has been requested. The non-aggrieved Party may submit a written position on the matter(s) in dispute within five (5) calendar days after being notified that a decision has been requested. AFLCMC/HIK will conduct a review of the matter(s) in dispute and render a decision in writing no later than five (5) calendar days after receipt of the aggrieved party’s request. Any such decision is final and binding. Following this decision, either Party may pursue any right or remedy provided by law in a court of competent jurisdiction as authorized by 28 USC 1491. Alternatively, the Parties may agree to explore and establish an Alternate Disputes Resolution procedure to resolve the dispute.

SECTION 5 - FOLLOW-ON WORK

No follow-on production OT will be awarded based on this prototyped effort. Future contracts or OTs will be separate efforts and will be awarded in accordance with FAR and supplemental requirements or requirements under 10 U.S.C. 2371b as new efforts.

SECTION 6 – SUBMISSION INFORMATION

BES PEO intends to treat all submissions as sensitive selection information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation.

Submissions will not be returned. The original of each submission received will be retained at BES PEO and all other non-required copies destroyed. A certification of destruction may be requested, provided the formal request is received within five (5) days after notification that a proposal was not selected.

SECTION 8 – CONTACT INFORMATION

Be advised, only an Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into a binding agreement on behalf of the Government. She will sign the agreement, and only an Agreements Officer has the authority to change the terms of the agreement. The Agreements Officer for this requirement is Rebecca D.M. Quint, AFLCMC/HIK, Gunter (rebecca.quint@us.af.mil).