HC101325R0008 IDEAS Tier 2 -Tier 3 Support RFP_P00003.pdf

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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a. Update Section L, Instructions to Offerors - Subfactor 1.3, Volume I, Part C.

b. Add Volume VI - Executive Summary instructions in Section L, Instructions to Offerors.

c. Distribution contractor questions and Government responses.

d. Revised Performance Work Statement (PWS)

e. Update Solicitation Block 8 (Offer Due Date/Local Time) from October 29, 2025 to November 6, 2025.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 66

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Oct-2025

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 HC101325R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Aug-2025

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 X is extended, 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 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

23-Oct-2025

CODE

DISA/DITCO-SCOTT

2300 EAST DRIVE BLDG 3600

SCOTT AFB IL 62225

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC101325R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Oct-2025 12:00 PM to 06-Nov-2025 12:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Proposal Instructions to Offerors

1.1 General Information

This document provides instructions for submitting a proposal in response to the Integrated Defense Enterprise Acquisition System (IDEAS) – Tier 2/Tier3 Support Request for Proposal (RFP). In addition to RFP, there are a total of eight (8) attachments that accompany the RFP.

The contracting officer (KO) Dean Cravens and Contract Specialist (CS) Hayden Mickelson are the sole points of contact for this procurement. Questions should be addressed to dean.l.cravens.civ@mail.mil and hayden.k.mickelson.civ@mail.mil. Questions submitted to any parties aside from the KO and CS will not be addressed under any circumstances.

Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the KO and CS.

1.2 Submission Instructions.

Information on submission of technical and price proposals is provided below. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of statements asserted in the proposal. 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. Merely re-stating Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements may be considered a lack of understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The offeror's proposal shall include all data and information requested by the RFP and shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The proposal should sufficiently address the requirements as stated in the PWS

IAW DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement DITCO Instruction Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI), the offeror shall specifically identify in its proposal whether or not any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI), as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5, exists for this instant procurement. If the offeror believes that no OCCI exists, the OCCI response shall set forth sufficient details to support such a position. If an offeror believes that an actual or perceived OCCI does exist on the instant procurement, the offeror shall submit an OCCI plan with the proposal, explaining in detail how the OCCI will be mitigated and/or avoided.

The Offeror must complete Blocks 6, 7, and 8 of the DD Form 254 (Attachment 3) with the appropriate information for their companies. A separate DD Form 254 must be submitted for each proposed subcontractor. Completed DD Forms 254 must be submitted with proposals.

Section 508 Accessibility Standards apply to this requirement. Section 508 requirements are listed in the attached PWS. An offeror’s proposal shall confirm that the offeror is compliant with Section 508 standards. The contractor’s proposal shall confirm the contractor’s compliance with the Section 508 Accessibility Standards, as listed in the PWS.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the Government. Proposal submissions shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening. The Government is under no obligation to seek clarification regarding electronic proposal submission if submissions cannot be opened or accessed.

Portions of the offeror’s proposal may be incorporated into the contract.

Electronic Offers. The offeror shall submit the proposal in electronic format via email no later than the time and date specified in the solicitation. The total size of the email (including all attachments) shall not exceed 20MB. If Offeror's submission exceeds 20MB, multiple emails can be used for proposal submission. Each email shall be clearly labeled, with Company name and Volume number. The proposal shall be submitted to the KO/CS identified above.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximum. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation. Each page shall be counted except blank pages, tables of contents, glossaries, executive summaries, OCCI mitigation, or those identified as having no limit, and Section 508 compliance.

1.3 Organization

Volume I – Technical/Management Approach:

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Responses will be evaluated against the technical/management subfactors defined in Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology to be used for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

Part A – Table of Contents (No Page Limit)

Part B – List of Tables and Drawings (No Page Limit)

Include a list of Tables and Drawings utilized throughout the Technical/Management Volume.

Part C – Technical/Management Approach (Phase I) Demonstration that the Offeror is an active partner of the Appian Acquisition Accreditation Partner Program or Appian Corporation.

Facility Security Clearance

Part D – Technical/Management Approach (Phase II) (25 Page Limit) Demonstration of Offeror’s approach to achieve full operational capability (Subfactor 1: IDEAS Next Generation (NG) PWS Task 6.7) Demonstration of Offeror’s approach to application development and system maintenance support (Subfactor 2: Data Integration (DI) Server Support PWS Task 6.6) Demonstration of Offeror’s approach to Software Development and Test Support for IDEAS PWS task 6.2 & 6.7.1) Demonstration of Offeror’s management approach and labor mix (Subfactor 4:

Management/Staffing Approach)

The offeror’s Technical Capabilities proposal should describe their capabilities to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the attached PWS. It should clearly describe their approach to fully meet the requirements of PWS. Additionally the offeror shall describe experience in executing work in this arena. This subfactor should also describe where the offeror sees risk and how they would solve, mitigate or reduce risks. Proposals should clearly show how the offeror will accomplish the tasks and why they have chosen that particular course.

Volume II - Small Business Factor:

Format and Specific Content

A: EVALUATION FACTOR Small Business Participation Plan B: EVALUATION FACTOR Past Performance in the Utilization of Small Business C: SUBMISSION Subcontracting Plan, if required

A Small Business Participation Plan template is provided as Attachment 6. The document is for guidance but is not mandatory for use by Offerors.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. Small Businesses in the performance of this acquisition. The Government will assess if small business participation meets the Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) of this requirement as identified in the paragraphs below. The Small

Business Participation Plan is an actual commitment document that addresses the extent of small businesses utilization in the performance of a contract as outlined in DFARS 215.304(c)(i). The Small Business Participation Plan specifies the details of how the offeror will maximize the utilization of small businesses within this acquisition. The Offeror shall articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as a small business Prime Offeror and/or ‘first tier’ small business subcontracting only. Second and third tier small business subcontractors will NOT be considered towards the total small business participation percentage in this factor.

All offerors, including those who are DoD Comprehensive Test Program participants, shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan as a part of their proposal. The final Small Business Participation Plan will be monitored as a measure of contract compliance and execution and results of it may be used in CPARS assessments. The Small Business Participation Plan shall not reference the Subcontracting Plan or any other volume for information; all information required within the Small Business Participation Plan shall be contained within the tab for that element. This Small Business Participation Plan and the MQRs apply to the overall contract and will be incorporated at contract award within Section J. In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), small business participation is an evaluation factor under Section M. of this solicitation.

For the purposes of this Small Business Participation Plan, Offerors should use the submitted value of their price proposal which would be the “Total Evaluated Price” (TEP). This TEP should be used when calculating their percentages and dollar values. The TEP amounts shall only be used for calculating small business participation percentages for this factor and shall not be considered minimum guarantees, ceiling amounts, or estimates for pricing purposes.

Offerors shall provide the following:

a. The total combined percentage of work to be performed by the prime contractor, any large business subcontractors and any small business subcontractors.

Note: The Small Business Participation Plan measures the percentage of the TEP while the Subcontracting Plan measures the percentage of the subcontracted dollars. Small Business Offerors will be required to report achievements against their Small Business Participation Plan while “Other Than Small Business” Offerors will be required to report results against both sets of goals during contract execution.

b. The total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of small business category. The percentage of work performed by small businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category. For example, if a company is a WOSB and SDVOSB, the dollar subcontracted to that company can be counted for Small Business, WOSB and SDVOSB.

Detailed explanations must be provided when the percentages fall short of the Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) listed in the solicitation. The Government does not recognize zero percent as an acceptable proposed goal. However, if zero goals are proposed for small business or any subcategory, they shall be supported with a detailed explanation as to why the Offeror cannot utilize small business. If the Offeror does not submit a detailed rationale/explanation, the zero percentage may be deemed unacceptable. All percentages should use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as a baseline. The Small Business Evaluation Board must be able to verify that each percentage is based on the

TEP.

MQRs for this requirement are:

Small Business: 22% of the total evaluated price;

Small Disadvantaged Businesses to include 8(a): 5% of the total evaluated price;

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5% of the total evaluated price;

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone): 5% of the total evaluated price;

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB): 3% of the total evaluated price.

(Note: Double counting is permitted. A participation plan that reflects X% of the acquisition value for any of the categories would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal).

The Government must be able to verify that each percentage is based on the TEP. Execution percentages will be based on actual dollars obligated.

c. List of principal services to be performed by small businesses. This list should include the specific task areas from the PWS and the complexity* (low, medium or high) that small businesses will perform for this specific requirement to include the dollars planned for each small business.

*Complexity: These are presented as guidelines only and should not be construed as replacing requirements in any other section of the solicitation to include labor category requirements.

Low: Does not require technical expertise. May not require employee to have a college degree, may require direct supervision and/or requires less than five years of related experience. Examples: SharePoint Support, Project Management, Non-technical support, acquiring products or ordering materials/SW/HW.

Medium: Requires technical expertise or knowledge. Does require employee to have a college degree, requires little direction or supervision, requires 5-10 years of related experience. Examples: IT Operations, Data Management, IT Support Services, Cybersecurity, Tier I and Tier II Help Desk Support, Program Management, DevSecOps, Operations & Sustainment of existing systems.

High: Requires significant technical expertise or knowledge. Does require employee to have a college degree or advanced degree, requires no direction or supervision, requires ten+ years of related experience. Examples: Engineering Support, Tier III Help Desk Support, Advanced IT Support Services, Systems Engineering work for new requirements, Innovation requirements/work.

List the extent of commitment to use such firms as either enforceable or unenforceable (enforceable arrangements demonstrate commitment vice unenforceable arrangements).

Documentation regarding enforceable commitments should be provided. For example: signed teaming agreements, mentor protégés agreements, joint ventures, subcontracting or partnership letters of commitment(s), etc., may be included to support your commitment to small business utilization. Enforceable commitments must be specific to the subject requirement and include acknowledgement via signatures by both parties.

d. Describe the specifics on how the Offeror’s firm intends to maximize the utilization of small businesses within this acquisition. What plans of action will the Offeror execute to ensure maximum participation for small business? The Offeror shall articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as a small business Prime Offeror and/or ‘first tier’ small business subcontracting only. Second and third tier small business subcontractors will not be considered towards the total small business participation percentage in this factor.

e. DISA is focused on removing barriers to entry for small businesses. The number one barrier is the facility site clearance (FCL). Part of maximizing the utilization of small businesses is to remove barriers. This solicitation and any resultant contract require the prime contractor to sponsor at least two FCLs for small businesses during the first year. To be rated “Acceptable” the Offeror shall provide a written guarantee that they will sponsor two or more FCLs to small business during the first year of performance of a resultant contract.

f. Demonstration of success in the utilization of small business. The Small Business Participation Plan must provide demonstration of success in utilization of small business. This may be in the form of a Defense Contract Management Agency’s Small Business Subcontracting Program Compliance Review with a Satisfactory Rating or higher or Summary Subcontract Reports, as reported in eSRS, demonstrating meeting or exceeding goals or rationale for unsuccessful goal achievements that includes lessons learned and actions taken to meet goal and why they didn’t work. The included documents shall be from the Offeror.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no utilization of small business information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably (see FAR 15.305[a][2][iv]). This may be the case for small business Offerors. If small business Offerors claim this, they should state so in this section of the proposal.

This Small Business Participation Plan is for the overall contract and will apply to all task orders cumulatively unless individually negotiated at the task order level per the solicitation of the specific task order.

Note: The percentages and dollar values shall be achievable for the procurement for both the Small Business Participation Plan as well as the Subcontracting Plan. For “Other Than Small” Businesses only: The dollar values proposed for small business participation presented in the Small Business Participation Plan shall be consistent with the dollar values presented for small business participation in your Individual Subcontracting Plan.

Past Performance in the Utilization of Small Business

All Offerors, both large and small businesses, will be evaluated on their past performance in the successful utilization of small business in contracting. The Government will assign a Confidence Rating for this factor.

The Offeror shall submit a proposal that provides a record of successful utilization of small business in previous similar contracts. Examples of documentation may include: meeting/exceeding goal against established Subcontracting Plans on contracts executing similar scope and magnitude of this requirement, Defense Contract Management Agency Small Business Subcontracting Program Compliance Review for the Offeror submitting the proposal (to be acceptable, the rating must be “Satisfactory” or higher), Summary Subcontract Reports (SSR) for the Offeror submitting the proposal (demonstrating meeting or exceeding goals), Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR) for similar contracts (demonstrating meeting or exceeding goals). If SSR/ISR do not meet/exceed goals, the Offeror may submit rationale for any goals not met to include action(s) taken or being taken to meet the goals. CPARS will only be considered if the “Small Business Subcontracting” portion provides a narrative on goal achievement.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no utilization of small business information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor (see FAR 15.305[a][2][iv]). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” This may be the case for small business Offerors. If small business Offerors claim this, they should state so in this section of the proposal.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is also required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY (i.e. Large Businesses). ONLY OTHER THAN SMALL

BUSINESS OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT.

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, firms other than U.S. Small Business Offerors, shall also submit a Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan). Firms other than U.S. Small Businesses shall submit acceptable Subcontracting Plans to be eligible for award. The plan, at a minimum shall address the elements set forth in FAR Clause 52-219-9(d)(1) through (15). Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

A “DISA OSBP Subcontracting Checklist” is attached to the solicitation at Attachment

7. This is required to be filled out by the offeror and submitted with the proposal. Note:

Subcontracting Plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for those Offerors deemed to be apparent awardees. If the apparent awardees Subcontracting Plan is not initially acceptable, the Contracting Officer may engage in clarifications in regard to the Subcontracting Plan and this shall not be deemed discussions.

Note: The percentages and dollar values shall be achievable for the procurement for both the Participation Plan as well as the Subcontracting Plan. For Other-Than-Small Businesses only: The dollar values proposed for small business participation presented in the Small Business Participation Plan shall be consistent with the dollar values presented for small business participation in your individual Subcontracting Plan.

Status of subcontracting goals assigned to this order will be required to be reported on an annual basis to align with the award date of the contract/order. The status and achievements will be submitted to both the contracting office and DISA’s Office of Small Business Programs (DISASmallBusiness@mail.mil). The achievements will be reflected in the annual/final CPARS. Failure to meet/exceed the proposed and accepted goals and dollars could affect the annual CPARS assessment.

Volume III – Price Volume: The price volume shall consist of the following sections The following instructions are applicable to the prime offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners and joint venture partners. This section is to assist you in submitting information other than certified cost and pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and completeness of your proposed price. Price proposals will be evaluated to determine if they are reasonable and complete. Price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated, and prices presented in a clear and useful format. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to conduct a realism analysis.

Part A- Price Narrative (No Page Limit)

The price narrative shall provide the necessary information to help the Government understand the reasonableness of the proposed prices. The Offeror shall describe the methodology used to establish their price. The Offeror's price proposal shall contain sufficient quantitative and narrative documentation necessary to adequately support and explain the prices proposed, to include subcontractor proposed prices. The Offeror shall provide information describing and detailing the evaluation they performed to determine the reasonableness of prices on hourly labor rates.

The Prime Contractor shall conduct the appropriate cost or price analysis on its subcontractor’s proposal to establish the reasonableness of the proposed subcontractor prices and include the results of these analyses in its price narrative. The Offeror shall provide information describing and detailing the evaluation it performed to determine the reasonableness of subcontractor prices on hourly labor rates. This analysis shall be provided to the KO and may be submitted in accordance with the Offeror’s internal accounting procedures; there is no specified format. Offeror shall disclose the type of contract that it will have with each of its subcontractors (FFP, CPFF, LH, etc.). For any subcontractor proposed at or above the 10 U.S.C. 2306a, frequently referred as “Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA)” threshold, the Offeror shall provide or instruct the subcontractor to provide evidence of accounting system adequacy if the subcontractor is performing on any basis other than Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Time and Materials (T&M). Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall disclose the location (Government site or the Contractor site per the PWS) of each proposed labor categories performance locations in its price proposal.

Offerors should ensure price proposals include detailed information regarding the resources required to accomplish the task (e.g., labor categories, labor hours, number of employees for each labor category, rates, etc.). Again, the price proposal, CLIN Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2), shall be a separate document from the technical proposal.

Each Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall include in its price narrative its CAGE Code, DCAA and DCMA point of contact name, telephone number and email address.

Part B - Price Summary Spreadsheet (No Page Limit)

The price proposal SHALL be submitted in Excel format (.xlsx), Attachment 2, with all formulas visible in each cell with a value. The offeror shall provide a price proposal that is reasonable and complete utilizing the Government-provided Microsoft Excel Workbook, Attachment 2. The pricing spreadsheet shall not be password protected. Again, the CLIN Pricing Worksheet shall be a separate document from the technical quotation. Pricing shall not be provided in any other part of the proposal.

The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional 6-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. See FAR 52.217-8 which authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing proposal, CLIN Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2), should include a separate line item for the additional 6- month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the 6 months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional 6-month period, and surge pricing as requested below.

The Government may require surge support during the base or any option period and surge modifications will be in-scope to provide increased support for the defined task areas of the PWS. Surge support is OPTIONAL and is not a guarantee. If the Government determines that an increased quantity of support is required for the task areas defined in the PWS, the Government reserves the right to exercise the surge option unilaterally. The contracting officer will provide written notice to the offeror at least seven (7) calendar days prior to any unilateral exercise of the surge option. The Government is providing a percentage value to be used by all offerors when proposing surge: surge support will not exceed 50% of the offeror’s total proposed price for the base and all option periods, excluding any 6-month extension of services pursuant to FAR 52.217-8. Offerors are instructed to propose this EXACT percentage for Surge CLIN 9999 (see Attachment 2). In the event the Government does elect to exercise the surge option, surge support will be realigned under new or existing CLINs for the relevant task areas identified in the PWS, and an equal amount will be deducted from optional surge CLIN 9999. The Government will not conduct a cost realism analysis on optional surge CLIN 9999 if all other labor CLINs under the contract/task order are firm fixed price. Surge support will be provided at the same labor rates proposed and found fair and reasonable at time of contract award for the applicable period of performance.

Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate Travel and Materials associated with this requirement, the Government is providing plug numbers to be used by all offerors when proposing ODCs – Travel and Materials. Offerors are instructed to propose plug numbers for ODCs in the following EXACT amounts (see below), however actual travel shall be authorized by the COR in writing prior to performance and will be paid IAW FAR Part 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for ODCs. Applicable burdens, e.g., G&A, may apply to ODCs IAW the contractor’s accounting practices.

Period of Performance Travel ODCs Material ODCs

Base Year $30,000 $10,000 Option Year 1 $30,000 $10,000 Option Year 2 $30,000 $10,000 Option Year 3 $30,000 $10,000 Option Year 4 $30,000 $10,000

52.217-8 Extension $15,000 $5,000

Volume IV- Contract Documentation (No Page Limit):

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. This section should include but not limited to the DD254 (Attachment 3), OCCI Plan, 508 Accessibility Standards, provisions/clauses, and additional DITCO instructions that require a response from the contractor and will need to be submitted along with your quotation.

Volume V - Past Performance:

Past Performance as part of responsibility. Past performance will be reviewed as part of a responsibility determination by the contracting officer but will not impact the technical evaluation. If overall past performance is found to be non-responsible, this may be cause for the offeror's proposal to be excluded from further evaluation. However, a prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history. The offeror shall submit no more than three (3) Past Performance examples from the Prime Offeror and Sub-Contractor Offeror.

Recency Assessment: Recency Assessment: Recent contracts are defined as those contracts presently being performed or which have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: If the Government evaluators consider the offeror’s past performance reference to be recent, then the Government will assess the relevancy of the referenced past performance task order/contract. The Government determines relevancy by evaluating the past performance references against the technical factor/subfactors contained in the solicitation. The past performance factor does not contain subfactors. The past performance questionnaires (if used) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy and quality of past performance.

Volume VI – Executive Summary:

a. In the Cover Pages, the offeror shall provide the following information:

i. The contractor’s name

ii. The solicitation name and number

iii. The name, address, electronic address and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror

iv. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set forth in the schedule

v. Names, titles, electronic addresses and telephone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation

vi. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal

vii. Proposal signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office

viii. A generic company email address shall be provided for this solicitation and all IDEAS correspondence

ix. Provide the company/division's facility code; CAGE code; Unique Entity Identification (UEI); TIN; and business size (large or small) and type(s) of small business, if applicable

x. Confirmation offeror’s proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from the proposal due date

xi. Provide a list of all subcontractors and/or team members, a listing of their size status, and if applicable, all the socioeconomic programs under which they are eligible. This only applies to subcontractors used to meet the requirements of the PWS and not contractors (e.g., electricians) used for normal business

xii. Confirmation of virus check

b. Readme file

The offeror shall prepare a “readme” file, included in Volume I, which describes the organization and layout of the files in its electronic submission. The file shall describe the names of any .zip files and the names of each file included therein.

c. Table of Contents of the entire proposal

d. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

1.4 Debriefings:

The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable. Excluded offerors are only entitled to one debriefing for each proposal.

1.5 Discrepancies:

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing.

1.6 Electronic Reference Documents:

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the SAM.gov web site at https://sam.gov/. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation

1.7 Oral Presentations:

Each offeror that is found to be acceptable in Phase I is requested to present Part D, Volume 1 of its proposal in an oral presentation. This presentation will augment the offeror’s written proposal.

Timing and schedule of presentations will be provided after Phase I evaluation.

No presentation may exceed one (1) hour, followed by a 15 minute break. At the conclusion of the break the Government may conduct a session for follow up questions, this will last no more than 30 minutes and each offeror may be represented by no more than five (5) people.

The Government will notify offerors by phone, email, or FAX of the order of presentations after Phase I evaluations are completed.

With proposal submission the offeror must notify the contracting officer in writing of the name, phone, e-mail, and FAX number of the individual to whom the Government should give notice.

1.8 Communications:

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the KO or CS. Evaluation notices and responses will be transmitted as emails and will be treated as source selection information. The subject line of the email shall be titled: “RFP HC1013-25-R-0008, Contractor Name, Source Selection Information See FAR

2.101 and 3.104.” Questions/comments are due no later than 12:00 PM CT on August 28, 2025. Questions submitted after the deadline may not be answered. The email address for the KO and CS are located in Section G, Point of Contact. Questions/comments will only be responded to if received in email and only when submitted on Questions and Answer Template (Attachment 8).

No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided in response to offeror initiated telephone calls. All such requests must be made in writing and submitted as directed above. All questions/comments provided in a timely manner will be answered in writing and provided to all offerors. However, written inquiries may not be answered when requests are received by the Government points of contact after the original due date for receipt of questions as specified in this solicitation. The timeframe for submitting inquiries will not be extended as a result of an extension to the due date for the receipt of offers unless authorized by the KO.

1.9 Award without Discussions:

The Government anticipates awarding to the best-value e.g., best-suited, respondent from initial contractor responses using a tradeoff evaluation process, without engaging in exchanges with respondents. Respondents are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solution and price/cost in response to this solicitation. Once the Government determines the respondent that is the best-value (i.e., the apparent successful awardee), the Government reserves the right to negotiate solely with that respondent or a group of similarly rated best-value respondents to address any remaining issues, as necessary, to finalize an order. Issues may include technical, price, and/or term and conditions.

If parties cannot successfully address remaining issues, as determined pertinent and at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage in negotiations to address issues with the next best-value respondent based on the initial evaluations or group of similarly rated respondents. Once the Government has begun communications with the next best-value respondent(s), no further communications with the previous respondent(s) will be entertained until after an order has been awarded. This process described above shall continue until issues are resolved and there is an award.

1.10. Joint Venture/Partnership Agreement (if applicable):

Contractor Team Arrangements (“CTA”), as defined in FAR 9.601(1), may submit a proposal in response to this RFP. While the CTA is its own unique entity distinct from the member companies, for the purpose of evaluation, each member of the CTA is considered the prime offeror.

For example purposes only: Company A and Company B form a CTA as a Joint Venture named Company C. Experience and past performance from either Company A or Company B may be used to satisfy the requirements in the Technical/Management Approach (Evaluation Factor 1) as well as Past Performance (Factor 2). It is not necessary that

Company C have the required experience or past performance. Similarly, either Company A or Company B can possess the required certifications outlined in the PWS/SOW.

An offeror may submit a proposal as a CTA in response to the solicitation subject to the following conditions:

1) The Joint Venture or Partnership is registered in the System of Award Management (SAM.gov) and has a corresponding DUNS Number.

2) The Joint Venture or Partnership meets the definition of a Joint Venture for size determination purposes (FAR 19.101(7)(i)).

3) The offeror must submit a complete copy of the Joint Venture or Partnership agreement that established the CTA relationship.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

Award/Mod Effective Version Date Solicitation August 14, 2025 Solicitation Mod P00003 October 23, 2025 Award TBD

Contract Number: To Be Determined (TBD) Task Order Number: TBD Contractor Name TBD Tracking Number: TBD Follow-on to Previous Contract and Task Order Number:

HC104720C0004

1. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

a. Primary COR. See DITCO Additional Text G1 - Points of Contact

b. Alternate COR. See DITCO Additional Text G1 - Points of Contact

c. Property Administrator See DITCO Additional Text G1 - Points of Contact

2. Contract or Task Order Title. Integrated Defense Enterprise Acquisition System (IDEAS) – Tier 2 / Tier 3 Support

3. Background. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), a Combat Support Agency, engineers and provides command and control capabilities and enterprise infrastructure to continuously operate and assure a global net-centric enterprise. DISA directly supports joint warfighters, national level leaders, and other mission and coalition partners across the full spectrum of operations. DISA’s Procurement Services Directorate (PSD) purchases telecommunications and information technology (IT) products and services for the military, other Defense Agencies, and Federal Organizations.

To fulfill its mission, DISA PSD requires contract writing systems for both telecommunications and IT (also referred to as Traditional) contracting. DISA PSD established the Enterprise Business Modernization (EBM) project in January 2004 to meet the following objectives for DISA PSD’s contract writing system:

Create a single integrated procurement solution that is uniformly implemented and readily accessible worldwide.

Share consistent data, services, and processes across business functions and systems applying the tenets and principles of net-centricity.

Provide accurate and easily retrievable information for all PSD contracting functions and associated external users.

Reduce operational costs while increasing procurement efficiency.

The resultant contract writing system capability, IDEAS-O&M, was deployed in 2009 for DISA PSD’s telecommunications products and services contracting. The modernized solution for IDEAS is called IDEAS-Next Generation (NG) is under development in an effort to make the existing code and process modernization with the Department of Defense (DoD) mandated Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), specifically the Procurement Data Standards (PDS) and Purchase Request Data Standards (PRDS) that support the Procure to Pay (P2P) business model.

IDEAS is being developed using an agile development methodology taking advantage of the Appian Business Process Management (BPM) commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) tool.

The current IDEAS solution is built on the Appian platform and BPM is hosted in the Impact Level 5 (IL5) Appian Government Cloud (AGC), a commercial cloud offering that sits atop of the Amazon Web Services Government Cloud, West region. In summary, the underlying BPM that supports the application, the database on which the business data resides, and the technical architecture supporting all are contained in the AGC. The AGC environment consists of 4 instances to manage the development and support effort.

O&M Pre-Production (“Performance”) – User Acceptance Testing (UAT) of O&M development is conducted in this environment O&M Production – The customer uses this environment to carry out their daily duties.

NG Pre-Production (“Staging”) – User Acceptance Testing (UAT) of NG development is conducted in this environment NG Production – Will eventually become the environment used by the customer to carry out their daily duties following NG Go-Live

The vendor is responsible for managing their own development environments prior to deploying artifacts to pre-production.

Any legacy functionality of the IDEAS-O&M solution that still needs to communicate with other legacy systems still in use at DISA takes advantage of a Data Integration (DI) layer used to move data from the various P2P systems. The DI relies on a series of web services that either receive or transmit data amongst the systems. This layer resides in the DISA offered Stratus cloud environment although it also connects to the IDEAS database in AGC to store its data schemas. The technical environment in the Stratus cloud includes a Virtual Operating Environment supporting the Production Suite for the operators, and a Staging Suite for system functional verifications and UAT. There is no end user capability in the DI; only web services moving data between systems.

The DI will be sunset when all legacy contracts are transitioned out of IDEAS-O&M and into IDEAS NG.

The Scrum development process and sprint cycles are currently managed using an Appian BPM Artifact Management Tool developed exclusively for IDEAS. If DISA mandates a different tool to manage the technical effort, the contractor shall use the new tool as provided by the Government.

4. Objectives: The objective of this requirement is to provide solution definition, software development, testing, integration, production support, and expertise for IDEAS and the DI Layer. This includes providing support and expertise for: DoD Business Enterprise Architecture, Telecommunications Contracting, System Integrations, Data Warehousing, transactions occurring between systems, user training, governance documentation, data migration support (e.g., import/export, scripting) and reporting capabilities.

IDEAS system integration support shall include accommodating the Office of Defense Pricing, Contracting and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP) Application Program Interface (API) as it evolves, maintaining existing integrations (e.g., Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS), Defense Logistics’ Agency (DLA) Global Exchange (GEX)/EDA, etc.), and establishing new or updated integrations for IDEAS-NG as DISA modernizes its other business systems (e.g., Service Now, Oracle Financials integration using the PDS and PRDS as they apply to the flow of contract data in the DoD P2P process, development and support of non-standard (non PDS/PRDS) interfaces between integrated systems.)

IDEAS software development support shall include all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), including concept development, planning, requirements definition and analysis, systems design and development, coding and testing, deployment, implementation, integration, troubleshooting, security posture, documentation, and software application maintenance necessary to sustain and/or modify the system baseline. Responsibilities include managing the IDEAS’ code baseline as it interacts with users, the hosted environment, and external systems. The IDEAS baseline may change because of changes to Laws, Regulations and Policies (LRPs), End to End architectures (e.g., P2P), Operational Activities (OAs), contracting processes, user preference, latent defects, change requests, security requirements, or to accommodate new releases of the COTS products used by the system (e.g., Appian BPM, Red Hat Linux, Web Logic, Apache, etc.) or expansion of the types of business processes supported by IDEAS.

IDEAS production support shall include troubleshooting and resolving user problems and identification of opportunities to improve processes or business process models in the system.

IDEAS reporting capabilities shall be augmented / developed to support customer requirements and or to improve the availability, timeliness, and quality of IDEAS data. The reporting capabilities were created using Appian’s BPM tool and enhanced by Java software code. Reports access data through associated system components such as web and integration software. It is imperative to minimize or even eliminate all specialty code that may negatively impact regular upgrades to the Appian BPM version. The Government’s goal is to strive to stay within no more than 2 major versions away from the current Appian BPM.

The contractor shall work closely with other members of the team to include IDEAS engineers, Government subject matter experts (SMEs), stakeholders, Government test team, hosting, security, and end-users.

5. Scope. The contractor shall provide software development support for IDEAS-O&M and IDEAS-NG in the DISA’s Business Systems Portfolio Management Office (PMO). The contractor shall provide a solution, product consulting, and programming to:

(1) Implement new system capabilities by the…