GSSE Sections L and M FINAL Redlines 22 August.docx

SECTION L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO)

L.1 Volume I: ADMINISTRATIVE

Offerors shall provide a cover page with their proposal to include individual(s) that are authorized to obligate their firm, mailing address, current e-mail address and phone number, and a statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this effort. Cover page is limited to no more than 1 page. Offerors shall also confirm proposal validity for 270 days.

System for Award Management (SAM) Requirements: Offerors must be registered and active in the SAM database[https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/]. If registration is not active at the time of award, the Offeror will not be eligible for award. Offerors may obtain information on registration at https://sam.gov and/or https://www.acquisition.gov.

The offeror shall describe how they meet these administrative gates in Volume 1: Administrative. Limited to no more than 10 pages. The Government shall evaluate if the offeror meets these gates. Failure to comply with any of the gates below will result in exclusion from further evaluation and award.

1. L.1.1 Contract Forms and Certifications:

a. Within Volume 1: Administrative, all Offerors shall acknowledge and accept, without exceptions, all statement of work requirements. Offerors shall confirm no organizational conflict of interest exists, or list any conflicts and steps taken to mitigate the conflict. Offerors shall include a statement that all terms and conditions, pricing and aspects of its proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 270 days from the proposal submission due date.

b. A conformed solicitation copy from this RFP with the original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33. The Offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP for these criteria:

i. Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 33), Blocks 12- 18

ii. All Section K, Representations, Certifications and Disclosures

iii. All amendments posted to beta.SAM.gov

2. L.1.2 Facility Clearance: The Prime Offeror must have a Top-Secret Facility Clearance as accredited in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) at the time of initial proposal submission, and shall meet all requirements of the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254), showing proof of clearance and applicable personnel eligibility. An approved Department of Defense Security Agreement (DD Form 441/441-1) must be provided with proposal submittal as proof of current Facility Clearance. For Joint Venture (JV) offerors, this requirement applies to each member of the Joint Venture.

3. L.1.3 Employing Personnel: The offeror, to include subcontractors, must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG Top Secret Clearance for a period of no less than a year within the last 3 years. Personnel must have been employed in an IT, Engineering, or Intelligence role.

4. L.1.43 Deploying Personnel: Provide documentation demonstrating previous experience deploying, sending temporary duty and/or traveling company personnel to OCONUS locations (systems to include, SPOT, ECOPS, etc.).

5. L.1.54 Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS): Possess a SPRS National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 Assessment rating of 75 or greater.

a. All Offerors, to include the Prime Contractor and any Subcontractors, are required to safeguard covered defense information and implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171. Specifically, to comply with safeguarding covered defense information and NIST security requirements, Offerors must satisfy the requirements and procedures stated in provisions 252.204-7008, and 252.204-7019 at the time of proposal submission to be considered for award. Any proposals assessed as not in compliance with the procedures and requirements of these provisions and clauses will be disqualified and will not be evaluated further for consideration of award.

b. In accordance with (IAW) DFARS 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, the Contracting Officer shall consider SPRS risk assessments during the evaluation of offers received in response to this solicitation.

L.1.65 Line of Credit: The Offeror shall provide adequate certified documentation that demonstrates a sufficient line of credit or reserved liquid capital of at least 25% of the base year proposed costs at the time of initial proposal submission. An approved line of credit on the financial institution’s letterhead, signed by an official authorized to approve the loan, and contingent upon award of the contract shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

All Offerors, to include the Prime Contractor and any Subcontractors, are required to safeguard covered defense information and implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171. Specifically, to comply with safeguarding covered defense information and NIST security requirements, Offerors must satisfy the requirements and procedures stated in provisions 252.204-7008, and 252.204-7019 at the time of proposal submission to be considered for award. Any proposals assessed as not in compliance with the procedures and requirements of these provisions and clauses will be disqualified and will not be evaluated further for consideration of award.

In accordance with (IAW) DFARS 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, the Contracting Officer shall consider SPRS risk assessments during the evaluation of offers received in response to this solicitation.

A. L.1.76 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA

The total page count of the Technical Volume shall not exceed 30 pages. Resumes are required for key personnel identified in the Performance Work Statement and shall not exceed 2 pages per person. Resumes do not count towards the page count of the Technical Volume. Past Performance is a stand-alone document, shall not exceed 10 pages. The Proposal shall be submitted in an 8 ½” x 11” format with 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format. All tables and/or figures shall be in format with 12-point Times New Roman font. All pages beyond the 30th page of the technical volume and 10th page of past performance will not be included in the evaluation. A cover page, table of contents, index do not count toward the page total.

The offeror must include any assumptions into the cover letter or it will not be incorporated into the award. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption that adversely impacts the Government’s requirements. Responses to the representations and certifications may be submitted in a separate attachment to the cover letter and are excluded from the page limitation.

The offers shall format the proposal volume writeups by following the table below:

Volume I: Administrative

· No page limit

· 8½” x 11” format with 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format.

· Tables and/or figures 12-point Times New Roman

· 510-page limit (Excluding SF30 & Section K)

· Shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title Volume I: title Administrative Gates

· L.1.1 Contract Forms and Certifications

· L.1.2 Facility Clearance/

· L.1.3 Employing Personnel

· L.1.4 Deploying Personnel

· L.1.5 Supplier Performance Risk System

· L.1.6 Line of Credit

· Shall include descriptions on individual gates and how those are met

· Shall include description on how this requirement is met

· Shall include description on how this requirement is met

· Tell us how you have achieved a rating of 75 or greater.

Volume II - : Program Management/ Technical Approach (Factor A)

· 8½” x 11” format with 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format.

· Tables and/or figures 12-point Times New Roman

· 2-page limit per resume, not included in the 30-page limit of volume II.

· Shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title per resume (e.g. Program Manager [(1]), Site Lead [(5]))

· Shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title Subfactor 1: Transition and Implementation Plan.

· Shall address instructions for Subfactor 1, each area shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title(s):

· Manning Strategy

· Transition Plan

· Task Turnover and Timeline

· Sub-Contractor Involvement

· Shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title Subfactor 2: Management Approach

· Shall address instructions for Subfactor 2, each area shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title(s):

· Organizational Structure

· Stakeholder Communication

· Performance Monitoring, Surge, and Shortfalls

· Management of Overtime and Position Shortfalls

· Operational, Intelligence, and Tactical Domain RequirementsPerformance Requirements

· Management of Cleared PersonnelTS/SCI

· DD254 Requirements

· Cybersecurity Requirements Management

· CONUS and OCONUS Travel Requirements

· OCONUS Rotation

· Shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title Subfactor 3: Training and Integration Approach

· Shall address instructions for Subfactor 3, each area shall be identified by formatting with bold subheading title(s):

· Training Plan(s) and Approach

· Master Trainer(s)/Exercise Lead

· Deployed/Remote Training Plan

· Monthly Training Report

· Cross Learning Environment

· Integration Strategy to Increase Performance

· Integration Plan

· Assessment and Evaluation

· User Experience Enhancement

Volume III: Past Performance (Factor B)

· 8½” x 11” format with 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format.

· Tables and/or figures 12-point Times New Roman

Volume IV: Price Proposal (Factor C)

· 8½” x 11” format with 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format.

· Tables and/or figures 12-point Times New Roman

L.2 Evaluation Factor A: Volume II – Program Management

L.2.1 Instructions Subfactor 1: Transition and Implementation Plan

In this section of Program Management, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed Transition and Implementation Plan to meet the requirements of the RFP and PWS. Offeror shall ensure a minimum of 90% of the positions are transitioned during the 45- day transition period to maintain minimum initial performance. Offeror’s transition plan shall describe:

· Plan for manning strategy (PWS sections 3.0.3, 3.0.4, & 3.0.5) .

· Transition Plan: (PWS sections 2.1, 3.0, 4.1, & 8.0)

· Onboarding

· Training

· Relocation

· Security Clearances and availability for SCI read-ons

· Common Access Card (CAC) issuance for onboarding personnel

· OCONUS deployment requirements

· Planned number of new hire personnel

· OCONUS positions hire or transition.

· Plan to manage task turnover and timeline

· Sub-Contractor involvement

L.2.2 Instructions Subfactor 2: Management Approach

In this section of the management approach, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed management approach to meet the requirements of the RFP and PWS. Offeror’s management approach shall describe:

· Organizational structure.

· Plan for Stakeholder communications strategy

· Plan for management monitoring performance, surge requirements, and position shortfalls (PWS Sections 2.3.1 & 3.0).

· Plan to meet performance requirements across operational, intelligence, and tactical domains (PWS Section 3.0).

· Plan for management of Top Secret/SCI employees (PWS Section 7.0).

· Plan to DD254 security requirements (PWS Section 7.0).

· Plan for cybersecurity management of operational, intelligence, and tactical software (PWS Sections 3.0.4.2, 3.0.4.3, & 3.0.4.4)

· CONUS and OCONUS travel requirements (PWS Section 8.0).

· OCONUS rotation based on country requirements.

· Resumes for 6 key personnel (PWS Sections 3.0.1 & 3.0.2), their skills and experience relevant to this program. (Resumes are separate artifacts, not included in the write up for Volume II, 30-page limit. )

L.2.3 Instructions Subfactor 3: Training and Integration Approach

The Offeror’s training and integration approach shall describe:

· Individual training plan(s) and approach for all domains and locations (PWS Section 3.0).

· Recommended Master Trainer(s)/ Exercise Lead specifying credentials, background, and experience (PWS Sections 3.0.5.4 & 3.0.5.5).

· Training plan for GSSEs deployed/remote.

· Concepts behind a monthly training plan report to communicate training status and roadmap (PWS Section 4.7).

· Training plan to increase performance of GSSE support by establishing a cross- learning environment (PWS Sections 3.0 & 4.9), with proposed efficiencies.

· Integration strategy to increase performance across three domains (Operational, Intel, Tactical), (PWS Section 3.0).

· Integration plan outlining troubleshooting processes and procedures across all domains and all locations.

· Assessment and evaluation strategy (PWS Sections 3.0 & 4.7)

· Integration strategy for enhancing user experience and across all domains.

L.3 Instructions for Volume III: Past Performance (Factor B)

The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

L.3.1 Describe a minimum of three examples of past performance under a federal or commercial contract/task order that show relevant past performance in which the work performed was similar in scope and complexity to the requirements described in the PWS. Anything over three five examples will be ignored. For at least one of the examples the work shall have been performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor. For offers submitted by a Joint Venture (JV), at least one example shall be submitted for each JV member. The past performance shall have been performed within the past five years.

L.3.2 Present the past performance examples in a chart similar to that shown below. Past Performance submitted must be able to be independently verified by the Government’s Source Selection Team for DTSGSSE. Verification may include the use of Contract Performance Assessment Ratings (CPARs) or other information available to the Government.Verification includes the use of Contract Performance Assessment Ratings (CPARs) submitted to the Government Agency/Business that can verify the past performance submitted.

L.3.34 Failure to provide accurate contract and/or contact information that can be easily verified may be considered a weakness. For example, make sure the contacts you submit in your proposal know who your company is, which contract your company is performing on and that their contact information is current. Failure to submit accurate past performance contact information for all required past performance documents will cause your past performance to receive a neutral rating. To allow the Government to verify the information submitted the following information should be included:

Past Performance Example #

· Full Name:

· Position Title:

· Phone:

· Email:

Project Title:

· Full Name:

· Position Title:

· Phone:

· Email:

Period of Performance:

Funded Value (Annual):

Description of work performed: Provide a brief narrative describing the contractor- performed duties accomplished under the referenced contract or task order. Provide examples of successful software training, pre-deployment system configuration, employee retention, and employee transition.

L.4 Instructions for Volume IV: Cost and Price Proposal (Factor C)

L.4.1 Offerors shall provide a written narrative that explains the basis of the proposed price and proposed cost, which includes a cover letter/page with their proposal; signed by an authorized negotiator with signatory authority for the Offeror. The cover letter/page shall include:

The Government anticipates the use of an FFP and CPFF contract consisting of one twelve-month base period and four additional 12-month option periods.

The Government anticipates adequate price competition. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal as calculated in Attachment 4, Cost and Pricing Matrix GSSE, based on the (1) Total Price, (2) completeness, (3) balance, (4) reasonableness, and (5) realism. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Price will not receive an adjectival rating.

L.4.2 Each PRIME OFFEROR and SUBCONTRACTOR shall complete the Cost and Pricing Matrix found within Solicitation Attachment 4 in its entirety. If any prime Offeror or any of its respective subcontractors do not provide a completed Cost and Pricing Template (Attachment 4) and a cost narrative, inclusive of the requirements set forth below, the entire prime proposal may be considered nonresponsive and ineligible for award.

L.4.3 Subcontractor Cost Analysis: Each Offeror shall identify all proposed subcontractors and the contract type the Offeror has with each subcontractor in its Written Price Narrative. IAW FAR 15.404-3(b), the prime contractor or subcontractor shall: (1) Conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract costs/prices; and (2) Include the results of these analyses in the cost proposal. If the Offeror or subcontractor relied upon its approved purchasing system to establish its subcontracts, it shall state so and provide documentation of its approved purchasing system (including date of approval) within its Written Price Narrative (see FAR 15.404-3).

Reference FAR 15.404-3: If the Offeror is unable to obtain the required documentation from its subcontractors to conduct the appropriate cost or price analysis as required, the subcontractor shall provide the information directly to the Government following the submission instructions of this RFP. However, the Offeror and its subcontractor in this scenario shall provide the rationale detailing exactly why the Offeror is unable to conduct the price or cost analysis required by FAR 15.404-3 in its Written Price Narrative. For example, if a price/cost analysis is required for a subcontractor, that analysis requires a breakout of the individual cost elements to a prime, and a subcontractor is unable to provide its proprietary data to the Offeror, the Offeror may then do a total price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) and the subcontractor shall submit its proprietary cost breakout directly to the Government.

L.4.4 Direct Labor Rates Support: The Offeror shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to develop its proposed labor rates in Attachment 4 – Cost and Pricing Template, in support of the proposed Direct Labor Rates, the Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide supporting documentation to include at least one of the below forms (a, b, c, and/or d).

a. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or DCAA/DCMA-approved Compensation Rate Tables mapped to the proposed Labor Categories.

b. Letter(s) of Intent (LOIs), which include, at a minimum, the following:

· Position;

· Direct Annual salary rate;

· Submitted on Offeror’s or subcontractor’s letterhead;

· Signed by the employer and prospective employee; and a statement that the LOI is for RFP <_____-24-R-____>

c. Current payroll records and/or paystubs (from within 60 days of Solicitation close date) showing Rate of Pay and referenced to the Labor Category in the Proposal.

d. Salary Survey data, which shall include, at a minimum, the following:

· Source of data;

· Job title and description;

· Years/level of experience applicable to the selected salary amount;

· Geographic location; and

· Range of salary amounts with reference to applicability of amounts.

L.4.5 Indirect Rates: The Offeror shall propose and apply Indirect Rates for each period of performance. Additionally, the offeror, inclusive of both parties of a joint venture, and subcontractors shall provide four years of historical actual and budgetary data for the full period of performance pools and bases were indicated in Attachment 4 Pricing Template, Tabs. Offeror/subcontractors may add additional tabs to account for any other indirect rates required.

NOTE: The Offeror shall describe all indirect rates applied to all CLINs, as applicable. All documents provided in support of the proposed indirect rates shall be referenced and explained within the price narrative. This explanation shall include a mapping for all proposed rates to the applicable supporting documentation and how the proposed rate was developed.

L.4.6 Escalation Rates: The Offeror shall submit an explanation of the methodology used to develop any applicable escalation or de-escalation rates applied to the out-year pricing for all LCAT rates proposed. In addition, all the Offeror/subcontractors shall provide historical documentation to support the escalation claim.

L.4.7 Travel & Other Direct Costs (ODCs): The Government has high confidence in providing “Plug” values for certain aspects of this requirement (Travel and ODCs (i.e., OCONUS uplifts and DBA) due to the maturity of the program and robust historical data. Therefore, Offerors shall utilize the Government-provided plug numbers for ODC and Travel and apply their indirect rates (i.e., G&A, etc.) in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices. Offerors may elect to propose additional ODCs, which may only be expensed after receiving COR approval. Fee proposed on Travel and ODC is not allowed.

L.4.8 Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance: The Offeror shall provide proof of its ability to obtain, identify and price DBA insurance in accordance with FAR 52.228-3. This amount is only applicable to the OCONUS labor portion of the contract. The Offeror shall include the premium/quote from the DBA insurance provider. If the Offeror is not proposing DBA Insurance, the Offeror shall submit documentation that they are enrolled in the DBA self-insurance program, approved by the Department of Labor. **Note: DBA cost is included in the government provided estimate (plug). **

L.4.9 Adequate Business Systems: The Offeror shall provide valid documentation from DCMA, DCAA, other Federal Audit Agency or other Offeror provided information that allows the contracting officer to determine that the contractor’s accounting system will permit timely development of all necessary cost data for the cost type CLINs and the negotiation of cost in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and applicable supplements in order to be considered for award (within the last 5 years from the date of issuance of this TORFP). If documentation from DCMA, DCAA, or other Federal Audit Agency exists that is older than within the last 5 years from the date of issuance of this TORFP, and the Offeror’s accounting system has remained unchanged, the Offeror may submit this documentation along with a letter from DCMA, DCAA, or other Federal Audit Agency that certifies the accounting system has not changed and the documentation remains valid.

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

Basis of Award - To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in this Section M. This may result in award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror (s).

The Government’s evaluation will consist of three (3) separate and distinct factors: (A) Program Management / Technical Approach, (B) Past Performance, and (C) Price. The factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Also, the following evaluation subfactors in the Program Management / Technical Approach have equal importance: Transition and Implementation Plan, Management Approach, and Training and Integration Approach:

M.1 Evaluation Factor A: Volume II – Program Management / Technical Approach (30-page limit)

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria. Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the combined technical/risk rating methodology. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks (see table below), uncertainties which can be addressed via clarifications, low performance risk, moderate performance risk, high performance risk, and unacceptable performance risk. Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Technical Factor rating.

The Government shall assign a rating to the results of its evaluation. The technical evaluation criteria are as follows:

M.1.1 Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 1: Transition and Implementation Plan Under this Factor the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing sound business practice, processes, expertise in the management approach to transition personnel from an incumbent contract to the prime offeror’s contract with a minimum of degradation in service to the Government. This plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

· The manning strategy to fulfill PWS requirements in supporting SOF users both in Garrison and deployed. The proposed selection criteria of Support Engineers, Data Engineering, and PMO Support (PWS 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 3.0.5) and how their experience levels will be allocated in support of SOF units.

· The transition plan to meet the Government requirements and schedule of the PWS sections 2.1, 3.0, 4.1, and 8.0. This shall include onboarding, training, relocation, security clearances, SCI read-ons, CACs, processes required to deploy personnel OCONUS, plan for new hires, number of planned new hire personnel and OCONUS new hires/transition.

· Plan to manage task turnover and timelines.

· The proposed sub-contractors and their involvement in the transition of the program.

M.1.2 Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated management in providing similar services, and the extent to which the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the organizations requirements. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

· The offerors organizational structure.

· The stakeholder communications plan/strategy.

· The management approach to support and monitoring performance in all locations and foreign country deployment, and plan for surge and position shortfalls (PWS Sections 2.3.1 and 3.0)

· How the offeror will meet performance requirements across all domains, operational, intelligences, and tactical (PWS Section 3.0).

· The management approach for security requirements to include Top Secret/SCI Employees, Top Secret Facility Clearance and support of Special Access Programs. Contractors will require access to SCI, Foreign government, NATO SECRET, and ACCM material in the performance of this effort (PWS Section 7.0).

· DD254 security requirements (PWS Section 7.0).

· The cybersecurity controls and assessments to maintain, distribute, and employ operational, intel, and tactical software (PWS Sections 3.0.4.2, 3.0.4.3, 3.0.4.4)

· How the offeror will meet requirements for CONUS and OCONUS Travel (PWS Section 8.0).

· How the offeror will meet requirements for OCONUS Rotations.

· Qualifications of 6 key personnel, their skills and experience relevant to this program (PWS Section 3.0.1 and 3.0.2). Resumes are separate artifacts, not included in the write up for Volume II, 30-page limit, M.1.3 Subfactor 3: Training and Integration Approach

Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Training and Integration Approach for personnel assigned to the GSSE contract. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

· Training approach and training plan to cover all domains and locations, ensuring all personnel are properly trained prior to deployment IAW positions, domains, and locations identified in PWS section 3.0.

· Master Trainer(s)/Exercise Lead(s) credentials, background, and experience (PWS Sections 3.0.5.4 & 3.0.5.5).

· Training plan for GSSEs to ensure distributed (deployed/remote) training can be accomplished for both reoccurring and new training requirements.

· Training plan monthly report to communicate an accurate depiction of training status and roadmap (PWS Section 4.7).

· The training plan to increase performance of GSSE support by a cross- learning environment across all three domains to improve integration of capabilities and how the Offeror will gain efficiencies (PWS Sections 3.0 & 4.9).

· Integration strategy to increase performance by integration of capabilities across three domains (PWS section 3.0).

· Integration plan to ensure proper troubleshooting processes and procedures are implemented across all domains and all locations.

· Assessment and evaluation strategy that validates personnel skillsets in each domain, maintains proficiency levels across personnel, and standardizes training across all locations (PWS Sections 3.0 & 4.7)

· The ability to enhance user experience through the integration strategy.

M.1.4 The Technical Factor and Subfactors will receive a color/adjectival rating IAW with the table below.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Blue

Purple

performance is no worse than moderate.

Offerors that receive a rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

M.1.5 The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past Performance. The Adverse Past Performance term is to be used under the Past Performance Factor only:

Definitions

· Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

· Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price Factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

· Adverse Past Performance – Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPIIS.”

· Low Risk Performance Risk – Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

· Moderate Performance Risk – Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will be able to overcome difficulties. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

· High Performance Risk – Proposal contains significant weaknesses or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

· Unacceptable Performance Risk – Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

M.2 Evaluation Factor B: Volume III – Past Performance (10 page limit)

M.2.1 Recency as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, “Recent”t” is defined as occurring up to and including the past Five (5) years.

Major/key subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing services or whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price.

M.2.2 This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, to include products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship; 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customer’s interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

M.2.3 Based on the Offeror’s previous and current experience and performance on same or similar efforts, including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all RFP requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

M.2.4 Performance Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is recency as defined above. The second aspect is relevancy, which is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performanceassesses the Offeror’s present/past performance to determine if work performed involves the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, as defined in the below chart below.

Recency and relevancy evaluations will be used to determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment adjectival rating for Factor B. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each present/past performance effort shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

M.2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see table below). No separate quality assessment rating will be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment adjectival rating for Factor B is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

effort.

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

M.3 Evaluation Factor C: Volume IV – Cost and Price Proposal

M.3.1 The Government anticipates adequate price competition. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and/or realistic. The cost realism analysis will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. The most probable cost (MPC) may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost.

*NOTE: The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or DCMA. This DOES NOT preclude the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for its rates proposed.

M.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost & Price Proposal as calculated in Attachment 4, Cost and Pricing Matrix based on the (1) Total Price, (2) completeness, (3) balance, (4) reasonableness, and (5) realism. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Price will not receive a color rating or score however, the Offeror’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) will be used for Program Management/Technical input for decision award.

M.3.2.1 (1) Total Price. The total evaluated price for award purposes will be the sum of all CLINs as outlined in Attachment 4 – Cost and Pricing Matrix, to include a 6-month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 In total, this will include the price from the FFP CLINs as well as the Most Probable Cost from the CPFF and CR CLINs. The Government is providing NTE Amounts plus applicable indirect for Travel, these amounts are included with Attachment 4 – Cost and Pricing Matrix and shall not be altered. Travel amounts provided will be factored into the total evaluated price (TEP).

M.3.2.2 (2) Completeness. The Government will determine if the Offeror’s Cost & Price proposal is an accurate reflection of all aspects of the technical proposal; and will determine compliance with Attachment 4 – Cost and Pricing Matrix.

M.3.2.3 (3) Balance. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced, as defined under FAR 15.404-1(g). In accordance with 52.215-1(f)(8), “Instructions to Offeror-Competitive Acquisition,” the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3.2.4 (4) Reasonableness. All proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness per FAR 15.305 using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed Costs/Prices in accordance with the definitions in FAR 31.201-3. A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.3.2.5 (5) Realism For prices and costs to be realistic, the cost elements must be realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will evaluate cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. However, the probable cost will be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.3.3 ADEQUATE PRICE COMPETITION: Adequate price competition may not be the sole technique in determining price reasonableness.

M.3.4 SOFARS 5652.215-9010: The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition on this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial proposals, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate prices 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 acquisition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price. Additionally, all information related to pricing shall be included in the section of the proposal defined as “Volume 4 – Price Proposal”. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should pricing data be included elsewhere in the proposal. **Offeror shall ensure all calculations leading to the TEP have been properly calculated and all formulas shall be included and visible to the Government. **