RAINFIRE_SSP_v1.0_4_September_2018.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

RAINFIRE

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN (SSP)

VERSION 1.0

4 September 2018

9/4/2018

X

Signed by: STORMS.JESSICA.M.1365208111 Approved By: Jessica Storms

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

Contents

SECTION 1 – (U) BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

SECTION 2 - (U) ACQUISITION STRATEGY

SECTION 3 - (U) SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

SECTION 4 - (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

SECTION 5 - (U) PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 6 - (U) SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

SECTION 7 - (U) ADMINISTRATION AND SOURCE SELECTION MATERIALS

(U) ATTACHMENT 1 – SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

(U) ATTACHMENT 2 – SOURCE SELECTION TEAM CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

(U) ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 1 – (U) BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

(U) The United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) Capability Development Group (CDG) has a recurring requirement for analytic support capabilities, to include analytic development, transition, and optimization. The analytic capabilities procured under this effort support cyber warfighters within the

Department of Defense (DoD).

(U) For the purpose of this effort, an analytic will be defined as software in a computing environment

(e.g., cloud infrastructure, streaming environment, etc.) that summarizes and characterizes data, allowing users to derive meaning and interpret desired results. Analytics are the set of functions that provide for technical capabilities operating on behalf of analysts. Analytics perform routine tasks better left to automation or are those analytic functions that defy work by humans, based on the scope of the problem(s) at hand. Analytics involve, the following capabilities: Action plans, Data access and delivery, standardization, annotation, association, and services execution.

(U) USCYBERCOM requires analytic development support to the complete array of Cyber mission

Forces (CMF), to include the Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF) and Cyber Protection Team (CPT)

Cyber Missions. USCYBERCOM requires support to acquire analytic capabilities that meet the operational requirements for cyber capabilities across DoD data sources and mission data.

SECTION 2 - (U) ACQUISITION STRATEGY

(U) As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) Basic

Ordering Agreements (BOAs) and a maximum of ten (10) BOAs. The BOAs shall be basic agreements with no minimum ordering requirements.

(U) The ordering period for RAINFIRE will be five (5) years. The period of performance for orders placed under RAINFIRE will be specified within each order. Orders must be awarded within the BOA ordering period and shall not exceed two (2) years including all options.

(U) The Government anticipates all orders against the RAINFIRE BOAs to be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) efforts and awarded to the lowest price offer for each order. The Government reserves the right to evaluate orders on the basis of price only when competing orders, as all BOA holders will have been considered technically acceptable at time of initial BOA award.

(U) All providers of analytic development under RAINFIRE must be able to provide the Standard

Development baseline skillsets and capabilities, as defined in the Statement of Work sections 4.2, 4.3 and

4.4.

(U) The RAINFIRE BOA shall include niche requirements, as described as non-standard analytics in the

Statement of Work Section 4.5. At time of proposal submission, the potential Offeror may select whether to submit against the requirements.

(U) All contractors who propose-to and meet technical acceptability for non-standard analytics may participate in the non-standard analytic orders. Only contractors that have been awarded the specific non-standard tasking within their BOA will be permitted to participate in those competitions.

SECTION 3 - (U) SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

A. (U) The evaluation and selection of the successful Offerors will be performed by the following source selection team:

1. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

3. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

4. Advisors

B. (U) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOURCE SELECTION TEAM:

1. Source Selection Authority: The SSA will make the final determination of the Offeror selected for award. The SSA in making a selection is not bound by the findings of the SSEB.

The SSA is only limited in that his/her selection must have a rational basis in terms of the evaluation factors in the solicitation and must meet all legal and procedural requirements of the evaluation process. The final decision, which will be an integrated assessment based on the entire evaluation process, will be executed by the SSA. The SSA is responsible for the proper conduct of the source selection process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA, at a minimum, shall:

a. Ensure the proper conduct of the source selection process and make the final source selection decision.

b. Ensure that the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and evaluation criteria are consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and applicable regulations.

c. Review and provide concurrence to the decision to release the solicitation.

d. Approve the source selection plan.

e. Ensure that personnel with the requisite skills, expertise, and experience to execute the SSP are appointed to the SSEB.

f. Ensure that conflicts of interest, or the appearance thereof, are avoided.

g. Ensure that premature or unauthorized disclosure of source selection information is avoided.

h. Ensure that the source selection process is conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

i. Select the successful Offeror and ensure that supporting rationale is documented in

Source Selection Decision Document before contract award.

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board. The SSEB evaluators will consist of a Chairperson supported by a team of evaluators. The SSEB Chairperson, at a minimum:

a. Ensure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

b. Be responsive to the guidance and special instructions of the SSA.

c. Provide such briefings and consultations as may be required by the SSA.

d. Assure the adequacy and overall quality of the narrative justification for the evaluation results.

e. Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the

SSEB and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

f. Relieve members from assignment in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other cause.

g. Require members to work overtime, when necessary.

h. Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the SSEB.

i. Plan the security requirements of the SSEB and the work site and ensure their accomplishment when the SSEB is convened.

j. Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

k. Supervise the preparation of needed documentation to support evaluation findings.

l. Transmit appropriate SSEB records to the Contracting Officer.

The SSEB, at a minimum:

a. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of technical proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

b. Provide information for debriefings of unsuccessful Offerors.

c. Identify discriminating factors amongst Offerors to aid the SSA in the selection process.

d. In conjunction with the SSA, meet, at a minimum, to determine that meaningful discussions are concluded prior to the Request for Final Proposal Revisions.

e. Prepare and submit the SSEB evaluation reports to the SSA.

f. Brief the SSA, as requested.

3. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will:

a. Act as an advisor to the SSEB.

b. Act as a point of contact between the Government and the Offerors.

c. Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, be responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of price.

d. Determine which Offerors are within the competitive range.

e. Award the contract.

f. Chair all required debriefings.

(U) Based on the value of the procurement, the PCO shall serve as the SSA.

4. Advisor: The Advisors may be Government or FFRDC Contractors. All FFRDC contractors will have individual Non-Disclosure Agreements in place prior to being provided copies of any source selection documentation. The PCO shall also review to ensure there are no organizational conflicts of interest prior to the release of any source selection information. Advisors shall be non-voting members of the SSEB, and shall:

a. Assist in the evaluation by reviewing offerors and providing recommendations based on the evaluation criteria.

b. Not participate in the review and evaluation of the past performance information or have access to past performance information during the course of this source selection.

SECTION 4 - (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

(U) Evaluation and award will be based solely on the information contained in the Offerors written proposal. The PCO reserves the right to ask clarification questions or hold discussions, if deemed necessary, to ensure the Government awards contracts that provide an acceptable understanding of the technical requirements.

(U) Prior to reviewing the proposal, the Government will make an eligibility determination based on whether the offeror has a Top Secret Facility Clearance. If the Offeror does not possess a Top Secret

Facility Clearance at time of proposal submission, they will be ineligible for award and the Government will not review the offer further. The ineligible offeror will be notified within three (3) business days of making the eligibility determination.

(U) Following the initial determination of eligibility based on facility clearance, the Government shall evaluate the offerors in two phases. In phase one, the Government shall determine the eligibility to receive a BOA by evaluating two FACTORS. The Offeror must receive an acceptable rating in both

FACTORs and all SUBFACTORS to be considered eligible for award.

FACTOR ONE – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY:

The Government will evaluate the offerors response that demonstrates technical ability, proficiency, and experience to deliver analytics. The Government will evaluate the following sub-factors:

SUB-FACTOR ONE – The Government will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the process to develop analytics against various platforms, using appropriate tools and techniques.

SUB-FACTOR TWO – The Government will evaluate the Offerors experience with cyber mission analytics, and the ability to successfully deliver.

SUB-FACTOR THREE - The Government will evaluate the Offerors demonstrated ability to develop on target platforms, to include either or both of the following:

o The Big Data Platform (BDP) used by DoD and the Defense Information Systems

Agency (DISA), or o The Distributed Cyber Analytic Framework (DCAF).

SUB-FACTOR FOUR – The Government will evaluate the Offerors demonstrated analytic software development approach includes a comprehensive test and evaluation program that results in high-quality product deliveries.

SUB-FACTOR FIVE – The Government will evaluate the Offerors proven analytic software development approach that accurately describes risks, opportunities, and dependencies (including customer and user involvement) to achieving analytic development success.

SUB-FACTOR SIX – The Government will evaluate the Offerors demonstrated ability to analyze analytic requirements (to include applying systems engineering, decomposing requirements, and allocating requirements based on Governments inputs to recommend a course of action for achieving cyber mission needs.

FACTOR One, and all SUB-FACTORS will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined in

Table 1.

Section 4. Table 1. Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings for Technical Acceptability

Rating Definition

Acceptable The proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR TWO – PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government shall evaluate three (3) demonstrated examples of relevant past performance (based on tasking and timelines for delivery) within the past three

(3) years at time of RFP release. The examples may be current efforts, or efforts that ended within the three year period since the RFP release date.

FACTOR Two will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined in Table 2.

Section 4. Table 2. Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings for Past Performance

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offerors performance record, the

Government has reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerors performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offerors performance record, the

Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(U) Following the first phase of the technical evaluation, the offeror who is acceptable in the first two

FACTORS will have the opportunity to seek the inclusion of additional tasking within the BOA

Statement of Work. The Offeror has the ability to respond to all, some or none of the optional non-standard analytic tools. If the Offeror does not opt to propose against an optional non-standard analytic tool requirement, it will have no effect on the overall eligibility for a BOA with the standard analytics. If an Offeror receives an “Unacceptable” rating in any of the optional non-standard analytic requirements, they will remain eligible to receive an award based on the standard analytics. The Offeror must receive an acceptable rating in a specific analytic optional non-standardized analytic to be eligible to compete for the tasking in the subsequent BOA.

(U) The optional non-standard analytic requirements are as follows:

OPTIONAL POOL A - The Government will evaluate the offerors demonstrated experience and ability to develop Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning Analytics, using supervised or unsupervised algorithms that can classify data, cluster data, and build predictive models.

OPTIONAL POOL B - The Government will evaluate the offerors demonstrated experience and ability to develop streaming analytics that can analyze large, in-motion, and dynamic datasets.

OPTIONAL POOL C - The Government will evaluate the offerors demonstrated experience and ability to develop Behavior Science Based analytics using cognitive decision making models and implementing decision making frameworks.

OPTIONAL POOL D - The Government will evaluate the offerors demonstrated experience and ability to develop edge analytics that apply automated computations on in-motion data at specific architectural structures.

OPTIONAL POOL E - The Government will evaluate the offerors demonstrated ability to stand-up or modify analytic computing environments and environment instantiations; including target clouds, DoD/DISA’s BDP, or DCAF.

SECTION 5 - (U) PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS

1. (U) General Guidance

(U) The Government requests that Offerors submit their initial proposal as their optimal proposal.

Accordingly, it is contemplated that proposal revisions will not be requested. Each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms. No classified responses are permitted to this Request for Proposal.

Only one proposal per prime Offeror will be accepted.

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

Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offerors proposal. Portions of the successful offerors proposal may be incorporated into the contract as an attachment in the award document, therefore the proposal shall be written in binding terms as a means to evaluate. The offeror is cautioned that any proposals the Government considers to be unrealistic in terms of approach, cost, or schedule will be deemed indicative of an inherent lack of comprehension of the complexity and risks of the effort and may be rejected. Any items in the proposal that are unclear may result in an unacceptable rating.

(U) The Government will award a minimum of two (2) contracts and a maximum of ten (10) contracts to the Offerors whose proposal are deemed “Acceptable” in FACTOR One and FACTOR Two. If the

Government does not receive more than one “Acceptable” proposal, an award against this solicitation may not happen. If the Government receives more than ten (10) acceptable proposals, the PCO shall draw by two lots. The lots will be 1) Large Businesses and 2) Small Business based on the NAICS 541511.

Five (5) offerors will be selected from each lot and shall be selected at random by the PCO and witnessed by a minimum of three other personnel. Offerors receiving an acceptable rating in the FACTORs One and Two, shall get one entry into the lot drawing. For all Offerors that received a rating of Acceptable in the non-standard shall receive an additional entry per optional pool into the lot drawing.

(U) Offerors who are taking part of the lot selection may be invited to witness the drawing, based on timing of the selection. By submitting a proposal, the Offeror agrees to the terms of establishing priority for the equal offers and drawing by lot if all other elements are considered equal.

(U) The Government intends to award this contract without discussions as per FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions. Evaluation and award are based solely on the information contained in the Offerors written proposal. However, the PCO reserves the right to ask clarification questions and hold discussions. If discussions occur, the schedule will be amended to include adequate time to make an award.

(U) If the Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, discrepancy, omission, ambiguity, or are otherwise unsounds, the Offeror shall immediately notify the POC in writing with the supporting rationale.

2. (U) Point of Contact

(U) The PCO and the contract specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this procurement and the request for proposal. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO and CS. All questions shall be submitted in accordance with the Schedule of Events in section 6.0 of the Source Selection Plan.

All questions shall be sent in writing to the PCO, CS, and the proposal alias listed below. No classified questions will be accepted. The PCO and CS information is as follows:

Contracting Officer

Name: Jessica Storms

Organization/Office Symbol: CYBERCOM, CDG ACQ

Phone No.: (443) 634-5534

E-Mail Address: jmstorm@cybercom.mil

Contract Specialist

Name: 2nd Lt Guy

Organization/Office Symbol: CYBERCOM CDG ACQ

Phone No.: (410) 854-3914

E-Mail Address: ktguy@cybercom.mil

(U) All replies must CC’ the CYBERCOM alias email: uscybercom_proposals@cybercom.mil.

(U) All correspondences shall be clearly labeled with the RFP Number, Contract Name, and the Company

Name in the subject line of the email.

3. (U) Proposal Delivery Instructions

(U) All proposals shall be delivered in accordance with the delivery instructions noted in the Request for

Proposal (HB0001-18-R-0022). Proposals received after the delivery date/time will be considered late and ineligible for consideration.

(U) Section 6.0 of the Source Selection Plan provides the due date for all proposals. The proposals must be received no later than 1500 EDT. All proposals must be unclassified and shall be delivered to the PCO, CS, and the proposal alias listed in Section 5, Part 2, “Points of Contact”.

4. (U) Volume Formatting and Limitations

(U) All Offerors shall ensure the proposals submitted against this Request for Proposal are valid for 120 days from the proposal due date.

(U) Text shall be black, Times New Roman font, single-spaced, using 12-point text (10 point in graphics), with one-inch margins from paper edge to text and/or graphics on all sides. Text and graphics (if applicable) shall be printed on both side of a sheet (double sided). All attachments and photocopies must also adhere to these guidelines. Front and back side of a single sheet are counted as two (2) pages if both sides are printed upon. Foldouts are permitted. Single-sided foldouts will be counted as two (2) pages;

double-sided foldouts will be counted as four (4) pages. However, the foldout may not exceed 11”x17”, and must not be included in more than 10% of the page count, remembering to balance with the page limits. All foldouts, drawings, and/or illustrations included in the Offeror’s proposal must be included in the page count.

(U) Each individual text file must be limited in size to 5MB or less in order to facilitate faster downloads in a networked environment. The price volume spreadsheet files may exceed 5MB. In no case shall the documents exceed the page counts listed in Section 5, Part 5, “Volume Structure”.

(U) Softcopy proposals may contain links within each file (for example: entries in a Table of Contents may contain links to the pages to which they refer), but may not contain links to other files or volumes.

The price volume files must contain fully functional formulas and may contain links to other files submitted to the Government.

(U) Proposal volumes must be submitted in one of the following formats:

Microsoft Office 2016, including Word (.DOC), Excel (.XLS), and PowerPoint (.PPT or .PPS).

PDF files will only be accepted on a limited basis (with prior approval from the PCO). Macros shall be disabled on all files. Price proposals must be submitted in MS Excel for all spreadsheets with executable forumlas.

(U) Graphics inserted into documents shall be in compressed formats (for example, GIF and JPEG).

Graphics shall also be pre-sized, such that they match the context of the size of the document that they are included in.

(U) No other materials may be incorporated in any portion of the proposal by reference, as a means to circumvent page count limitations. All information pertaining to a volume shall be contained within that volume. Any information beyond the page limitations will not be considered in the evaluation of that offer.

(U) If the Offeror includes data or information in their proposal that should not be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government for other than evaluation purposes, the Offeror must mark the title page with the following statement:

(U) “This proposal includes data that must not be disclosed outside the Government and must not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of or in connection with the submission of the data contained herein, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the

Government’s right to use information contained in the data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. Data subject to this restriction are contained in [applicable volumes].”

(U) Mark each sheet of data to be restricted with the following statement:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions in the title page of this proposal.”

5. (U) Volume Structure

(U) It is anticipated that the offeror shall submit unclassified soft copies of its proposal.

(U) A cover sheet clearly marked as to volume number, the RFP number, and the Offerors name is required and not considered part of the page count.

(U) Each volume shall contain a table of contents for the respective volume. The table of contents shall correspond to the order in which the information was requested within the Source Selection Plan. Each volume should also contain a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms with an explanation of each. This shall not be included in the page count.

(U) All pages and sections shall be numbered and/or lettered.

(U) Each proposal shall be organized and presented in the following format:

Section 5. Table 1. Proposal Organization

Volume Content Page Limit

I Cover Letter 2

I Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability 10

I Optional Pool A* 3

I Optional Pool B* 3

I Optional Pool C* 3

I Optional Pool D* 3

I Optional Pool E* 3

II Factor 2 - Past Performance 2

(U) Page restrictions are applied only if the Offeror chooses to respond to that optional requirement.

Should the Offeror choose not to respond to the Optional Pool, the offeror is restricted to the page limits for the portions they are responding to. The page limits may not be rolled over into other FACTORs page limits or Optional Pool Page limits.

(U) Specific instructions for FACTOR response content is as follows:

(U) FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY:

(U) The Offeror shall demonstrate technical ability, proficiency, and experience to develop cyber analytics. Overall technical acceptability shall be predicated on the overall ratings for the sub-factors listed below:

SUB-FACTOR ONE – The Offeror shall propose a process to develop analytics against various platforms, using appropriate tools and techniques. The process shall identify risk, mitigation strategies, and plans to integrate the analytic.

SUB-FACTOR TWO – The Offerors shall describe their demonstrated experience with cyber mission analytics, and the ability to successfully deliver.

SUB-FACTOR THREE - The Offeror shall describe their demonstrated ability to develop on target platforms, to include either or both of the following:

o The Big Data Platform (BDP) used by DoD and the Defense Information Systems

Agency (DISA), or o The Distributed Cyber Analytic Framework (DCAF).

SUB-FACTOR FOUR – The Offeror shall describe their demonstrated analytic software development approach. The approach shall address using a comprehensive test and evaluation program that results in high-quality product deliveries.

SUB-FACTOR FIVE – The Offeror shall describe their proven analytic software development approach. The approach shall describe risks, opportunities, and dependencies (including customer and user involvement) to achieving analytic development success.

SUB-FACTOR SIX – The Offeror shall describe their demonstrated ability to analyze analytic requirements (to include applying systems engineering, decomposing requirements, and allocating requirements based on Governments inputs to recommend a course of action for achieving cyber mission needs.

(U) FACTOR TWO – PAST PERFORMANCE:

(U) The Offeror shall provide three (3) points of contact for contracts in which they performed work of similar scope, as the prime contractors, to enable the Government to solicit information on past performance. The Offeror shall select examples of past performance within the past three years (from the date of RFP release). The examples may be ongoing (with an active period of performance) or ended during that three year period. In addition to the points of contact, the Offeror shall include contract number of the referenced past performance, contract name, contract value, contract period of performance, contract type, name of the Contracting Officer, name of the Program Manager, and a short description of the scope of work. The Government will issue a Past Performance Questionnaire to the provided points of contact. It is advised that the Offeror notify the points of contact to expect communication from the PCO.

(U) OPTIONAL POOLS:

(U) Response to each Pool is OPTIONAL. Should the Offeror choose to respond to the optional tasking, the following are the instructions for each pool:

(U) Pool A: Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning Analytics: The offeror shall demonstrate experience with artificial intelligence and deep learning analytics. The offeror shall demonstrate an approach to developing new analytics that describes their access to specialized skillsets and applies their experience with artificial intelligence and deep learning analytics.

(U) Pool B: Streaming Analytics: The offeror shall an approach to performing streaming analytics. The offeror shall address developing new analytics and describe their access to specialized skillsets within the field of streaming analytics.

(U) Pool C: Behavioral Science Based Analytics: The offeror shall provide an approach for performing behavioral science based analytics. The offeror shall address developing new analytics and describe their access to specialized skillsets within the field of behavioral science based analytics.

(U) Pool D: Edge Analytics: The offeror shall provide an approach for performing edge analytics. The offeror shall address developing new analytics and describe their access to specialized skillsets within the field of edge analytics.

(U) Pool E: Analytic Infrastructure Support: The offeror shall provide an approach for standing-up and/or modifying analytic computing environments and environment instantiations, to include target clouds, DoD/DISA’s Big Data Platform (BDP) or the Distributed Cyber Analytic Framework (DCAF). The offeror shall address standing-up and modifying analytic computing environments and environment instantiations and describe their specialized experience in this field.

SECTION 6 - (U) SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

(U) The following schedule of significant events delineates the steps that will be accomplished during this source selection:

Issue Solicitation 4 September 2018

Questions Due on Solicitation 18 September 2018

Receive Proposals 4 October 2018

Complete Initial Evaluation 21 November 2018

SSA Decision 30 November 2018

Award 7 December 2018

(U) If questions are received after 18 September 2018 at 1200 EDT, they may not be answered.

Questions/comments will only be responded to if received via the alias provided in Section 5, Part 2. The

Government will consider all late questions, but may not respond as noted above. No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarifications will be provided in response to offeror initiated telephone calls. All such requests must be received in writing. The timeline for submitting inquiries, questions, or comments will not be extended as a result of an extension to the due date for the receipt of offerors unless authorized by the PCO.

(U) If the PCO determines to abort the one-step procurement and enter into discussions, the timeline will have to be adjusted to reflect the additional time.

SECTION 7 - (U) ADMINISTRATION AND SOURCE SELECTION

MATERIALS

(U) After release of the Request for Proposal, the PCO shall serve as the sole focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective Offerors. Government personnel will not engage in discussions with industry.

(U) Meetings among Government personnel concerning source selection will be held on an as-needed basis. These meetings will be predominantly for proposal evaluation, documentation, preparation, and decision making. If a need arises to change any requirements, those changes will be submitted for approval to the PCO and SSA. Any approved requirements changes shall be documented in the source selection plan and appropriate solicitation documents.

(U) There is no classified material specifically requested through this RFP. No exceptions shall be made.

(U) All source selection materials will be secured while not in use by a member of the source selection team.

(U) ATTACHMENT 1 – SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

(U) This attachment will not be released with the solicitation.

(U) ATTACHMENT 2 – SOURCE SELECTION TEAM CERTIFICATION

STATEMENT

(U) ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE