HC101319R0006A0004 RFP Amend 0004.pdf

DISA GLOBAL

604 TYLER STREET, BLDG 3189

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5420

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See SF 30 Block 14 Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 14

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Mar-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HC101319R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Dec-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

04-Mar-2020

CODE

DISA/DITCO-SCOTT

2300 EAST DRIVE

BLDG 3600

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5406

HC1013 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE HC1013

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC101319R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

SF 30 CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Issue this administrative change to correct Section M items M2.1 Paragraph (2) and M2.3 Paragraph 1. These paragraphs should not have changed when Amendment 0003 was issued.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors shall address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award.

This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

M1.1.3. Evaluation.

The technical/management approach proposal shall include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp http://www.acquisition.gov/

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the SSA’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M1.1.4. Evaluation of Options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes calculating a total evaluated Price, in accordance with the price model, Attachment M1 DREN4 Price Model Description. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods. The total evaluated price will be determined in accordance with the price model. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award a single, firm fixed price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract for the DREN4 effort; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M1.1.6. Rejection of Offers.

The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. Note that unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

See paragraph M2.1(2) for relative relationships.

Factor 1: Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Factor 2: Small Business Participation

Factor 3: Technical/Management Approach Subfactor 1: Network Architecture and Performance Subfactor 2: Management and Support Subfactor 3: Security Subfactor 4: Implementation and Transition

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: technical/management approach, past performance and price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the technical/management approach factor, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 3 and 4, when combined, are significantly, more important than price (Factor 5).

M2.2. Factor 1: Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Factor.

The Government's review of the offeror's SCRM Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be eligible for award, offerors must be determined to have an acceptable SCRM Plan. The Government will utilize the definitions of acceptable and unacceptable found in Table M1 in its evaluation of this Factor. To be acceptable, offerors shall demonstrate that they have visibility into their supply chain for critical components, understand the risks to that supply chain, and have implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations to counter those risks. Offerors shall plan for and implement countermeasures which mitigate threats and system vulnerabilities, including:

a. the application of supply chain risk management best practices, applied as appropriate to the development of the system. Supply chain risk management key practices may be found in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Interagency Report 7622, Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management for Federal Information Systems, and the National Defense Industrial Association Guidebook, Engineering for System Assurance, both publicly available;

b. the enumeration of potential suppliers of critical components, as they are identified, including cost, schedule and performance information relevant for choice among alternates and planned selection for the purpose of engaging with the government to develop mutually-agreeable risk management plans for the suppliers to be solicited;

c. the processes to control access by foreign nationals to program information, including, but not limited to, system design information, DoD-unique technology, and software or hardware used to integrate commercial technology;

d. the processes and practices employed to ensure that genuine hardware, software and logic elements will be employed in the solution and that processes and requirements for genuine components are levied upon subcontractors; and

e. the process used to protect unclassified DoD information in the development environment.

TABLE M1. SCRM PLAN RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain Risk

Management with a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain Risk

Management or does not include a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.

M2.3. Factor 2: Small Business Participation Factor.

The Government's review of the offeror's Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be eligible for award, offerors must be determined to have an acceptable Small Business Participation Plan. The Government will use the following ratings in its evaluation of Factor 2:

TABLE M2. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the Total Acquisition Value (TAV). The TAV for this acquisition is the ID/IQ ceiling amount, or $495,000,000. To determine overall acceptability under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the following:

1. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate a plan to meet the minimum objectives for the participation of small business firms (including those in socioeconomic categories as defined in FAR Part 19) in terms of the percentage and dollars of the total acquisition value, or provide a detailed justification for not meeting the minimum objectives. The minimum objectives for this contract are:

Socio-economic Category Minimum Percent Small Business (% includes all socioeconomic categories) 6% of the TAV Small Disadvantaged Business 1% of the TAV Women-Owned Small Business 1% of the TAV Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 2% of the TAV Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business 1% of the TAV

2. to be acceptable, the Offeror shall describe the nature of the commitment with each small business, including the subcontract type;

3. to be acceptable, the Offeror shall describe its use of small businesses in terms of the type and complexity of work to be performed as well as a description of the type of agreements and/or commitments to use small business firms under the contract;

4. to be acceptable, the Offeror shall explain the specific initiatives and strategies that will be used under the contract to enhance small business utilization and capabilities; and

5. to be acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate the proper flow down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at the first tier. The proper flow down of requirements for small business utilization can be found at FAR 19.704(a)(9).

In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.3(g)(3), a small business concern submitting an offer will be rated Acceptable for this Small Business Participation Factor, even if they elect not to submit any information in connection with this factor.

M2.4. Factor 3: Technical/Management Approach Factor.

The Government will evaluate the relative quality of work that can be expected under each offeror’s proposed solution. It will assess the risks (i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses) of the offeror’s proposed approach.

The following subfactors will be rated:

TABLE M3. SUBFACTORS RATED

Subfactor PWS Description 1-1. Network Architecture and Performance

6.1; 6.2 This subfactor rates:

1) Performance: latency, packet loss, throughput, resiliency, measurement (e.g., comprehensive, efficiency, flexible, integration with network optimization/management); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe the methods and procedures proposed to measure and report: latency, jitter, and loss.

b) Describe how your network will provide sufficient capacity to support wire speed data transfers at all times.

c) Describe how much buffering your components support in Switch and Router Functions.

2) Architecture: efficiency, resiliency, design, capabilities of network architecture including, if applicable, integration of required architectures in PWS with network architecture of the offeror;

Specific proposal content shall include:

a) List all products proposed and reasons for their selection. For all products proposed, the offeror shall provide detailed characteristics of all features used, software versions, and manuals in .pdf or online access for hardware and software.

b) For both Ethernet and Internet Protocol (IP): Provide diagrams, descriptions/explanation of how your solution works, describe maximum frame/packet size, and encapsulation overhead.

Provide physical and logical diagrams to illustrate the proposed network design and implementation, describe clearly how all identified requirements will be met in your design. What is the level of separation at each of layer-1 (physical), layer-2 (Ethernet broadcast domains), and layer-3 (IP)? How are the networks isolated and protected from underlying commercial networks, if applicable? Show Primary and Secondary Ethernet and IP homing design and how failover and restoral will occur, including when the Primary IP DREN Core Node (DCN) and Primary Ethernet DCN are different. Describe the Out of Band (OOB) solution.

c) Provide specific detail on bridging architecture to include:

topology, protocols, capabilities, support of Quality of Service (QoS), Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), Multicast, and path determination including resiliency.

d) Describe MACsec key and association management, multi-session if supported, implementation of the standard, overhead cost/performance, VLAN capacities including number encrypted vs bypass, scalability, maximum number of associations, and hierarchy of nodes, if any.

e) Describe how networks will be isolated, including the level of separation and confidentiality between networks.

f) Describe locations where Internet Transit Service (ITS) will be available.

g) Describe the mechanisms used to ensure non-attribution of Outreach.

h) Describe mechanisms to make IP traffic symmetric at router functions when directed.

i) Describe all route filtering mechanisms that will be offered.

j) Describe how “N x” line rates will be implemented.

k) Describe how the requirements of the Switch Functions

(including Additional Switch Functions) will be implemented, including all of their capabilities, and how they scale or change to meet requirements (e.g., port density, capacity).

3) DREN Node: design components capacity/efficiency/effectiveness, resiliency, DREN Core Node (DCN) placement methodology, compute function, Service Delivery Point – Lite (SDP-Lite) solution (e.g., innovative, tunneling, resiliency, deployment efficiency, adaptability to connections of opportunity), alternate DREN eXchange Point (DXP) addresses (if any); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Provide a summary and rationale of the DCN placement optimization methodology.

b) Show the proposed topology for Initial Performance Capability

(IPC), the estimated/predicted Round Trip Times (RTTs) between Nodes, and how those RTTs compare to the maximums allowed.

c) Provide a first draft DCN Placement Proposed Map and a first draft DCN Placement Proposed Report identifying all NJPs and proposed DCNs for full DREN4 Network excluding bandwidth aspects.

d) Describe the design and protocol choices for implementing Tunnel Termination Point (TTP) at a DCN. Describe various failure scenarios and how the TTP service will fail-over to an alternate TTP.

e) Provide all alternate DXP addresses (if any) and describe the fiber infrastructure between each alternate address and the Government specified address.

4) Transport: Ethernet (e.g., MACsec, Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), QinQ, bridging topology/protocols), IPv6, IPv4, frame/packet size, Internet Protocol (IP) routing (e.g., multicast, anycast, unicast, protocols, table size, convergence); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe level of operational experience supporting IPv6 in your own networks or networks you manage, and discuss your “corporate commitment” to IPv6.

b) Show network component choices along with evidence that demonstrates:

i) their full support for IPv6, on par with their IPv4 support

ii) those products have been tested in an IPv6-only environment

iii) components can perform ALL management functions in an

IPv6-only environment

iv) test results, lab reports, USGv6 profile, University of New

Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory (UNH IOL) lab tests.

v) component vendor IPv6 commitment through IPv6-enablement of company and product web sites, measured at ip6.nl.

c) Describe choice of protocols and relationships between DREN Nodes, and explain reason for choices and how metrics will be used for optimal routing choices.

d) Describe proposal to implement the required IP traffic controls, especially the modified forwarding actions.

e) Describe for IP Multicast: all mechanisms used to fully support all identified requirements, how and where bifurcation will occur, the multicast topology and how latency requirements will be met, a notional Rendezvous Point (RP) infrastructure and relationship for each IP network and to/from external networks, and security mechanisms to protect the multicast environment.

f) Describe IP routing mechanisms to support anycast routing.

g) Describe protocol and method to deliver flow data to the

Government.

http://ip6.nl/

5) Network Control and Data: filter, Access Control List (ACL), route policy, firewall policy and capability, Orchestration, Government access (e.g., flow, log, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), routes), Application Programming Interface (API) (e.g., direct access, data (e.g., 6.5.9.1.1)); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe the proposed Firewall Function implementations, including all capabilities and capacities for rules, throughput, number of total sessions, and new sessions per second.

b) Provide all design and technical data for selected compute platform(s) to meet requirements including capacities, interface methods, and remote access capabilities for each of Generic, DREN Active Measurement Program (DAMP), and DREN Joint Sensor (DJS) Compute Functions.

c) Describe the interfaces (protocols, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), etc.) that will be used to allow Orchestration of optional DREN Node Functions.

d) Describe the Orchestration system(s) offered, the Government's interfaces to those systems, and the Offeror’s experience with the offered system(s).

e) Describe protocols, tools, and methodology to provide the APIs.

1-2. Management and Support

6.4; 6.5 This subfactor rates:

1) NOC: Problem resolution and management, risk management practice, escalation procedures, qualified staffing levels (24/7), network monitoring solution/approach/tools/integration/automation, resiliency, Support (e.g., response times, inquiries, incident response approach, communications); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe solution to Service Management System (SMS) requirements, including the ticketing system, automated alerts, integration of device alerts into ticketing system, and dashboard components (e.g., looking glass, flow tool, data access).

b) Describe approach to Government and Subscriber inquiry, meeting incident response time requirements, and communications with the Government and Subscribers.

c) Describe NOC implementation plan including resources, facility details, physical location, and continuity of operations. Provide a detailed staffing plan, including qualified staff availability on a 24/7 basis and detail on staffing turnover rates for the previous three years. Describe central network management solution, including monitoring and integration with SMS. Describe the degree to which network management is automated and integrated, and your experience (e.g., false alarm rate, failure to detect problems, effectiveness, efficiency) with your proposed approach to automation.

d) Describe escalation processes and procedures.

2) Program Support: responsiveness (e.g., comprehensive, timely, accurate), DREN4 processes (e.g., ordering, billing, configuration management, provisioning, site activities, evolution of services, technology insertion), corporate methodologies (e.g., corporate certifications, communication management); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe approach to configuration management processes.

b) Describe approach to evolution of services, technology insertion, and technology refresh processes.

c) Describe approach to provide simulation and test lab environments to meet requirements.

d) Describe processes for ordering, billing and credits.

e) Provide a notional schedule with milestones for service provisioning to 1) install a new DREN Service Delivery Point (SDP), 2) install a new DCN, and 3) install a new DREN eXchange Point (DXP).

f) Provide a notional schedule with milestones for service provisioning to upgrade DREN Node line rate when a hardware change is required.

3) Access Link Providers: effectiveness, quality, service level, approach to management and oversight, escalation of issues;

Specific proposal content shall include: Provide details of any internal and external access provider procurement and provisioning relationships showing sufficient service level agreements and insured achievement of required performance.

4) Subcontractors: approach to oversight, effectiveness of oversight, especially at remote locations and outside normal duty hours;

Specific proposal content shall include: Discuss oversight mechanisms for assuring effective performance of subcontractors, especially at remote locations and outside of normal duty hours.

5) Data Management: accuracy, available, accessibility, integration level and approach with other systems and processes including Government (e.g., DNS, flow, routes, Services Management System (SMS)); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Provide methodology, hardware and software to implement

Domain Name Service (DNS).

b) Provide auditing methodology to ensure low error rates.

1-3. Security 6.3; 12 This subfactor rates:

1) Risk Management Framework (RMF): efficient execution, staffing and resource plan, experience with security controls on proposed systems, experience with RMF to attain Authority To Operate (ATO); Specific proposal content shall include: Describe experience, approach, and capabilities to completing DoD Instruction 8510.01, Risk Management Framework (RMF) packages including Interim Authorization to Test (IATT) and Authorization to Operation

(ATO).

2) Network Protection: activation time, effective defense for known and emerging threats, preservation of DREN resources during attack/event, automated/dynamic response mechanisms; Specific proposal content shall include: Describe approach to security protection and configuration consistency of the network management data.

3) Device Management: effectiveness of tools that perform continuous monitoring and positive control, techniques to ensure compliance, ability to detect anomalies and ensure configuration consistency;

Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe processes to correct vulnerabilities detected locally and by deployed vulnerability scanning/assessment tools.

b) Describe internal configuration change board processes.

4) DoD 8140.01/8570.01-M Requirements: efficiency of obtaining and maintaining certification; Specific proposal content shall include:

Describe approach to comply with DoD Information Assurance (IA) Workforce Certification requirements with how you will maintain DoD 8140.01 certified individuals.

1-4. Implementation and Transition

6.6 This subfactor rates:

1) Schedule: efficiency, resources, technique, security (assess and authorize); Specific proposal content shall include: Provide first draft IPC plan.

2) Planning Approach: distill requirements, demonstrate resources and staffing, risk management practice, quality of plans; Specific proposal content shall include: Using the proposed DCN placement optimization methodology, present a summary of factors, the IPC DCN Placement Proposed Map(s) and IPC DCN Placement Report for the proposed three IPC DCN locations.

3) Execution Approach: capability to execute; effective, thorough and logical approach, establishing NOC, staging, site access, surge capability, resources (e.g., access link, last mile), installation, core provisioning (if applicable), DCN build-out; Specific proposal content shall include: Describe resources and staffing to execute Implementation and Transition including capability to provision services (e.g., access links, ports), perform installations, equipment acquisition, and teaming arrangements if necessary.

4) Test and Demonstration: test procedure methodology (also 6.1/6.5)

(e.g., pairwise throughput, aggregate throughput, regression testing, acceptance testing, individual performance test), resources (e.g., human, capital and intellectual); Specific proposal content shall include:

a) Describe how the pairwise and aggregate throughput tests will be conducted.

b) Describe approach to regression testing.

c) Describe methodology and approach to Acceptance Testing.

The technical/management approach evaluation will be evaluated using a combined technical/management/risk rating.

The combined technical/management/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/management/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/management/risk ratings listed in Table M4.

TABLE M4. COMBINED TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE M5. CHARACTERIZATION DEFINITIONS

Characterization Definition STRENGTH A significant aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements, in a way that is advantageous to the Government (and for which the Government is willing to pay), and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process.

WEAKNESS A flaw in an offeror’s proposal that increases the risk to successful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS A flaw in an offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk to successful contract performance.

DEFICIENCY A material failure of an offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a significant weakness (or a combination of weaknesses) in an offeror’s proposal that increases the risk to contract performance (e.g. unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost, or severely degraded performance) to an unacceptable level.

UNCERTAINTY A doubt regarding whether an aspect of an offeror’s proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement.

M2.5. Factor 4: Past Performance Factor.

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s past performance.

In addition to the Past Performance Volume provided by the offeror, past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

M2.5.1. Recency Assessment.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M2.5.2. Relevancy Assessment.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical/management approach factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the degrees of relevancy contained in Table M6 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

TABLE M6. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M2.5.3. Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent efforts. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may also include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The Government will use the quality ratings contained in Table M7 when assessing quality of relevant contracts.

TABLE M7. PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M2.5.4. Performance Confidence Assessment. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In the event that the Government is unable to obtain performance quality information for a reference, resulting in a "Not Applicable" Quality Assessment Rating, the relevance of that reference will not be considered in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

For evaluation purposes, a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table M8.

TABLE M8. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M2.6. Price Factor

(1) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(2) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable, complete, and balanced. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

(3) A fixed value for ODCs will be added to each offeror’s total evaluated price.

(4) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total evaluated price (base period and all options). Total price will be calculated by applying the price model to the applicable base and option years CLIN pricing obtained from the offeror’s CLIN Pricing Worksheet. See Attachment M1 for a description of the price model. The model will not be provided to Offerors until award. The price model includes initial site transitions as well as site upgrades and new site additions over the life of the contract. The evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(5) The offeror’s price proposal will also be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable, complete and balanced.

a. Price reasonableness will be determined using price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

b. Completeness will be evaluated by assessing the responsiveness of the offeror in providing price data for all CLINs and periods as included in the CLIN Pricing Worksheet and presented all prices in a clear and useful format. Failure to comply with this requirement may render a proposal as non-responsive, and thereby subject to rejection.

c. Price balance will be assessed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government may use the price model with excursions (e.g., in bandwidth at specific sites and/or nearby location(s)) to uncover anomalous or inconsistent pricing. The Government will consider the risks to the Government associated with unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and will consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

v17, Jul 2018

(End of Summary of Changes)