HC101325R0008 P00005 IDEAS Tier 2-Tier 3 Support.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. Administratively update the PWS Task references regarding reserved PWS Task 6.5.

B. Update PWS 6.1.2 Subtask 2 reflecting optional.

C. Update Block 8 - Proposal Due Date from November 6, 2025 to November 20, 2025.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 80

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Nov-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

05-Nov-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 06-Nov-2025 12:00 PM to 20-Nov-2025 12:00 PM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0006

The CLIN description has changed from OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 to OPTIONAL PWS 6.6.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 - Task 5 - Migration support to Cloud or Software as a Service Platform

To:

OPTIONAL PWS 6.6 - Task 6 - Migration support to Cloud or Software as a Service Platform

CLIN 0007

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.6 to PWS 6.7.

PWS 6.6 - Task 6 - Data Integration (DI) Server Support

PWS 6.7 - Task 7 - Data Integration (DI) Server Support

CLIN 0008

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.7 to PWS 6.8.

PWS 6.7 - Task 7 - IDEAS Next Generation (NG) Capital Funding

PWS 6.8 - Task 8 - IDEAS Next Generation (NG) Capital Funding

CLIN 0009

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.8 to PWS 6.9.

PWS 6.8 Training - Task 8 - Training

PWS 6.9 Training - Task 9 - Training

CLIN 1006

The CLIN description has changed from OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 OY1 to OPTIONAL PWS 6.6 OY1.

CLIN 1007

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.6 OY1 to PWS 6.7 OY1.

CLIN 1008

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.7 OY1 to PWS 6.8 OY1.

CLIN 1009

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.8 OY1 to PWS 6.9 OY1.

CLIN 2006

The CLIN description has changed from OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 OY2 to OPTIONAL PWS 6.6 OY2.

CLIN 2007

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.6 OY2 to PWS 6.7 OY2.

CLIN 2008

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.7 OY2 to PWS 6.8 OY2.

CLIN 2009

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.8 OY2 to PWS 6.9 OY2.

CLIN 3006

The CLIN description has changed from OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 OY3 to OPTIONAL PWS 6.6 OY3.

CLIN 3007

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.6 OY3 to PWS 6.7 OY3.

CLIN 3008

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.7 OY3 to PWS 6.8 OY3.

CLIN 3009

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.8 OY3 to PWS 6.9 OY3.

CLIN 4006

The CLIN description has changed from OPTIONAL PWS 6.5 OY4 to OPTIONAL PWS 6.6 OY4.

CLIN 4007

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.6 OY4 to PWS 6.7 OY4.

CLIN 4008

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.7 OY4 to PWS 6.8 OY4.

CLIN 4009

The CLIN description has changed from PWS 6.8 OY4 to PWS 6.9 OY4.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION

1. General

1.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions.

Offerors are required to 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.

1.2 Basis for Contract Award.

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.

1.3 Evaluation.

The technical proposal should include all the 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.

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 Contracting Officer (KO) determines whether they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to the proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such an event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established, and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition.

1.4 Evaluation of Options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price of the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional 6-month period, and surge pricing as requested. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8, and surge. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six 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 an additional six-month period, and surge pricing if requested. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for IDEAS Tier 2/Tier 3 Support;

however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.6 Rejection of Offers.

The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices for realism. Note that unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

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

FACTOR 1 – PHASE 1 EVALUATION – Acceptable/Unacceptable The Offeror must meet all of the requirements of Phase 1 and rated Acceptable for each Subfactor to be rated “Acceptable” for Factor 1. If any of the subfactors are rated as “Unacceptable”, Factor 1 will be rated as “Unacceptable”. Offerors that receive a rating of “Unacceptable” for any subfactor under Factor 1 in the Phase 1 Evaluation will be removed from consideration and will not be considered further for award.

The Offeror’s approach to Appian Acquisition Accreditation Partner Program and FCL will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Definitions for acceptable/unacceptable ratings that will be used as provided in Table 1.

Subfactor 1: Member of the Appian Acquisition Accreditation Partner Program.

The Offeror submitting the proposal must clearly demonstrate in the proposal that the prime Offeror is Appian Corporation or currently an active partner of the Appian Acquisition Accreditation Partner Program.

To be Acceptable, the Offeror must clearly meet the minimum requirements of this Subfactor by demonstrating in the Offeror’s proposal and with proper documentation, that the prime Offeror, Joint Venture (JV), or partner of JV, is a current Appian Acquisition Accreditation Partner. The accreditation may either be Gold, Silver, or Bronze.

Subfactor 2: Facility Clearance Level (FCL). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s FCL.

To be Acceptable, the Offeror shall hold at least an Interim Secret FCL from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency at the time of proposal submission by providing their Facility Verification Notification from the National Industrial Security Program Central Access Information Security System as a PDF attachment. The Facility Verification shall be dated no earlier than one week prior to proposal submission. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, the contractor that will be performing the work involving classified information shall hold at least an Interim Secret FCL.

TABLE 1. PHASE 1 EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – PHASE 2 EVALUATION

Under Phase 2, the Technical/Management Approach Factor is more important than the Price Factor. The Technical/Management portion of the proposal must be limited to 25 pages. The following Technical/Management Approach Subfactors are listed in equal importance.

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ proposals against the best value tradeoff criteria for:

Subfactor 1: IDEAS Next Generation (NG) Subfactor 2: DI Server Support Subfactor 3: Software Development and Test Support for IDEAS Subfactor 4: Management / Staffing Approach

Subfactor 1: IDEAS Next Generation (NG) (PWS Task 6.8) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to achieve full operational capability, DISA must enhance IDEAS to provide for compliant contracting processing capability for DISA’s telecommunications contracts. Specifically, business process changes must be implemented in IDEAS to be able to write contracts that are compliant with current procurement and financial policies. These changes are required to support the integration, in a compliant framework, with other systems in the Procure to Pay (P2P) business area which include, but may not be limited to, the Financial Accounting Management Information System (FAMIS) and DISA Marketplace (DMP). The Government will further assess the Offeror’s knowledge of the Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), Purchase Request Data Standard (PRDS) and Procurement Data Standard (PDS) Subfactor 2: Data Integration (DI) Server Support (PWS Task 6.7) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to provide application development and system maintenance support for the DI layer.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to modernization, sustainment, system administration, event log monitoring and resolution, performance optimization, coordinating with application developers to resolve custom application related failures identified on the DI server, external and internal system interface connectivity troubleshooting and resolution. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to coordinate, test, develop and deploy software patches included but not limited to Oracle Service Bus, WebLogic, Java, Tomcat and Apache.

Subfactor 3: Software Development and Test Support for IDEAS (PWS Task 6.2, Subtask 6.8.1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach regarding requirements generated by the Government. Artifacts are the method for identifying a change with software, which will be deployed to Production. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to properly record user stories, issue(s), acceptance criteria, testing, and software solutions to create an IDEAS knowledge base within the GTS (e.g., JIRA). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to follow the SDLC process when completing artifacts to include requirement decomposition, elicitation, completion of user stories and specifications, development, unit testing, integration testing, UAT, deployment and sustainment.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to testing, to include Development, System Integration (as applicable), and User Acceptance testing. The Government will evaluate the maturity of the Offeror’s testing approach across the above identified testing areas, as well as their approach for instituting repeatable process for creating test scripts and planning and conducting testing events. (PWS Task 6.2, Subtasks 6.7.1) Subfactor 4: Management / Staffing Approach.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for a demonstrated understanding of the scope, objectives, and taskings outlined in the PWS. The Offeror will be evaluated on the quality and efficiency of their management approach as well as the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach will meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the mix of labor categories and labor hours. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate an understanding of the scope, objectives and taskings outlined in the PWS and the proposed mix of labor categories and hours shall be feasible, present risks no worse than moderate, and meet or exceed the requirements as stated in PWS, Section 6.

The Confidence Assessment rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings listed in Table 3.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the Confidence Ratings listed in Table 2.

TABLE 2. PHASE 2 CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Color Description High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

TABLE 3. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO THE TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT

EVALUATION RATING PROCESS

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

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Small Business Participation: Small Business Participation and Utilization

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ submissions to this Factor for acceptability of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan in accordance with the submission requirements listed in Instructions to Offerors. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide a complete and responsive Small Business Participation Plan that considers all federally designated small business categories and answers the information provided in the solicitation for this Factor as well as provide goals/dollars that meet or exceed the solicitation’s MQRs as listed or an acceptable rationale/explanation.

The Government will use the following ratings for the utilization of Small Business Participation:

Table 4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATINGS

Adjectival 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.

Evaluation. Past Performance in the Utilization of Small Business The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ submissions to this Factor and other performance information available to the Government that demonstrates a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns including, when applicable, achievements against established Subcontracting Plan goals and complying with requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Small Business Evaluation Team will review past performance information related to the utilization of small business and assign a Confidence Rating.

The Government will use the following ratings for the Past Performance in the Utilization of Small Business:

Table 5. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating

Description

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record in utilizing small business, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully utilize small business in the performance of this effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record in utilizing small business 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 in the utilization of small business.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record in the utilization of small business, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will utilize small business in the performance of this effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record in the utilization of small business, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully utilize small business in the performance of this effort.

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.

Status of subcontracting goals assigned to this contract 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.

Past Performance:

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, utilizing Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5). Questionnaires shall be submitted from the office providing the past performance directly to the KO and CS. The email subject shall read “Past Performance Questionnaire for (Contractor’s Name), HC101325R0008”.

Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Recency Assessment:

Recent contracts are defined as those contracts presently being performed or which have been performed during the past five (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. Past Performance relevancy definitions are located in Table 6, and Past Performance quality definitions are located in Table 7.

TABLE 6. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition

Relevant (R)

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

Somewhat Relevant (SR)

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

Not Relevant

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Quality Assessment:

TABLE 7. PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Rating Definition EXCEPTIONAL (E) 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 assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG) During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) 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 assessed 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)

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

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

As past performance is part of responsibility, it will be evaluated as Acceptable/ Unacceptable in accordance with Table 8. Offerors for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse no evaluation can be reasonably completed will not be rated unfavorably, and will receive an Acceptable rating per Table 8.

TABLE 8. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Price Factor:

Price proposal 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.

The Technical/Management Approach Factor are more important than the Price Factor.

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 6.8) Demonstration of Offeror’s approach to application development and system maintenance support (Subfactor 2: Data Integration (DI) Server Support PWS Task 6.7) Demonstration of Offeror’s approach to Software Development and Test Support for IDEAS (PWS task 6.2 & 6.8.1) 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;

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB): 5% of the total evaluated price;

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone): 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…